Approved for public release;distribution is unlimited.

Headquarters,Department of the Army

Army

Voice of the Signal Regiment v PB 11-03-2 Summer 2003 Vol. 28 No. 2

v Special focus:Reflecting tomorrow’sneeds, Pg. 2

v Unit of ActionNETWORK MAPEX,Pg. 7

v Poor man’sdigitization of thebattlefield, Pg. 12

v Warfighter: 10thMountain Division’swinter trainingexercise, Pg. 17

Communicator

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE 2003 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED 00-00-2003 to 00-00-2003

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Army Communicator. Voice of the Signal Regiment. Vol. 28 No. 2,Summer 2003

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon,Army Communicator,ATTN:ATZH-POM,Fort Gordon,GA,30905-5301

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Same as

Report (SAR)

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

64

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

Chief of Signal’s Comments

Greetings to all members of our Regiment

BG Janet A. HicksChief of Signal

‘We know that our military is by farthe best trained, best equipped andbest led force in the world today.There is also no doubt that Signalsoldiers and officers of the Regimentplayed a vital role in each and everystep along the way.’

Tremendous events are occurringin both our world and in our profession.It will be a few years before we can siftthough the events of Operation IraqiFreedom and really understand this cam-paign that is already being called a his-toric military accomplishment by our jointforces.

Actually, I’m not surprised nor do Ibelieve many of you are. We know thatour military is by far the best trained, bestequipped and best led force in the worldtoday. There is also no doubt that Signalsoldiers and officers of the Regimentplayed a vital role in each and every stepalong the way. There are a number ofarticles in this Army Communicator thatI especially want to bring to your atten-tion.

The first involves our S6 team.Forefront in the rapid movement of battlewas our officers and soldiers serving asthe S6 and G6 teams. These officersand their soldiers worked endless daysbut the results are evident. Always withroom to improve, we continue to workour S6 course here at the schoolhouse.

Currently, the 442d Signal Battal-ion provides every Signal Officer BasicCourse and branch detail student withtwo weeks of S-6 training.

The instruction focuses on the roleand responsibilities of the S-6, hands-on equipment training and the militarydecision making process. Additionally, amap exercise geared at the maneuverbattalion level challenges the studentsin developing a signal plan. Within SOBConly, students whose first assignment isas an S-6 receive an additional twoweeks of S-6 training in-lieu of going to

a field training exercise. The schoolhouse also started

a four-week and two-day S-6 coursefor our officers to return to from a unitassignment. During this course stu-dents are provided two weeks of au-tomation training focusing on routersand operating systems. The remain-ing two weeks also focuses on equip-ment, the MDMP process, and anextensive MAPEX at the maneuverbattalion and brigade level.

The schoolhouse also providesstudents with lessons-learned brief-ings from observer controllers at thenational training center. These brief-ing are designed to inform the stu-dents on lesson-learned and tactics,

techniques, and procedures that O/C ob-served during units rotations.

Another article in this edition con-cerns our battle lab. From April 14 – 18, theBattle Command Battle Lab here at FortGordon conducted a first-ever experimentto “fight the network” for the Objective Force.The tactical warfighting piece of the OFconsists of the Unit of Action, roughly analo-gous to a brigade today, and a Unit ofEmployment, roughly analogous to a divi-sion or corps.

While many experiments, wargames,and exercises have been conducted to fightthe objective force warfight, to date all haveassumed a perfect communications net-work. This experiment, called the NetworkMAPEX (UA) 01-03, was the first of its kind,using subject matter experts from all theTraining and Doctrine Command schoolsand centers, Space and Missile Command,Program Manager for Future Combat Sys-tem networks, TRADOC Systems Manag-ers for Satellite Communications, WarfighterInformation Network-Tactical, Joint Tacti-cal Radio System, Office Chief of Signaland many others, to really focus on theimpact of the warfight on our networks andits ability to support all of the functionalareas. It was a huge success with numer-ous insights gained on how we must designthe network of the future to ensure battle-field success.

Finally, I want to tell you that beforethe dust has even settled in Iraq, TRADOCis sending a team to the theater of opera-tions to gather an initial dose of lessonslearned and insights. We are participatingin that effort to turn lessons learned into aresource for the Regiment as soon as pos-sible.

ARMY

COMMUNICATORVoice of the Signal Regiment

Table of Contents

2 Reflecting tomorrow’s needs in today’s trainingMAJ Nicole Morris and MAJ Daron Long

7 Unit of Action NETWORK MAPEX: Testing the network in a virtualwarfightCOL Joseph Yavorsky and Mike Hamilton

12 Poor man’s digitizaton of the battlefieldBy CPT Stephen Hamilton

17 Warfighter: 10th Mountain Division’s winter training exerciseCPT Pam Newbern

21 Can you hear me now?CPL Paula Fitzgerald

22 3rd Signal Brigade conquers voice, data and video1LT Michael Windon

24 Joint Force 4CI integration -- significant challenges aheadJohn Saputo

U.S. ARMY SIGNAL CENTER AND FORT GORDON

Army Communicator (ISSN 0362-5745) (USPS305-470) is an authorized, official quarterlyprofessional bulletin of the U.S. Army Signal Center,Fort Gordon, Ga. 30905-5301. Second-class officialmail postage paid by Department of the Army (DOD314) at Augusta, Ga. 30901 and additional mailingoffices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to ArmyCommunicator, U.S. Army Signal Center, FortGordon, Ga. 30905-5301.

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION: Army Communica-tor is available to all Signal and Signal-related units,including staff agencies and service schools. Writtenrequests for the magazine should be submitted toEditor, Army Communicator, U.S. Army SignalCenter, Fort Gordon, Ga. 30905-5301.

This publication presents professionalinformation, but the views expressed herein arethose of the authors, not the Department of Defenseor its elements. The content does not necessarilyreflect the official U.S. Army position and does notchange or supersede any information in other officialU.S. Army publications. Use of news itemsconstitutes neither affirmation of their accuracy norproduct endorsement.

Army Communicator reserves the right to editmaterial.

CORRESPONDENCE: Address all correspon-dence to Army Communicator, U.S. Army SignalCenter and Fort Gordon, Signal Towers (Bldg.29808A), Room 707, Fort Gordon, Ga. 30905-5301.Telephone DSN 780-7204 or commercial (706) 791-7204. Fax number (706) 791-3917.

Unless otherwise stated, material does notrepresent official policy, thinking, or endorsement byan agency of the U.S. Army. This publicationcontains no advertising.

U.S. Government Printing Office: 1984-746-045/1429-S.

Army Communicator is not a copyrightedpublication. Individual author’s copyrights can beprotected by special arrangement. Acceptance byArmy Communicator conveys the right forsubsequent reproduction and use of publishedmaterial. Credit should be given to Army Communi-cator.

Features

PB 11-03-2Summer 2003Vol. 28 No. 2

Worldwide web homepage address http://www.gordon.army.mil/AC/E-mail ACeditor@gordon.army.mil

34 TSM update39 Circuit check

30 Pulse31 Books33 Signals

Departments

Cover: Reflecting tomorrow’s needs in today’s training is depicted in thecover collage in this issue of the Army Communicator. MAPEX, tested theNetwork in a virtual warfight; also depicted in background images are:Warfighter, 10th Mountain Division’s winter training exercise anddigitization of the battlefield. Cover by SGT Clifton McDonald.

COMMAND

Commander/CommandantBG Janet E.A. HicksCommand Sergeant MajorCSM Michael Terry

EDITORIAL STAFF

Editor-in-Chief/Graphic DesignerJanet A. McElmurray

Senior AdviserSusan Wood

IllustratorsSGT Clifton McDonald

PhotographyCPT Pam Newbern, CPL Paula M.Fitzgerald, SPC M. William Petersen,Kevin Martin, Steve Brady, CharlieCardimona, Gene Collarini, MicheleYeager, MSG Emma Knouser,LindaValenzane, Joseph Shields, Bob Fowler,Anthony J. Ricchiazzi, Debbie Linton,Lockheed-Martin Space and SatelliteSystems, SSG Jennifer K. Yancey, RayRoxby, MAJ Christopher Martin andSSG Mark Swartz

0319812

2 Summer 2003

by MAJ Nicole Morris and MAJ DaronLong

Over the past 18 months, theSignal Center continued the revi-sions of the Signal Captains CareerCourse curriculum. The changeswere designed to graduate a moretechnically proficient and leadershipfocused officer in today’s contempo-rary operating environment. Ourgoal is the officer student’s applica-tion of theories and knowledge ininformation technology into com-mon scenario-based practicalexercises and integrated mapexercises.

As a result, today’s signalcaptains will have the skills andresources to adapt in the dynamiccommunications landscape on themodern battlefield.

Additionally, the courseprovides future company command-ers with enhanced leadershipinstruction, command-focused topicsand mentorship from senior leadersat Fort Gordon. These changes andour daily adjustments are a directreflection of the Signal Regiment’sneeds and responses to our inquiry.We obtained comments from gradu-ating students, operational units andstudents attending the Signal Pre-Command Course.

Using this feedback andtraining development requirements,the first redesigned SCCC com-menced with SCCC 006-02. Thisclass started in September 2003 andgraduated in February 2003.

Our next step is the SignalOfficers Basic Course. We are nowmoving forward and implementingchanges in SOBC, with the pilot classslated for June 2003. The mission isto develop technically sound andconfident leaders for the SignalRegiment. Like the SCCC, thecurriculum will incorporate moretheory/concept instructions with

practical exercises and less instruc-tion on boxes and memorization.With closed book examinations, wecan validate the officer’s ability tocomprehend process and proceduresin the foundation of both technicalassets and leadership.

Additionally, the young officerwill become aware of his need forcontinuous self-development (i.e.,life-long learning).

The Signal Captain’s CareerCourse

Under the old curriculum,students learned mobile subscriberequipment, digital group multiplex-ing, and some single channel radios -solely. In a unit however, they had towork with the commercial-off-the-shelf equipment that the unit pur-chased in order to support thetechnological requirements of thewarfighter. The theory focus helpsstudents understand how the COTSsignal equipment works.

The field also wanted more oninformation assurance procedures,firewalls, certification and accredita-tion. They wanted the signal officerto know how to manage differentkinds of networks. All of theserequirements fall within the Tele-communications System EngineerFunctional Area 24 field.

Leadership DevelopmentDivision, 442d Signal Battalionincorporated instruction on switches,data communications, telecommuni-cations, electronics, engineering andnetwork management into SCCC inorder to meet these requirements.

LDD’s next priority was tomeet the student’s desire for moreautomation training. The captainsexpect their non-signal commandersto have a high level of automationknowledge. They also wantedautomation training that they coulduse towards Computer Information

System Company Certified NetworkAssociate certification. This curricu-lum falls within the Systems Auto-mation FA 53 field. LDD incorpo-rated CISCO semesters 1 and 2 alongwith instruction on web design andWindows 2000 Server in order tomeet these requirements.

The students also wanted acompany commander focus for thecommon core instruction. Civiliansand non-signal officers taughtcommon core prior to the re-design.Now, small group leaders instructstudents on Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice, Officer EvaluationReports, Noncommissioned OfficerEvaluation Reports, counseling,leadership, and awards. SGLs areimbedded in the communicationskills and training managementinstruction in order to maintain thecompany command focus. SGLs alsoensure students learn the militarydecision-making process as it appliesto the Signal officer instead of thecombat arms version.

We continue to request andreceive recommendations from thefield and students in an effort toimprove the course. In the future,additional resources will allow LDDto incorporate more simulations,larger field training exercises, andsmaller group instruction for SCCC.

The Signal Officers BasicCourse

The redesign is focused on anorderly training strategy. SinceSOBC is managed in two separateflows, one SOBC class actuallyequals two distinct classes and theintent is to train these classes inmodules of instruction at the sametime. Additionally, the trainingstrategy includes providing readingpackets focused on both areas ofconcentration and areas of generalknowledge. Since there may not be

Reflecting tomorrow’sneeds in today’s training

Army Communicator 3

enough time to cover everythingthere is to know about being a Signalofficer, the reading packets bridge agap and support the lieutenant’ssuccess.

The actual modules of instruc-tion have been only slightly modi-fied but will provide greater value tothe student. The modules includecommon core, automation, commu-nications fundamentals, Signal staffofficer (S6) knowledge, area com-mon user system and platoon leader,and a capstone field training exer-cise.

The logistics block has beenadded to the condensed commoncore module now consisting of 13days. In addition to logistics there isa large focus on Army operations,the threat, decision-making proce-dures, tactical operations and thecombat force.

The automation module of 19days is already in trials. A+ and N+courses have been replaced withInformation Technologies I and IIfrom the CISCO curriculum. A two-day web-design course remains. Thechange will better prepare thelieutenant for challenging automa-tion issues encountered in the field.

The Communications Funda-mentals module of 6.5 days isfocused on arming the lieutenantwith the knowledge of how signalstuff works. Everything from basicelectronics to telephony fundamen-tals to transmission control proto-col/Internet protocol fundamentalswill be discussed. This module is theSignal common core and must comeprior to the S6 and ACUS modules.The S6 module of 10.5 days willfocus on the roles and responsibili-ties of the S6 and the capabilities ofcombat net radio and other commu-nications equipment the S6 maycome in contact with. Also, it incor-porates the MDMP and a mapexercise focused signal planning on amaneuver battalion or brigadeoperations order.

The ACUS module of 22.5 Dayswill teach theory and capabilitiesand limitations and how to make acall. The back end of the module is aflip-flop with the General Dynamicsfolks and one flow will go to TA-10

and have detailed hands-on focuson the “boxes” and the other will goto GD for Network Managementtraining. At the end of the trainingthe two flows will flip-flop. Thismodule finishes with a MAPEXregarding Signal battalion plans.

The culminating event for theSOBC redesign is the FTX. The FTXis planned for six consecutive days.The first two days focus on tacticsand teach signal security tech-niques. At a minimum the last fourdays force the lieutenant to recallinformation learned through thecourse and test the ability to buildsuccessful plans, identify require-ments and react to stressful situa-tions.

The key for a successfulredesign is providing lieutenantswith knowledge from trainingmanagement and Army operationsthrough an understanding oftechnical operations within theSignal Corps. The SOBC redesignconcept should provide lieutenantsenough information to becomesuccessful leaders and managers,armed with enough information toallow them to be an expert whenarriving at their first unit.

The S6

IntroductionThe Signal Corps is one of the

most diverse organizations withinthe Army. Officers can hold manydifferent positions which requirevarious skills and knowledge. Thebrigade or battalion S6 is one of themost challenging positions that aSignal officer can hold. As thesenior signal representative to anon-signal unit, S6s have a greatburden on their shoulders to ensurethat the Signal Regiment is repre-sented well to our combat armsbrethren.

This article discusses somedoctrinal duties of the S6 and coversmany of the challenges an S6 canencounter. Some solutions areoffered for the S6 to consider.

Doctrine SummarizedIn May 1997 the Army pub-

lished a revamped version of FieldManual 101-5. This FM changed therole of the signal officer in non-signalunits from a special staff officer to aprimary staff officer and titled theposition as G6 at corps and divisionand S6 at brigade and battalion. FM101-5 states that the G6/S6 “is theprincipal staff officer for all mattersconcerning signal operations, auto-mation management, networkmanagement and informationsecurity ... at all echelons of com-mand from battalion through corps.”

Signal operations includemanaging and controlling informa-tion networks from the sustainingbase to the foxhole. S6s must under-stand the capabilities, limitations andoperations of their equipment fromboth the radio and automation sideand must be able to define where theunit exists in the big picture. S6s alsomanage frequency allocations andprovide spectrum managementtypically through working with thedivision G6.

To be successful, S6s must havea working knowledge of the princi-pals of radio communications andspectrum so that they can makerecommendations and identifyissues. Additionally, recommendingsignal support priorities and ensur-ing redundant signal means willdemand a great deal of attention. S6smust be involved in determininglocations for command posts anddetermine placement based onconsideration of communicationsand survivability.

All of these areas are key for theplanning process. Other require-ments include managing signalpriorities with multi-national part-ners when conducting coalitionoperations, recommending informa-tion requirements in regards to signalassets, producing consolidated phonelistings and performing distribution,message and document reproductionservices.

Automation managementincludes managing the employmentof automation by determining whathardware and software can bestsupport the force in a tactical andgarrison environment. In today’sdigital evolving force, S6s will

4 Summer 2003

manage communications protocolson the tactical internet and deal withnetwork issues for automationsystems, the Army Battle CommandSystems and other digital equip-ment.

Establishing systems adminis-tration for all of the assets in the unitwill ensure that S6s meet the stan-dards. There will be a focus onconfiguring data networks throughwired or wireless technologies. Intoday’s digital age good automationmanagement will make S6s moreeffective.

Information security includesmanaging communications security,managing information systemssecurity, establishing systemssecurity and recommending com-mand and control-protect priorityinformation requirements. S6s havethe lead for these areas and workclosely with the S2. S6s must ensuretheir unit has an intensive informa-tion security posture to protectagainst the enemies of the digitalage.

In combat environments, thecommander and his staff must havethe correct information at all times,and S6s must sustain, without loss,the information flow to and from thecommander.

The effectiveness and quality ofinformation depend on its reliability;thus, to make decisions, the com-mander must have accurate andcomplete information. If the com-mander is unable to make informeddecisions due to unreliable net-works, then full combat potential isnot achieved.

Critical information must beavailable when and where it isneeded with redundant means soduplicate and alternate paths areprovided for information flow. S6smust ensure reliable communica-tions even when command posts aredispersed. To accomplish this, S6smust have the ability to easily adaptto unforeseen communicationrequirements. This must be achievedwithout restricting force agility,initiative or synchronization, and S6smust ensure signal support isflexible, mobile and adaptable to allpossible battlefield conditions.

Challenges and solutionsA commander relies on tactical

communications for effectivecommand and control of subordinateelements to include maneuver, firesupport, air defense, intelligence andservice support.

S6s assist the unit commanderwith implementing and planningcommunications. To do this, S6smust depend upon experience andresearch to accomplish this mission.Many times this is difficult, becauseinexperienced second lieutenants areassigned as a unit S6. These assign-ments have been occurring for morethan 20 years, and even though it isnot the preferred solution, it is areality that must be accepted.

Although being an S6 is toughand can be trying at times, secondlieutenants can be successful as anS6 and can benefit greatly from theexperience gained in non-signalunits, making them better officersdown the road.

There are things signal leadersmust do to ensure success for S6s,whether a second lieutenant orcaptain. Young company gradeofficers must be better trained andprovided information needed forsuccess. In the classroom, informa-tion needs to be provided to theofficer whether written, on a CD oron the Internet for download. In theunit (from division to battalion andthroughout the Signal community),the information needs to be pro-vided in mentorship. The unit musttake responsibility for molding theyoung signal officer.

Currently, the Signal OfficerBasic Course and Signal CaptainsCareer Course are undergoingredesigns to ensure that companygrade officers receive the righttraining at the right time.

Additionally, the Signal Schoolinitiated a new S6 Course in June2002. This course is designed toprepare officers for assignment to S6positions. With the help of units inthe field, the hope is to fill thiscourse with officers destined for S6positions.

Finally, a new S6 onlinewebsite, www.gordon.army.mil/442sig/s6, has been established to

provide an information sharingplatform for all signal officers. Thedesire is that this site coupled withthe 31U online website,www.gordon.army.mil/stt/31u, willprovide an S6 staff section moun-tains of information to guaranteesuccess.

Signal officers need to takeresponsibility for their own knowl-edge and take advantage of thewealth of information that is avail-able on the internet and in referencebooks. The scope of signal opera-tions is so broad that it is impossibleto train it all in the limited timeallowed.

Signal officers must go out andlearn their craft by studying andconducting self-development. Thereare multitudes of books availablethat discuss basic radio communica-tions. A valuable resource can befound at the Harris Corporationwebsite, www.harris.com/support.html, under the RF Commu-nications Download Center.

These books are basic in naturebut can introduce the radio commu-nications fundamentals to an officerthat has a “soft” degree backgroundand provide a good review to anofficer with a “hard” degree.

Additionally, signal FMsprovide valuable information. Signaldoctrine can be found on the GENDennis J. Reimer Digital Library,www.adtdl.army.mil, and the signaldoctrine website,www.doctrine.gordon.army.mil.Reading an FM is never painless, butcan pay big dividends.

To be an effective S6, a signalofficer must understand how theunit fights. S6s must not expect to bespoon fed information but insteadmust go find it; thus, S6s must betactically proficient. This requiresunderstanding the unit’s mission.S6s must be a proactive planner andan aggressive participant of thebattle staff’s wargaming, synchroni-zation, planning/matrixes andrehearsals. S6s track the battleclosely so pre-determined triggerswill initiate moving assets againstforecasted enemy or friendly events.By tracking the battle, the S6 cananticipate the unit’s changing

Army Communicator 5

communications needs and positionthe command, control, communica-tions, computer and informationassets in the best places to supportthe maneuver.

S6s must be aggressive trainersof the signal assets within the unitby seeking to educate users at allechelons through development ofsimple and clear explana-tions that combat userscan quickly grasp.Command post personnelfrom commanders toradio operators must bewell trained and capableof making independentdecisions.

To ensure theeducation of the unit, S6smust educate themselvesby taking the time to readFMs that apply to the unitof assignment anddevelop an understand-ing of the tactics, tech-niques and proceduresthe unit uses to accom-plish the mission. If S6sunderstand how the unitfights, then integrationinto the unit will be quick.

Another methodthat can help S6s under-stand how the unit fightsis talking to the communi-cations platoon sergeantor commo chief. Theseindividuals can provideS6s with a wealth ofunderstanding about theexpectations and require-ments of the unit. Also,S6s can ask questions ofthe signal officers insimilar units, talk toplatoon leaders, companyexecutive officers, com-pany commanders,company first sergeants,the battalion commander,the battalion executiveofficer, the battalion S3,the assistant S3, the S1,the S4 and anyone elsewho may seem useful. IfS6s conduct some re-search and can talk the

tactics, techniques and procedures ofthe unit, then the S6 will now beintegrated with the staff and have aworking knowledge of what the unitdoes in order to provide bettersupport.

S6s must aggressively integrateinto the staff through routineinteraction. As an information

management officer, S6s talk to all ofthe staff elements and push informa-tion through and around the staff.This will facilitate staff coordination,and planning will go more smoothly.

The S6 is not the only one withautomation skills, 31Us are trainedon automation tasks too. By helpingthem learn the automation tasks so

that as the staff officer incharge of the commandand control-battlefieldoperating system, the S6can focus on planningcommand, control,computers and informa-tion.

Signal officers onlyreceive familiarizationwith the equipment atthe schoolhouse. Uponarrival at the unit, it isexpected that S6s willtake time to become anexpert on organicequipment. S6s must betechnically proficientwith all communicationsequipment in the unit bylearning as much aspossible about thetechnical features thatmake the equipmentwork and considerationsthat can make it workbetter.

S6s must exercisetroubleshooting skillsand ensure the equip-ment is regularlychecked and servicedwhen in garrison. Beforedeployment, S6s shoulddirect a thoroughcommunications re-hearsal. On both the S6and 31U online websites,there are links to multi-media tutorials that canhelp S6s develop opera-tor skills on most radiosystems. NCOs andsoldiers are also willingto take the time to helpS6s become an expert onthe units’ equipment.

S6s must under-stand the capabilities

Some questions for S6s to ask whendeveloping a plan are:o What is the maximum planning range?o What happens when I locate 12 antennas sideby side by side? Co-site interference?o What are my power requirements?o How many batteries should I plan? What is mybattery re-supply plan? Do I have enough batter-ies for the mission? What happens if I don’t haveenough?o What is a TEK vs. KEK?o Who are my attachments? Can they talk?o What does my radio distribution look like? Do Ineed to change it for this mission? Have I lostradios due to combat or maintenance?o Will I need a RETRANS? Will it move prior tothe main body crossing the LD? Will it be for-ward of the FEBA? Are my soldiers trained toover watch their site? What is the sequence thatthey will move?o What are my support priorities - lower andhigher?o Where are the brigade assets?o Where should the command and control loca-tions be placed? TOC, TAC, CTCP, Field TrainsCP, FLE, AXPs, other CPs? What is the sequencethat they will move?o Where is the battalion commander locatedduring the battle? Who is next in command of themission if something happens to the battalioncommander?o What are the triggers for changing to RETRANSfrequencies?o What are my signal assets available? #TACSAT, # IHFR, # SINCGARS, # MSRT, etc.o Where are the Signal Battalion Nodes in myAO? RAU? SEN? FES? Node Center?o What is my signal scheme of maneuver thatwill support the plan? How will my signal assetsfight the fight?

6 Summer 2003

and limitations of the organiccommunications equipment. This isprobably more important initiallythan just knowing how to operate it.S6s must be able to plan communica-tion networks, and to do this, S6smust understand the equipment’scapabilities and limitations.

ConclusionUnit signal officers stand alone

in units with the duty to maintaincommunications wherever, when-ever and however. They are oftenthe first and only line of defenseagainst communications systemfailure, and they are the standard bywhich the rest of the Army judgesthe Signal Corps.

Many times inexperiencedsecond lieutenants have been placedin units as S6s. This is not thepreference, but if this does happen,pay close attention to some of thepoints raised in this article.

Additionally, mentorship fromthe brigade S6 or division G6 andother signal officers must be sought.The Signal Regiment must ensurethat the S6 is provided guidance andmentorship at all levels. This willforce the development of intelligent,aggressive, arrogant and dedicatedSignal officers, NCOs and soldiers.

Finally, if you are an S6, be aleader and force yourself into themix. Make it happen and you will be

ACUS – Area Common UserSystemAO – area of operationsAXP – auxiliary postCISCO – Computer Information Sys-tem CompanyCCNA – CISCO Certified NetworkAssociationCOTS – commercial-off-the-shelfCP – command postCTCP – combat tactical commandpostDGM – digital group multiplexingFA – functional areaFES – force embedded serversFLE – forward logistics elementFTX – field training exerciseIA – information assuranceIHFR – improved high frequencyradioKEK – key encryption keyLDD – leadership developmentdivisionMAPEX – map exerciseMDMP – military decision-makingprocessMSE – mobile subscriber equipmentMSRT – mobile subscriber radioterminalNCOER – noncommissioned officerevaluation reportOER – officer evaluation reportRAU – radio access unitS6 – signal staff officerSCCC – Signal Captains CareerCourseSEN – small extension nodeSINCGARS – single-channelground-to-air radio systemSLG – small group leaderSOBC — Signal Officers BasicCourseTAC — tacticalTACSAT — tactical satelliteTCP/IP – transmission controlprotocol/Internet protocolTEK – transmission encryption keyTOC – tactical operations centerUCMJ – Uniformed Code of MilitaryJustice

rewarded not with glory, but withrespect and that will mean morethan anything in the end.

MAJ Long serves as S3 with 442dSignal Battalion. He formerly served aschief, S6 with the 442d Signal Battalion,LCIT, 2002 – 2003.

Prior to arriving at Fort Gordon, heserved as the systems integration officerfor G6, 101st Airborne Division (AirAssault) 2001-2002. He commanded B/501st Signal Battalion, 101st AirborneDivision (Air Assault) 2000-2001 andserved as brigade S6 for 2d Brigade,101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)1999-2000.

MAJ Morris serves as the senior smallgroup leader for the Signal CaptainsCareer Course with 442d SignalBattalion, LCIT, 2002-2003. Sheformerly served as a trainer advisorcounselor officer for the Signal OfficerBasic Course with the 442d SignalBattalion, LCIT, 2001–2002.

Prior to arriving at Fort Gordon, shecommanded A/501st Signal Battalion,101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)2000-2001. She served as the AssistantS-3 for the 501st Signal Battalion 1998-2001 and served as the battalion S6for 3-101 Aviation Regiment, 101stAirborne Division (Air Assault) 1996-1998.

ACRONYM QUICKSCAN

Army Communicator 7

by COL Joseph Yavorsky and MikeHamilton

“The C4ISR (command,control, communications andcomputers, intelligence, surveillance,reconnaissance) Network is inte-grated across all of the BattlefieldFunctional Areas.” – Future CombatSystem Operational RequirementsDocument, April 14, 2003

The Army’s transformationcampaign plan challenges the Armyto develop a maneuver Unit ofAction and field a FCS by 2015 thatsupports the Army transformationvision of being a responsive,deployable, agile, versatile, lethal,survivable and sustainable force inall situations from major combatoperations to homeland defense.Accordingly, the U.S. Army Trainingand Doctrine Command has em-barked on a mission to develop ananalytical baseline to support theArmy’s development of the UAOperational and Organizational planand FCS requirements.

The purpose of this article istwofold. First, it’s to highlight theroles and involvement of the BattleCommand Battle Lab at Fort Gordonin support of TRADOC’s UA/FCSConcept Experimentation Program,and secondly to identify a number ofinsights gained during the executionof the MAPEX elaborating on howthese insights might impact thedevelopment of the UA/FCS com-munications network.

BackgroundThe U.S. Army’s Objective

Force will be composed of a “familyof advanced, networked air- andground based maneuver, maneuversupport and sustainment systemsthat will include manned andunmanned platforms.” [FCS ORD,

April 14, 2003] The UA info-sphereis comprised of a series of networksinterlinking communications,operations, sensors, battle commandsystems, distributed analysis, andmanned and unmanned reconnais-sance and surveillance capabilities toenable levels of situational under-standing and synchronized opera-tions that could not be achievableotherwise. [Appendix D: Unit ofAction O&O plan] The UA commu-nications network structure supportsthe planning and rapid operations ofa UA while providing enhanced

flexibility to the UA commander.In order for the UA/FCS to

achieve its operational goals of “seefirst, understand first, act first andfinish decisively” [FCS ORD, April14, 2003] it is entirely dependent onnetworked C4ISR communicationsystems. However, during theexecution of various UA CEPs atother battle labs, the network wasnot played. Network communica-tions were always assumed to beoperational and fully supportive ofthe operational maneuver concept.

Unit of actionNETWORK MAPEX:Testing the network in a virtual warfight

Figure 1. MAPEX briefing at Battle Command Battle Lab, Fort Gordon.

‘The UA communications network structuresupports the planning and rapid operations of aUA while providing enhanced flexibility to theUA commander.’

8 Summer 2003

To mitigate risk in developing theUA/FCS operational concept,organizational design and opera-tional architecture TRADOC and theBCBL (G) determined that a commu-nications experiment was necessaryto explore the network functions forthe OFUA.

TRADOC focused its efforts ondeveloping a study plan to provideinput into the UA on O&O plan andFCS analysis of alternatives. Thestudy plan is a MACOM-wideprocess of experimentation andresearch aimed at developing theanalytical underpinnings for issuesrelated to UA operational concepts,organizational design and theoperational architectures.

By using TRADOC’s CEP asthe vehicle for executing the studyplan, a common framework foranalysis was established. The studyplan identified three study issues ofwhich the BCBL (G) Map Exerciseonly considered the first; “How doesthe UA successfully execute theoperational concept? What are thekey enabling subordinate conceptsand how are these accomplished?”[Appendix D: UA O&O plan].Essential Elements of Analysis wereidentified by TRADOC to provide aframework for developing insightsthat would become the analyticalunderpinnings into each issue. TheBCBL (G) in turn, developed net-work communications Measures of

Merit to focus the analysis of theEEA.

The three TRADOC EEA’sconsidered by the BCBL (G) MAPEXwere “How does C4ISR enable theUA?”, “How should the smallest UAunits be organized?” and “How doyou employ available UA forces andassets on the battlefield to achievethe tactical operations outlined in theUA O&O plan?” [Appendix D: UAO&O Plan]. The BCBL (G) thendeveloped MOMs to support theanalysis of each EEA. For the EEA“How should the smallest UA unitsbe organized?” the BCBL (G) devel-oped the MOM “What is the signalskill set for soldiers/officers with theUA?” By developing insights withrespect to this MOM during theMAPEX vignettes, this would helpprovide an analytical underpinningto the EEA. Another MOM under thesame EEA was similar “What is theskill set for non-signal soldiers/officers within the UA?” In all therewere 15 MOMs considered foranalysis during the BCBL (G)MAPEX that provided the basis forthe player insights and analyticalunderpinnings.

Three of the six vignettes underthe approved fiscal year 2003 CEPTRADOC 2.0 Caspian Sea scenariowere used for the BCBL (G) MAPEX.These vignettes provide a constructfor employing an FCS equipped UAin tactical situations. The approved

vignettes were early entry opera-tions, combined operations for urbanwarfare and a mounted formationconducting a pursuit/exploitationoperation.

The BCBL (G) main effort wasto attack the network issue for thefirst time in the UA CEP process. Theintent was clearly to provide initialinsights to the core employmentfunctions of the communicationsnetwork supporting the UA com-mander and his staff.

Additionally, the experimentwould provide insights regardingthe Unit of Employment and Joint,Interagency and Multi-Nationalinterfaces relevant to UA and FCScommunications networking.Objectives of the BCBL (G) MAPEXwere fourfold:

(1) “Fight the network” toprovide input to the UA O&O planand FCS ORD.

(2) Provide input to the UAsupporting documents with regardto communications networking.

(3) Identify issues for theupcoming UE design to includefuture Network CEPs.

(4) Provide supporting analysisto Signal Regimental doctrine,operations, organization, training,materiel, leadership and education,personnel and facilities efforts.

The Network MAPEX was anintegrated Signal Center effort as theBCBL (G) invited SIGCEN subjectmatter experts from the Directorateof Combat Developments and theSIGCEN TRADOC Systems Manag-ers. They were tasked to develop thecommunications “rules of engage-ment” or the assumptions for theircommunication systems, as they areprogrammed to exist in the year2015.

To provide SME input from theother TRADOC battle labs, the AirManeuver Battle Lab, Fort Rucker,Ala., the Unit of Action ManeuverBattle Lab, Fort Knox, Ky., Dis-mounted Battle Space Battle Lab,Fort Benning, Ga., the Depth and

Figure 2. The Battle Command Battle Lab at Fort Gordon supportsTRADOC’s UA/FCS Concept Experimentation Program.

Army Communicator 9

Simultaneous Attack Battle Lab, FortSill, Okla., Battle Command BattleLab, Fort Huachuca, Ariz., theManeuver Support Battle Lab, FortLeonard Wood, MO, the CombatService Support Battle Lab, Fort Lee,Va., TRADOC Analysis Center, FortLeavenworth, Kan., and the BattleCommand C4/ISR Battle Lab, FortLeavenworth, Kan., participated inthe MAPEX. TRADOC also pro-vided three personnel from Booz,Allen and Hamilton to act as BlueForce commanders. All of this“warfighter” presence and theirexpert input support providedoperational maneuver consistencyand valuable customer oversight ofthe communications scheme ofmaneuver within the experiment.

The exerciseThe MAPEX began on April 15,

2003, and each vignette was “fought”to distill network communicationsinsights. In the early entry operationsvignette, the focus quickly turned toexternal communication require-ments that were needed to set theconditions prior to a UA deployinginto an airfield while being preparedto fight off the aircraft’s ramp. TheUA is assumed to be capable of 96hours deployment from home stationby C-130s. One of the enablingfunctions of the UA allowing thisquick response is called the CommonOperational Picture. “The COP is asingle identical display of relevantinformation shared by more than onecommand. … the COP is a fusedpicture containing timely, relevantinformation about the enemy, theenvironment and friendly forces …facilitates collaborative planning andassists all echelons to achieve SU(situational understanding).”[TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-90 O&O,Chapter1]. The COP is a battlecommand tool provided to allechelons of the UA facilitatingplanning and decision-making. Asplayed in the first snapshot, the COPwas provided to the deploying UA inthe C-130s to the same level of detailas received by the home station andthe Special Purpose Forces that wereall ready in country shaping theforward battle space.

To assist the facilitators inrunning the MAPEX, a battle rhythmwas established. First, the Blue Forcecommanders presented an opera-tional maneuver brief. Next the otherTRADOC Battle Lab SMEs providedtheir input as to how they wouldsupport or integrate with the BlueForce scenario. Finally, the SIGCENSMEs provided their input as to howtheir respective communicationssystem supported the compositeBlue Force scenario. At this time allMAPEX participants and observerswere given the opportunity todiscuss the communications net-working and support plans. COLYavorsky and Mr. Hamilton facili-tated this discussion focusing thegroup’s efforts on providing insightsinto the issues stated as MOMs. TheBCBL (G) staff data collectorscaptured all of the data collectionefforts and the restated insights werecompiled into a final NetworkMAPEX Insight report.

The early entry operationscontinued with the UA supported by

The second vignette involvedurban operations and the communi-cations issues associated withfighting in built up area to includesupporting subterranean combatactions. The exploitation vignetteconcerned pursuit and exploitationoperations and Sustainment Replen-ishment Operations.

On Thursday afternoon all ofthe vignettes had been covered in an“inch deep and mile wide” detailand after an in-depth after actionreview and final collaboration of aninsight review, the participants werereleased.

Key insightsThe Network MAPEX gener-

ated more than fifty insights. How-ever, the following initial insightswere identified by the participants ashaving major impacts on the UA andFCS concepts and programs.

From the first event with itsemphasis on being prepared to fightoff the ramp, to the last event ofpursuit and exploitation, the

‘The UA communications network is whollydependent on JIM assets, external to the UA, fornetwork robustness. In each vignette, access toexternal assets such as satellites or high-flyingUAVs such as Global Hawk was required to extendthe UA network beyond it own boundaries.’

UE aviation lift assets conducting anair assault operation to attack andsecure a target in an urban environ-ment. Simultaneously, UA groundforces from the early entry airfieldwould be moving toward the targetto link up with the UA air assaultforces. The communication issues inthis snapshot stressed ground to aircommunications with the UAmoving over air and land routes.Moreover, communication issuesbetween the UA assault forcessupported by the UE aviationdetachment with UA Comanche’sproviding support was also a centerof focus for communications issues.

MAPEX highlighted the requirementfor ultra-reliable Situational Aware-ness via the COP. The UA communi-cations network is wholly dependenton JIM assets, external to the UA, fornetwork robustness. In each vi-gnette, access to external assets suchas satellites or high-flying UAVssuch as Global Hawk was requiredto extend the UA network beyond itown boundaries. A true and accurateCOP could not be provided to thewarfighter without this externalnetwork communications that wouldhave to be managed and coordinatedby Signal personnel.

The Signal Management

10 Summer 2003

Overhead required to provide arobust and accurate COP is signifi-cant. An overarching tenant to thesuccess of the UA and its maneuverconcept is the ability to provide aCOP for the UA commander and hissubordinates. For this to happen thecommunications network must beultra-reliable and redundantlyconnected. However, in order tofulfill this mandate, the signaloverhead required appeared to bemore than the current assumptionsallow. While the UA network maybe assumed to be self-organizingand self-healing, it is not self-coordinating - especially at “theseams.” The warfighter is dependentupon the ability of the signal soldierto coordinate communications assetswithin the UA, the UE and the JIMarena to provide network imme-diacy. This is especially true in theareas of COP accuracy and networkfires. For example, in all the vi-gnettes, satellites played a significantrole in providing reliable, timely androbust communications. However, asatellite is not organic to the UA orUE but is a joint or commercial asset.The employment of a satelliteconstitutes a “network seam” thatsignal personnel must coordinate. Inaddition satellites have access andbandwidth limitations that will alsoneed to be planned, coordinated andcentrally managed. This level ofsignal management will be exploredin depth in future experiments.

Next, dedicated communica-tions relay platforms, whether theywere incorporated into an un-manned aerial vehicle or and FCSplatform such as an unmannedground vehicle or multifunctionalutility/logistics and equipmentvehicle, are required at all echelonsof the UA to provide networkconnectivity and insure networkrobustness. This insight was re-peated in all vignettes.

In the early entry vignette,several UAV CRPs were required toinsure network robustness for the airassault. Moreover, dedicated CRPswere required for keeping the airassault commander and the maneu-ver commander in touch with the UEheadquarters and ground forces that

were moving toward the objectivelocation. In the urban fight vignette,a spectrally complex environment, adedicated communications relay wasidentified as critical to provide theCOP to subterranean Blue Forces.Subterranean communications relaypackages presented particular issueswith Blue Force tracking and preci-sion engagements. The extendeddistances and rapid movement of theexploitation vignette demonstratedthat both air and ground CRPs wererequired to keep pace with groundoperations or to link remote re-supply locations. The more mobile

volved around the skill sets requiredby both signal and non-signalsoldiers in the UA. Since the commu-nications network is an all-pervasiveasset, all soldiers, especially non-signal soldiers, as well as command-ers, will need to possess some levelof communications networkingskills. The possession of a network-ing skill set was especially critical inthe urban operations vignette, wheresoldiers would be peering aroundand in buildings using remotesensors linked by line-of-sightcommunications that would besusceptible to multi-path interfer-

the UA became the more the needincreased for dedicated communica-tions relay packages.

As indicated, UAV played asignificant role. Given the opera-tional tenant to minimize andconserve the number of UAVs flyingoperational missions at any giventime, it was recommended that allUAV platforms be configured toprovide communications relaycapabilities while performingintelligence, surveillance andreconnaissance missions as required.The problem that was identified wasa conflict of priorities between theISR missions that would often takethe UAV away from the area thatrequired communications support.

The next major insight re-

ence from urban structures.The individual soldier would

have to have some rudimentarynetworking understanding torecognize his COP is being accu-rately updated or the information heis providing to the COP database isnot impeded, inaccurate, or un-timely. The signal soldier’s skill setswhile focusing on providing net-worked communications should alsoinclude aerial communications relaymission planning and UAV controloperator skills due to the necessity offlying dedicated aerial communica-tions relay profiles.

The final major insight was theneed for a communications networkplanning and visualization toolwhich would allow for maintaining

Figure 3. Insights were identified during the execution of the MAPEX andhow they might impact on the development of the UA/FCS communicationsnetwork.

Army Communicator 11

BC – Battle CommandBCBL – Battle Command Battle LabBIC – Brigade Intelligence and Com-munications CompanyC4ISR – command, control, com-munications, and computers, intelli-gence, surveillance, reconnaissanceCEP – Concept ExperimentationPlanCOP – Common Operational Pic-tureCRP – Communications Relay Plat-formDCD – Directorate of Combat De-velopmentsDOTMLPF – doctrine, organization,training, materiel, leadership andeducation, Personnel, and FacilitiesEEA – Essential Elements of Analy-sisFCS – Future Combat SystemISR - intelligence, surveillance, re-connaissanceJIM – Joint, Interagency, Multi-Na-tionalJTRS – Joint Tactical Radio SystemMAPEX – Map ExerciseMOE – Measure of EffectivenessMOP – Measure of PerformanceMOM – Measures of MeritMUM – Manned and UnmannedOF – Objective ForceO&O – Operational and Organiza-tionalORD – Operational RequirementsDocumentSATCOM – Satellite Communica-tionsSIGCEN – Signal CenterSME – Subject Matter ExpertSRO – Sustainment ReplenishmentOperationsSU – Situational UnderstandingTRADOC- Training and DoctrineCommandTSM – TRADOC System ManagerUA – Unit of ActionUAV – Unmanned Aerial VehicleUE – Unit of EmploymentWIN-T – Warfighter Integrated Net-work-Tactical

the situational awareness of thenetwork relative to the warfighter’sCOP. The network visibility shouldbe available to all soldiers butespecially to the signal soldiersresponsible for planning, implement-ing, operating, and maintaining thenetwork.

It is clear that the networkedforce relies on a significant infra-structure outside of its influence andcontrol. In essence, the “network” is“echelonless” and to enable the UAto fulfill its absolute potential, manyissues need to be resolved throughexperimentation to refine how thewarfighter and their supportingelements address these networkcomplexities.

The way aheadThis Network MAPEX was

only the first network-focusedexperiment in the integrated BattleCommand Experimentation Cam-paign Plan spearheaded by FortLeavenworth and supported by FortHuachuca and Fort Gordon. Therewere many issues not addressedduring the MAPEX.

For example, bandwidthrequirements, spectrum manage-ment, information assurance,communications reliability andnetwork operations were not consid-ered and were assumed to beavailable. The Battle CommandExperimentation Campaign Planwill address some of these shortcom-ings during the rest of fiscal year2003 or in fiscal year 2004.

The next MAPEX will beconducted in the last quarter of fiscalyear 2003. It will consider networkoperations and focus on the employ-ment of signal soldiers in the UA,particularly the Brigade Intelligenceand Communications Company. Inaddition, a network planningsimulator will begin to be integratedinto the network play and will assist

communications simulations byultimately providing analysis onbandwidth, network utilization andnetwork planning and visualization.

In fiscal year 2004 the focuswill shift to the Unit of Employment,the UAs higher echelon. As a part ofthe Battle Command/C4ISR Cam-paign Plan, BCBL (G) will executetwo of its own UE deployed com-mand post MAPEXs, participate inother TRADOC MAPEXs, andcontinue to develop a communica-tions realism model that will be ableto simulate more nearly the complexnature of communications in a realworld environment.

COL Yavorsky was the deputydirector of the Battle Command BattleLab, Fort Gordon, since August 2002,prior to his retirement July 31. Hisprevious assignment was commander,Joint Spectrum Center, and Annapolis,Md. He has served twice before in theSignal Center Directorate of CombatDevelopments and commanded the 67th

Signal Battalion, 11th Signal Brigade.He holds master’s degrees from theNaval Postgraduate School and Com-mand and General Staff College. He is a1999 graduate of the U.S. Army WarCollege.

Mr. Hamilton has recently joinedthe Battle Command Battle Lab, FortGordon. His previous assignment wasas deputy division chief, Apache/AttackHelicopter Division, U.S. ArmyAviation Technical Test Center, FortRucker, Ala. He is an Army AcquisitionCorps member certified at Level III fortest and evaluation. He holds abachelor’s degree in engineering fromthe United States Military Academyand masters degree in internationalstudies from Troy State University. Heis also a colonel in the U.S. ArmyReserves.

ACRONYM QUICKSCAN

12 Summer 2003

by CPT Stephen Hamilton

The 3d Infantry Divisionspends the majority of its timedeploying and preparing for futuremissions, as opposed to testingsoftware that digitizes the battle-field. Although the Army did notfield the latest versions of the ArmyTactical Command and ControlSystems machines to the 3d ID, thecommanding general and his staffemphasized the need to integrate allof their tactical systems regardless oftheir documented compliance levelsfor their Warfighter Exercise in 2002.Armed with command emphasis, the3d ID G-6 began a quest to integratethe tactical systems and present anear real-time digital commonoperational picture of the battlefield.The 3d ID G-6 integrated its com-mand and control computer systemsincluding the Tactical Website, anArmy developed command andcontrol website, without an exten-sive number of contractors andcostly software upgrades.

Web-based command andcontrol

The 3d ID’s TACWEB remainsthe commanding general and chiefof staff’s information disseminationsystem of choice. In 1997, theoriginal creation of the TACWEBbegan at 2d ID in Korea based onMG Walter Sharp’s vision. At thistime, he was BG Sharp, and the 2dID’s ADC(M). He tasked 2d ID’s G-6to design a web-based system thatcould roll-up the division’s reportsto provide an overall view of thedivision’s status. In addition, thesystem had to be easily modifiable inorder to meet the commandinggeneral’s continually varyingrequirements. The TACWEB followsthe concepts defined in the ArmyWhite Paper: Concepts for the Objec-tive Force. The white paper states

specifically:Web based

C2 systems enablecommanders toreduce decisioncycles within theirorganizations byengaging subordi-nate leaders andstaffs in collabora-tive planning anddecision making atall levels withinunits. Web-basedC2 systemsfacilitate the rapiddissemination oforders to thelowest levels, thusmaximizing timeavailable fortactical units toprepare for, tosynchronize andto initiate decisiveaction.

3d ID’sTACWEB, basedon the original 2dID’s TACWEB,consists of a verydeveloped websitethat contains allmajor reports forunits and staffelements. Thesoftware requiredto run the websiteis MicrosoftStructural Query Language Server,Cold Fusion and Microsoft InternetInformation Server. As reports arefiled, they can be accessed throughthe battle status page. The mostcurrent reports are displayed, andpast reports are archived. MGSharp’s primary concern dealt withthe logistics situational reports inTACWEB. It did not make any senseto enter the same data in two differ-

ent systems, which is why hedetermined CSSCS and TACWEBshould share the data.

The primary unit reportscontained in TACWEB are theSitrep, personnel data summaryreport, personnel requirementsreport, logistical Sitrep, communica-tions status and various chemicalreports. The units are required toreport their status at specific time

Poor man’s digitizationof the battlefield

TACWEB battle status page: This page shows theinitial database with test unit reporting 100% statuson everything. Once units begin reporting, thebubbles fill in with the unit’s calculated status. Eachball when clicked, displays a detailed report.

This is TACWEB’s Main page.

Army Communicator 13

intervals. Once the units submitthese reports, the data enters into thedatabase immediately, and the roll-up reports automatically reflect thechanges. This dynamic content givesall commanders instant access toupdated combat status throughoutthe battle. In addition, it allows thedivision staff to spend more timeprojecting future requirements asopposed to crunching numbers andcreating power-point slides.

The Sitrep provides the mostimportant data to the commanders.The Sitrep contains unit locationinformation, equipment status,current and future operationsinformation, and overall unit status.The unit location section providesthe units with the ability to enter aleft, center and right military gridcoordinate for the unit’s subordinateunit positions. The initial integrationeffort began with taking these gridcoordinates and plotting them on adigital map. The 3ID did not have adigital map plotting system, how-ever it soon would acquire one tomeet this need.

Initial integrationIn April of 2001, 3d ID began

evaluating a tactical system thathasn’t quite been accepted as anATCCS system in its own right,however 3d ID relied on it moreduring Warfighter than all otherATCCS systems combined: maneu-ver control system light. The majordifference with MCS-L and its biggerATCCS brothers remains the plat-form MCS-L runs on. All otherATCCS machines run on Sunworkstations running Solaris, whileMCS-L runs on any laptop withWindows 2000 and Office 2000.MCS-L can store data in differentways: as a standalone system, in asmall-group shared environment, orwith a central SQL database serveron a database called the joint com-mon database. The 3d ID used thelatter for their Warfighter in 2002.The DAMO chose this optionbecause it enabled the division toshare data between TACWEB andMCS-L.

In July of 2001, code was addedto the TACWEB that posted the unit

locations from theSitrep into theMCS-L JCDB as agraphic on anoperationaloverlay. The mostdifficult part ofthis processturned out to beconverting thegrid coordinatefrom military tolatitude andlongitude. TheJCDB’s designallows manydifferent systemsto share data, andsince the majorityof other mappingsystems uselatitude andlongitude, theJCDB does also.The formula for this conversion isnot trivial. Fortunately, the MCS-Lteam provided our G-6 with adynamic link library that containedthe functions for many differentcoordinate conversions. Afterlinking these functions into ColdFusion, we could post unit iconsonto MCS-L from TACWEB Sitreps.The G-6 demonstrated this feature tothe CG and unit commanders andthey accepted this as the 3d ID’sprimary “blue feed” to showfriendly unit locations on a digitalmap. This integration began thebuilding of our common operationalpicture on MCS-L.

Although this integrationsucceeded initially, the G-6 had a lotmore work ahead for future integra-tion. CSSCS integration ended once3d ID upgraded to a version thatallowed a Netscape browser to pullinformation off of the combat servicesSupport control system. Weintegrated CSSCS into TACWEB by

merely providing a link to one of thedesignated CSSCS boxes. The nextsystems that needed integration atthis point were air missile defenseworkstation, advanced field artillerytactical data system and remoteworkstation.

Integration testingIn August of 2001, 1LT Robert

Pitsko and I brought one of eachATCCS machines in the division tothe battle simulation center forintegration testing. After speakingwith the contractors, we gatheredenough information in order to makethe systems communicate with eachother using United States messagetext format messaging. The tablebelow displays what each systemuses to communicate, and whichdatabase they store their informa-tion.

After gathering data, we had tomake the decision to try to use opendatabase connectivity to the data-

This is the part of the unit Sitrep where locationinformation is entered. Units enter grid coordinatesfor subordinate units in the center box. Once the usersubmits the Sitrep, the icons automatically update onthe TACWEB overlay in MCS-L.

AFATDS USMTF 1993 InformixAMDWS USMTF 1993 InformixMCS-L JVMF MS

SQL/ACCESS/InformixRWS USMTF 1999 Oracle

System Messaging Type Database Type

14 Summer 2003

base or their standard messaging. Inthe past, we made an ODBC connec-tion from Cold Fusion to the Oracledatabase on RWS. However, thiskind of connection required adifferent knowledge base from thecontractors of the ATCCS machines.In addition, we didn’t think theother contractors would be comfort-able with a direct connection to theirdatabase.

USMTF messaging remainsquite unique because it uses doubleaddressing. The message itself relieson a simple e-mail template withtypical e-mail addressing (i.e.AFATDS usedfs@d3.c18.army.smil.mil). Withinthe e-mail body, there is an ATCCSalias (sometimes referred to as theOR name) consisting of a 32-charac-ter identifier for that machine. Thisaddressing scheme adds complexityto the entire system. Defining theATCCS alias can cause manyproblems because spaces at the endwould commonly be truncated,which lead to undeliverable messagefailures. The e-mail address typi-cally became the hardest part to setup when sending messages from theATCCS box to the mail server (sincewe ignored the alias).

Initially we used Argosoft Mailserver as the receiving machine formessages, and later used MicrosoftExchange Server 5.5. Since MCS-Lclients only used JVMF, we decidedto build a universal parser on theserver in Cold Fusion that wouldaccept messages from AFATDS,AMDWS and RWS. The end statefor receiving messages was to acceptoperational graphics from AFATDSand AMDWS, and the enemy picture(Red Feed) from RWS. Although wewanted specific operational mes-sages, we initially tried to receive afree text message from them first.This is where we ran into the prob-lems that the rest of the ATCCScommunity faces: setting up theATCCS address book.

Since we used such a light andconfigurable mail server, we quicklynoticed the central problem: the e-mails from each machine wereincorrectly addressed. Argosoftshows all connections, and logs all

messages rejected, incoming orredirected. This log provided aninvaluable source for information, inaddition to our Ethernet sniffer weran to view all transactions. Afterhours of frustration we digressed tothe old Army standby and got outour butcher block. We wrote on abutcher-block board the Internetprotocol addresses of each system,host names, user names and domainnames for each system. With theprevious confusion now neatly inorder we began the initial part of theintegration.

Anomalies developAlthough we initially defined

our e-mail address asmcs@d3mcs.d3.c18.army.smil.mil,we started receiving messages tomcs@mcs, mcs@d3mcs,mcs@d3.c18.army.smil.mil,mvr@d3mcs.c18.army.smil.mil andmcs@[148.43.130.133]. Argosoftgave us an added benefit at thispoint; because it is possible to add inas many local domains as needed,which allowed us to correct ad-dresses on the fly. The reason whythere aren’t problems like these onthe Internet with standard e-mail isbecause Internet e-mail is transferredto different hosts by looking them upthrough a domain name systemserver. Instead of using an addressbook (which is always subject toerrors), the remote mail server islooked up at the DNS based on thedomain where the e-mail is destined.For example, if a message is destinedto somebody@hotmail.com, the localmail server where the message issent looks up the first mail serverresponsible for the hotmail.comdomain. The DNS server returns therelevant server name, and that namewill be looked up to find the IPaddress. Once that is found, thesending mail server makes a remoteconnection to the remote mail serveron TCP/IP port 25, and the mail issent using simple mail transportprotocol commands. The Sunworkstations powering the ATCCScommunity use a different processthat looks up destination serverinformation based on the localserver’s preprogrammed address

book. Assuming this book containscorrect entries, the systems listedshould share their data.

Once freetext messages werereceived, we tried to send informa-tion that would be useful to MCS-L:operational graphics, contained in aUSMTF S201, and enemy graphics,which we started with the S303.This is where we ran into yet anotherproblem. We started with oursystem’s address built intoeveryone’s address book as an MCSsystem. The AFATDS quicklyreturned an error saying that itcannot send graphics to an MCSmachine. The RWS said it couldn’tsend enemy units to an MCS ma-chine. MCS-L is designed to showenemy units and operational graph-ics; however earlier releases of MCSdid not have this capability. Wequickly rectified the error by chang-ing the AFATDS address book bychanging our system type to RWS,and having RWS set up our systemtype to RWS. We didn’t have theAFATDS set us up as an AFATDS,because AFATDS machines do notuse USMTF to communicate witheach other—they use proprietaryuser datagram protocol packettransmissions.

Integration successesBy the end of the week, we

could receive operational graphicsfrom AMDWS and AFATDS, andalso S303s from the RWS. We builtthe parser in Cold Fusion since itprovided a known (powers 3d IDTACWEB) method to interact withdatabases. Our Cold Fusion parserdownloads the email using PostOffice Protocol 3, and parses themessage into the information neededto post graphics to the MCS-L JCDB.We also could take the freetextmessage sent to us, and reverse the“to” and “from” ATCCS alias in themessage header, and send it back tothe ATCCS machine. This verifiedthe ability to send graphics andpossibly the friendly picture to theother machines. The downfall withsending the friendly feed (done withS507L messages) remains taskorganization consistency. In orderfor the friendly feed to work, the

Army Communicator 15

receiving machine must have a goodtask organization with all the unitidentification code for all units thatcould possibly be sent. This is due tothe message format—it only includesthe military grid reference systemsgrid for each unit, and the unit’sUIC. The other ATCCS machinestypically did not have the 3d ID’stask organization built into theirsystem.

The following example showstwo messages sent from AFATDS,and their result on MCS-Light:

Warfighter evaluates the command-ing general and staff — not how abattalion operates the ATCCSmachines. Although a small contro-versy started over this process, wecontinued on our mission to acceptthe S507L messages from RTM, andparse these messages into the MCS-LJCDB. This process ran successfullyduring the ramp-up exercise,however the CBS link to RTM hadsome technical difficulties through-out the exercise, which resulted instagnant units. Also during thisexercise, we rewrote the header onthe S507L messages, and sent themto XVIII Airborne Corps’s GCCS-Amachine (3d ID’s higher headquar-ters). This integration requirementarose during the exercise, and weimplemented the change at thebeginning of the final ramp-upexercise.

We shared our integrationefforts with the MCS-L team, andthey built a stand-alone parser basedon the same principles, but didn’trequire Cold Fusion to run. Theycreated this parser in order to deployit to other units, like 82d AirborneDivision. The team programmed theparser in Visual Basic and usedMicrosoft Outlook for the mail client.This parser is currently capable ofparsing S507Ls from RTM, and S309messages from RWS. We initiallyused the S303 message; however itrequired the RWS operator to send itmanually, which did not occur oftenenough. The S309 messages can besent at timed intervals (typically 20minutes), which leads to greateraccuracy of the enemy picture.

The MCS-L team provided anenhancement to MCS-L during oneof our exercises. This new capabilityallows users to view combat poweron friendly unit icons. SinceTACWEB computes the combatpower already, we wrote anotherquery that updated the combatpower along with the unit locationon the TACWEB overlay. Thisexample shows the need for chang-ing command and control systemson the fly. During an exercise, thecommander may realize he or sheneeds different views of the data inorder to truly show combat effective-

Engagement area message:1121304S201 6gcakF011403ZAUG015 USDTAC FSE 3IDUSTOC DTAC ASAS 718091A10EXER/NOT GIVEN/-//MSGID/GEOMETRY/USDTAC FSE 3ID/-//OPTM/ADD//KPERID/161506ZJUL01/161506ZJUL02/-//KPLANORD/-//BGEOMM/ENGAG/AIA/-/-//PNT/ 1/41200/42700/ 2/49300/42700/ 3/49300/40900/ 4/51000/40900/ 5/51900/35800/ 6/49400/36300/ 7/48900/35800/ 8/44900/37400/ 9/43600/37500//GZE/17SMR/17SMR/17SMR/17SMR/17RMR/17RMR/17RMR/17RMR/17RMR//DECL/OADR //

Boundary line message:1121304S201 6gdtBF011408ZAUG015 USDTAC FSE 3IDUSTOC DTAC ASAS 718091A10EXER/NOT GIVEN/-//MSGID/GEOMETRY/USDTAC FSE 3ID/-//OPTM/ADD//KPERID/011300ZAUG01/021300ZAUG01/-//KPLANORD/-//BGEOMM/BDY/DIVBL/-/-//PNT/ 1/74165/61919/ 2/76915/49651/ 3/71768/38229/ 4/69653/20179//GZE/17SMR/17SMR/17RMR/17RMR//DECL/OADR //

Once we ironed out thesedetails, we began our ramp-upexercises for Warfighter. At the finalramp-up exercise, another systemthat sent USMTF 507L messagesappeared: the RTM. The RTMreceives changes in the corps battlesimulation and converts these toUSMTF messages fed to everyATCCS machine at the lowest level(typically the battalion level). Thepurpose of the RTM feed remains inthe elimination of the tedious workdone at the battalion level, since the

MCS-Lightoutput after theabovemessages weresent. Duringthe testing,maps were notloaded onMCS-L whichresults in theblackbackground asshown.

16 Summer 2003

ness. Command and control systemscannot wait for a requirement topass through a program managershop and sent to a contractor forfurther analysis.

These integration capabilitiesculminated at the 3d ID Warfighterin 2002. At the Division Maintactical operation center, the Solipsyssystem (an integrated battle com-mand station) provided the primaryview for the commanding generaland primary staff, using five com-puter projection screens controlledby a video switch. Although thescreen output configuration com-monly changed, the primary viewsshown during the Warfighter were:TACWEB combat status, MCS-Lcommon operational picture,AFATDS fire support overlay, UAVvideo feed and AMDWS overlays.The TACWEB combat status dis-played a page that refreshes everyfive minutes that reflects the overalldivision equipment roll-up calcu-lated from each of the units’ Sitreps.The MCS-L common operationalpicture displayed the friendly unitsand enemy units, along with thedivision’s operational graphics. Thecommanding general could choosebetween seeing the RTM friendlyunit feed or the TACWEB friendlyunit locations. The enemy feed camedirectly from the RWS S309 mes-sages parsed at the MCS-L server.The AFATDS fire support overlay

and AMDWSoverlay showed adirect feed from theprimary AFATDSmachine in divisionmain tacticaloperations center.The UAV feed camefrom a laptop usingMicrosoft MediaPlayer to viewstreaming videofrom the DMAINnetwork. MicrosoftMedia Encoderprovided the videostream for clients toview. This inte-grated systemprovided thecommanding

general and staff with a fully digi-tized view of the battlefield, andenabled them to make quick, decisiveactions based on timely and accurateinformation.

ConclusionAlthough 3d ID did not field

Army Battle Command Systems 6.0ATCCS machines, we did integratethe crucial command and controlsystems. CSSCS ran in stand-alonemode, however users could access itthrough Netscape with the additionof a thin-client. We integrated theother command and control systemsin accordance with their design(USMTF messaging), and integratedour TACWEB system as a commandand control tool that disseminatesinformation to the lowest levels. TheATCCS systems may work muchbetter together with expensivesoftware upgrades and contractorslike those at Fort Hood, howeverwith command emphasis and a lot oftechnical coordination, we provedthat integration could be done withany system that uses 1s and 0s totalk.

CPT Stephen Hamilton is cur-rently assigned to the 57th SignalBattalion S3 and is developing a web-based soldier information system. Whilehe was assigned to 3ID, he spent ninemonths in 3ID’s G-6 Division Automa-tion Management Office before deployingto Bosnia where he developed the

ABCS - Army Battle Command Sys-temsADC(M) - Assistant Division Com-mander (Maneuver)AKO - Army Knowledge OnlineAFATDS - Advanced Field ArtilleryTactical Data SystemATCCS - Army Tactical Commandand Control SystemsAMDWS - Air Missile DefenseWorkStationC2 - command and controlCBS - Corps Battle SimulationCSSCS - Combat Service SupportControl SystemDAMO - Division Automation Man-agement OfficeDMAIN - Division Main Tactical Op-erations CenterDNS – Domain Name SystemIP – Internet protocolJCDB – Joint Common DatabaseJVMF – Joint Variable MessageFormatMCS-L - Maneuver Control System(Light)MGRS – Military Grid ReferenceSystemsODBC – Open Database Connec-tivityPM - program managerPOP3 - Post Office Protocol version3RTM - Run Time ManagerRWS - Remote WorkStationSMTP - Simple Mail Transport Pro-tocolSQL - Structured Query LanguageTACWEB - Tactical WebsiteTCP/IP - Transmission Control Pro-tocol/Internet ProtocolTCRIT - Target CriteriaTIDAT - Target Intelligence DataTOC - Tactical Operations CenterUAV - Unmanned Aerial VehicleUDP - User datagram ProtocolUIC - Unit Identification CodeUSMTF - United States MessageText Format

This view of MCS-L shows an example of a multi-unit S303 message sent from RWS and parsed bythe Cold Fusion parser.

peacekeeping version of TACWEB thatis integrated with the Balkan DefenseInitiative. Upon his return, the majorityof his time was spent integratingTACWEB and command and controlsystems. Previously, he was assigned to3ID’s 123d Signal Battalion as a nodecenter platoon leader. CPT Hamiltonholds a B.S. in computer science fromWest Point.

ACRONYM QUICKSCAN

Army Communicator 17

by CPT Pam Newbern

Fort Drum is known for its coldweather and record snowfalls. Thewinter of 2003 brought not onlyextreme cold, but also heralded thearrival of the 10th MountainDivision’s bi-annual Warfighterexercise.

Fighting the cold weatherwhile meeting the networkingrequirements for the Warfighterprovided a unique series of chal-lenges to the members of the 10th

Signal Battalion. The battalionprovided communications supportfor the division, several NationalGuard and Reserve units from as faraway as Idaho, members of theBattle Command Training Programfrom Fort Leavenworth, and theexercise evaluators from the XVIIIthAirborne Corps. The Warfighter isheld every two years to evaluate thedivision’s readiness status.

At the beginning of the exerciseon Jan. 13, many of the soldiers in10th Signal Battalion had difficultyjust getting out to their sites on whatis known as “Old Post” at FortDrum. Blinding snowfall andwhiteout conditions forced the postto shut its roads down for almostthree hours that day, trapping somesoldiers who had already gone out,while leaving others sitting in the

motorpool. However, the soldiers inthe field were able to maintaincontact via FM with the 10th SignalBattalion Headquarters, and begansetting up their sites, while waitingfor the blizzard to blow itself out.

Once the road conditionswere lifted from black to red in themid-afternoon, the remainder of thebattalion rolled to the field. Here,they encountered another problemas drifting snow made it difficult toreach their sites. Prior to the start ofthe exercise, the platoons had goneout with snowplows to clear theworst of the snow away. The divi-sion had already provided thisservice for its main, rear and TACsites. However, the outlying nodecenters were required to re-dig theirsites to allow for entrance. Soldiersusing the battalion’s snowplows andshovels cleared the sites enough toallow entrance.

As setup began, anotherproblem presented itself as thesoldiers began digging in theirgrounding rods. Frozen groundmade it difficult to get the rods in,and the sub-freezing conditionsensured that more than one groundrod broke at the head. Soldiers fromone small extension node foundthemselves trying to pound aground rod into a blacktop, whichhad been concealed by more than

two feet of snow. By steadily work-ing away at the grounding rods,soldiers were eventually able towork almost all the rods into theground. In the case of the blacktop,the SEN moved its grounding rodsseveral feet away until it hit dirt andwas able to work the grounds in. Saltwas placed on top of the ground toallow for increased conductivity,and soldiers were instructed toconstantly monitor the groundingsites to keep them from beingconcealed by repeated snowfalls.

Tent setup was also difficult.Plywood was initially used for somefloors, while the inner lining of thetents also was hung up to eliminatethe worst of the drafts. The battalionordered interlocking floors for thenode centers, which arrived part-way through the exercise. As thesnow continued to fall, snowplowswere used to construct bermsaround the node centers and thesystems control, creating a series ofwindbreaks.

Perhaps one of the toughestjobs belonged to the battalion’s“aerial team.” Composed mostly ofits 31Ls, or cable dogs, the team waspulled from across the battalionunder the direction of the senior 31L,SSG Peter Cyprian. The group beganbefore the exercise to constructcustom-built “aerials” which would

Warfighter:10th Mountain Division’s winter training exercise

Blowing snow obscures the N83 site at division main.

18 Summer 2003

be tall enough to raise the cablesover the high snow drifts, whilekeeping them embedded in the earthand snow. Each aerial was com-posed of several 14-foot-longwooden boards, bolted together inthe middle with a two-foot braces.The resulting “legs” allowed thecables to be raised up to 23 feet. Ittook the team seven hours to com-plete the first 30 legs, although itbecame increasingly proficient as theexercise progressed.

“We did the assembly portionin the field, because of the height,”said SSG Cyprian, who designed theaerials himself. “I tied a piece of 550-cord to the end and was pulling on itas they raised it like an OE-254cable.”

Raising the aerials in the sub-zero weather was particularlydifficult. “It was a challenge with thetemperatures,” Cyprian said.“Cold fingers don’t tie knotsvery well.”

One of the problems theteam also encountered washaving to re-lay cables or runnew cables after the aerials hadalready been directed, asdivision command posts wereestablished and the need formore cables was discovered. Inaddition, high winds knockedfour of the aerials down in one

night, forcing the team to be calledout on a Saturday morning torebuild the aerials. The team nor-mally did not work at night, as thesub-zero conditions and bitingwinds made it dangerous for thesoldiers to be out for more than afew minutes.

An ice storm on Feb. 22 left itsmark on the cables, as well. Tem-peratures warmed up briefly for aday, and rain began falling. Thetemperature dropped that night,leaving a thick layer of ice oneverything, including the cables. Theaerials bowed under the weight ofthe ice, forcing the team to reset theaerial struts. The SYSCON directedthe team to build additional struts tokeep in reserve in case a new aerialwas needed, or if existing aerialsstruts were broken.

Keeping soldiers safe and

warm quickly became a primaryfocus for leaders, as temperaturesdropped to as low as –38F. Windchilladded to the severe conditions. Thebattalion command sergeant majorregulated the uniform for each day,directing soldiers to wear the whitevapor boots, known locally as the“mickey mouse boots” during theworst of the weather. Balaclavas,trigger-finger mittens, and gortextops and bottoms were also required,along with kevlars and load bearingequipment. Leaders monitored thesites, and kept a close watch tocorrect soldiers who might nip out ofa warm tent or shelter to quicklycheck the generator without bother-ing with items like hats or gloves.

With temperatures dippingdown to –38F, shelters were put onminimum manning to reduce thechances for cold weather injuries.Vents in all the shelters were leftopen to avoid the danger of carbonmonoxide buildup. Leaders checkedthe vents at regular intervals toensure they were open, and in-structed soldiers to do the same.

Performing maintenance undersuch trying conditions was also achallenge. Generators were prone tohaving water and fuel lines freeze,while the rapidly rising and lower-ing temperatures left tires soft or flat.The 10th Signal Battalion placed itsmaintenance crews on 12-hour shifts,and enabled them to work from therear. Because of the proximity to thenode center sites, mechanics couldarrive on site within 20 minutes toassess and fix a problem. Among themost common problems on vehicleswere glow plugs going out, andstarters not working. Soldiers were

Plowed less than two hours before, snow has drifted across the access toone of the 10th Signal Battalion node centers. High winds and drifting snowwere common in January.

View of I10’s site. This small extension node supported a National Guard unitfrom Idaho.

Army Communicator 19

instructed to start vehicles regularly,and preventative maintenancechecks and services procedures wereconstantly emphasized and enforcedby key leaders. Vehicles weredispatched for up to a month, butthe battalion’s maintenance tech,CW2 Vangorder, spot-checked themon a daily basis. Soldiers wererequired to conduct the PMCSs atthe start of their shifts, not at theend, so they could be sure thevehicles were operational at the timethey came on. Maintenance crewsworked during the day to fix ve-hicles on site, but at least twoswitches had to be “swung” fromone vehicle to another after mechan-ics determined the original vehiclehad to be evacuated to the rear forrepair.

The extreme temperatures andhigh winds also posed specialproblems for MSE equipment.Because most of the sites werelocated so close to each other, manyof the switches were cabled in.Keeping the cables from being runover or frozen into the ground was aconstant battle for the soldiers. Inaddition to the efforts by the aerialteams, soldiers were instructed to

dig the cables up and place them insome locations on tripods to keepthem visible.

As snow continued to fall inJanuary and February, the battalion

was kept busy plowing access roadsto the sites. The wind could blow thesnow back across the road so quicklythat one site was not even aware itwas snowed in until its companycommander waded in through knee-deep snow after her high mobilitymultipurpose wheeled vehicle hadto stop to avoid getting stuck.

Keeping services up to datewas particularly challenging duringthe exercise. Half of the battalionhad been involved in back-to-backexercises at Junior Reserve TrainingCorps in October and December, andmany of its services had becomeoverdue, since the equipment hadbeen left in Louisiana between theexercises. Because the division’sWarfighter exercises also werealmost back-to-back, (Jan. 13 – 31 ,Feb. 7-13 and Feb. 27 - March 13),the Battalion Commander, LTC JohnB. Hildebrand, had designated thatthe battalion’s switches would roll tothe field on Jan. 13, and not come outuntil the end of the actual WFX onMarch 13. This was done to ensurethe network systems remained inplace, since the division and brigadetactical operation centers also

Mechanics and soldiers from B Company, 10th Signal Battalion, check agenerator at one of the small extension node sites. Second from left, SGTJorge Ramos. Far right, 1SGT Brian Warren.

A close-up view of one of the aerials constructed by the 10th SignalBattalion’s aerial team.

20 Summer 2003

BCTP — Battle Command TrainingProgramBII – basic initial issueCPs — command postsDMAIN — Division MainDREAR — Division RearDTAC — Division Tactical ActionsCenterHUMVEE – high mobility multi-pur-posed wheeled vehicleJRTC — Junior Reserve TrainingCorpsLBE – load bearing equipmentMOPP — Mission Oriented Protec-tive PostureMSE — mobile subscriber equip-mentPMCS — preventive maintenancechecks and servicesSEN – small extension nodeSYSCON — Systems ControlTAC — tacticalWFX — Warfighter Exercise

remained in place. A gap betweenthe second and third exercise, fromFeb. 14 – Feb. 27, was sufficient toallow many of the switches to bemoved back to the rear for quarterlyand semi-annual services. In addi-tion, the battalion put off deepcleaning any of its shelters untilApril. Companies pulled generatorsand trailers back from the field forregular services, while commanderscoordinated through the S3 to shutdown shelters for services at timeswhen the division was not in thefield. Thus, the companies were ableto keep their services mostly currentwhile continuing to support thedivision.

As the network solidified,soldiers began improving theirrespective sites. In addition, compa-nies were able to conduct additionaltraining, such as the requirement for

four hours of Mission OrientedPotion Posture-4. Because of thecold weather, soldiers wereactually happy to wear theMOPP suits, because they keptthem warmer. Other events alsowere conducted, such as changeof command inventories. One in-coming commander had to countcables, antennas and basic initialissue in a blowing snowstorm.

Well into March, sub-zerotemperatures continued to hit thearea. The final WFX exercise ranfrom March 9-13. However, theSignal soldiers had returned tothe field on Feb. 24 to ensure thenetwork was up and runningprior to the beginning of the finalexercise. This enabled the battal-ion to pinpoint any problemswith hardware or software, andalso to continue site improve-ment.

Continual improvementwas the signal battalion’s hall-mark throughout the series ofexercises. From its beginning in ablinding snowstorm to itscompletion on March 13, theWarfighter taught the soldiers

not only about mobile subscriberequipment operations, but also howto survive and thrive in the sub-arctic conditions which markednorthern New York in the winter of2003.

CPT Pam Newbern is the com-mander of B Company, 10th SignalBattalion, at Fort Drum. Her priorassignments at Fort Drum include G6Plans Officer and Assistant S3. Previ-ous assignments include Platoon Leaderand Executive Officer, B Company,122d Signal Battalion, Camp Casey,South Korea; S1, 125th Signal Battalion,and S6, 65th Engineer Battalion,Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. She holds anassociate’s degree in computer sciencefrom Hawaii Pacific University, and abachelor’s and master’s degree injournalism from the University ofMontana.

SSG Anthony Matone, B Company, 10th

Signal Battalion, directs a new vehicleinto place as the company wreckerhoists N82. The vehicles had to bechanged out when the original onedeveloped problems with its starter andflywheel. Temperatures were well belowzero, making it safer for mechanics toremove the vehicle and tow it to themaintenance bay out of the frigid air forrepair.

ACRONYM QUICKSCAN

Army Communicator 21

by CPL Paula M. Fitzgerald

CAMP LEMONIER,Djibouti — Since it wasconstituted in 1942, theArmy’s 40th Signal Battalionhas played an integral role innumerous military operations.Keeping up that tradition forCombined Joint Task Force -Horn of Africa are the soldiersof A Company, 40th SignalBattalion from Fort Huachuca,Ariz.

To help the task forcedetect, disrupt and defeattransnational terrorist cells inthe Horn of Africa region, thecompany is equipped withstate-of-the-art communica-tions equipment and soldiers withthe know-how to operate andmaintain that equipment.

“Our primary responsibility isto provide the commander themeans to communicate with thepeople he needs in order to get themission done. The second mission isto improve the morale of the troopsby letting them talk to their familiesback home,” said CPT Brent O.Skinner, A Company commander.“We do that by providing things liketelephone connections, Internet andvideo teleconferencing.”

Since August, the “Gators” ofA Company have installed andmaintained nearly 200 telephonesand 750 computers throughout thecamp.

Skinner, of Staten Island, N.Y.,added, “Considering the limitedamount of soldiers I have out here,the amount of work they have doneso far is tremendous.”

In order to provide qualityservice to the troops here, thecompany is divided into separatesections: data to run the servers;switch to maintain the telephones;tactical satellite; and cable and nodal

operations to provide troubleshoot-ing.

To prepare for deployment, thesoldiers train in the field threemonths of the year. The mission athome and the mission during adeployment are basically the same— to afford top-notch communica-tion to troops.

The assignment to CJTF-HOAis providing these soldiers withexperience in real-world operationwith members from all armedservices.

SPC Jose Garcia, a cableinstaller from Atlanta, said, “Back inArizona, we inventory gear and getready for missions. Now we’re outhere in Djibouti, Africa, doing ourjob for real.”

As a cable installer, or“cabledawg,” Garcia is responsiblefor anything telephone-related.

He said, “We run phone linesto connect the camp, and we dotroubleshooting pretty much every-day for people who need our help.”

The biggest challenge he saidhe’s faced during this deploymenthas been working alongside the

different services.“The Marines, the Air Force

and the Army all have their ownways of doing communications,”explained Garcia. “It’s sometimeshard trying to get things accom-plished, but we talk to one anotherso we can all do things the sameway.”

According to Skinner, hiscompany has been able to developgood, working relationships witheach service.

“It’s interesting learning fromthe other branches and seeing howthey do certain things,” said Skinner.

“When we get deployed, wedon’t have to rely on anyone forequipment. We are completely self-sufficient,” explained Skinner. “Wehave soldiers who do maintenance,NBC training (nuclear, biological,

Can you hear me now?40th Sig Bn keeps CJTF-HOA communications up and running

SSG Jose P. Garcia, tacticalsatellite communications, ACompany, 40th SignalBattalion, ensures a tacticalsatellite is working properly.Garcia from Gatesville, Texas,is serving with Combined JointTask Force to defeat terrorism.

SPC Larry Ogdin, switch operator, A Company,40th Signal Battalion, performs basictroubleshooting using the IGX Redcom Switch.The device is used to hook up telephone lines.

22 Summer 2003

by 1LT Michael Leon Windon

The 57th Signal Battalion, 3dSignal Brigade whose motto is “WeConquer Space” was selected to be akey player in this year’s TechNetInternational hosted by the ArmedForces Communications and Elec-tronics Association. The 57th SignalBattalion working in conjunctionwith the Defense InformationSystems Agency, the Signal Center’sBattle Command Battle Labs, andthe Joint Communications SupportElement showcased the potential tosupport network centric communica-tions using the convergence of voice,data, and video services over asingle IP data network. This 3-dayconvention is one of DoD’s largestindustry focused events demonstrat-ing their ability through innovationand initiative to meet the growingcommand, control, communications,computer and intelligence needs ofour military. The focus of this year’sTechNet was “Exploiting EmergingTechnologies in Support of theGlobal War on Terrorism”.

One such emerging technologythat is essential to meet many oftoday’s C4I requirements is based onthe convergence of voice, data andvideo networks.

The 57th Signal Battalion notonly demonstrated the potential ofthis convergence but “conqueredspace” by dynamically allocatingbandwidth over its multiple satellitelinks to Fort Gordon, Fort Belvoirand Tampa, Fla. using this technol-ogy. These links included commer-

cial Ku-band using an AN/USC-60provided by L3 communications, aDefense Satellite CommunicationsSystem X-Band using an AN/TSC-93B, and a military strategic, tacticaland relay extremely high frequencylink using secure mobile anti-jamreliable tactical terminals. An on-siteComputer Information SystemsCompany wireless access pointprovided wireless connectivity to a

tactical voice-enabled personaldigital assistant and a mini video-enabled Sony notebook.

Users at Fort Hood were ableto seamlessly participate in voiceand video calls to Fort Gordon, Ga.and Tampa, Fla. The 57th SignalBattalion also utilized GeneralDynamic’s Vantage node. TheVantage along with a CISCO callmanager is a voice over Internet

3rd Signal BrigadeConquers voice, data and video

chemical) and supply.“Everyone has come together

during this deployment. As usual,safety has been our number oneconcern. One thing I always try todrill in my soldiers’ heads is that themission is not over until everyone is

home safe.”NOTE: This article is reprinted

with permission from the Marine CorpsNews web site. It is submitted by:Combined Joint Task Force - Horn ofAfrica.

CJTF-HOA – Combined Joint Force-Horn of AfricaNBC – nuclear, biological, chemical

ACRONYM QUICKSCAN

Equipment used inthe TechNet isshown aboveincluding the USC-60 (center) andvoice over Internetprotocol Vantageserver (right).Right are 1LTMichael L. Windonand SSG DwayneLehnert, 57th

Signal Battalion,standing next tothe VoIP jumptransit case.

Army Communicator 23

ACRONYM QUICKSCANprotocol software private branchexchange that performs gatekeeperfunctions for VoIP telephones andalso provides a gateway interface toour mobile subscriber equipment. Inits current configuration the Vantagecan support both plain old tele-phones (using CISCO VG-248s orcommercial T1 channel banks) andVoIP phones over our existing localarea networks. “The Vantage bringscommercial office features such asvoicemail, conference calling andcall transferring to the field,” saysPFC Benjamin A. Naiper, a Vantageoperator from D Company, 57th

Signal Battalion.LTC Barry Hensley, com-

mander of the 57th Signal Battalion,also stated “This proof of conceptwas a major success as it clearlydemonstrated the potential ofnetwork convergence in support ofthe warfigher. Everything over IPdoes have its challenges fromconfiguration management toquality of service; however, we havethe expertise and determination toconquer.”

1LT Windon joined the National Guardin 1996 at the age of 17 under the splitoption program. He attended basictraining during the summer of 1997,also his junior year in high school. Aftergraduating as distinguish honorgraduate from basic training on August18, 1997; returned home to finish hissenior year of high school in 1998 andentered college.

Windon joined the Reserve OfficerTraining Corps at Sam Houston StateUniversity, Huntsville, Texas in 1999.He gained experience working for thecampus computer department whichwas a outsourced computer hardwareand limited networking job. He laterworked for the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice Facilities Division as anetwork technician.

He is a gradate of Sam Houston StateUniversity where he received his ROTCcommission as an United States ArmySignal officer. Duty assignmentsinclude: the small extension nodeplatoon leader, D Company, 57th SignalBattalion and assistant S3 for the 57thSignal Battalion.

AFCEA – Armed Forces Communi-cations and Electronics AssociationBCBL – battle commands battle labsC4I – command, control, communi-cations, computers and intelligenceCISCO – Computer Information Sys-tems CompanyDCSC – defense satellite communi-cation systemDISA – Defense Information Sys-tems AgencyEHF – extremely high frequencyJCSE - Joint Communications Sup-port ElementMILSTAR – military strategic, tacti-cal and relayMSE – mobile subscriber equipmentPBX – private branch exchangePDA – personal digital assistantSMART-T – secure mobile anti-jamreliable tactical terminalsVoIP – voice over Internet protocol

24 Summer 2003

by John Saputo

Horizontal and vertical integra-tion of command, control, communi-cations, computers and intelligencecapabilities within a United Statesjoint military force is the key enablernecessary for commanders to bedecisive in operations. Lack oftimely understanding of national,local, state and military informationacross the total horizontal andvertical spectrum decreases the jointforce commander’s effectiveness.Joint integration leverages opera-tional and tactical information for amaximum unified effect against theenemy. This is important not just forcombat action, but all militaryoperations.

A plethora of legislation,directives, visionary documents andinitiatives such as the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the ambitious JointVision 2020 and global informationgrid, along with catchy terms such as“information superiority” and“common operational picture” areevidence of attempts to movetowards improved joint integration.Despite these efforts, recent opera-tions continue to revealinteroperability problems. Jointintegration remains a constant andhigh, but elusive, Department ofDefense priority.

And now in the wake of 9-11,Homeland Security goals makeinformation interoperability betweena joint military force and local, stateand federal organizations an addi-tional and even more challengingrequirement. To achieve significantjoint integration, improved manage-ment practices within the DefenseDepartment are required.

This article traces the legisla-tive history of the department andhighlights key joint initiatives toprovide a framework for currentsuccesses and failures of jointintegration. It also outlines the

realistic steps necessary to achievean adequate integration end state.

The ability to have full C4Iintegration is unarguably the singu-lar element needed to significantlyimprove tactical, operational andstrategic effectiveness. As thetempo, lethality of warfare andautomation of military operationsincrease, the need for C4I integration

mated information warfare, whichfacilitates and complicates theintegration problem. During theCold War, large standing forceswere available to counter the Sovietthreat.

Today, a smaller and highlymobile joint force is assembled withminimal time for planning, coordina-tion and training across servicefunctional boundaries in ad hocconfigurations for a wide assortmentof diverse operational objectives.Yet, joint force C4I information isdeconflicted rather thaninteroperable and integrated. Jointforce success at the tactical andoperational levels is predicated onbeing integrated to exchange infor-mation vertically and horizontallyacross multiple organizational levels.

But joint C4I integrationremains difficult to define, imple-ment and test. Integration is acomplex principle rather than adefinable and measurable attribute.Joint integration should be consid-ered largely as the interactionsbetween people, systems andinformation and firmly based onjoint and not service doctrine.

Joint integration needs to bevigorously managed, acquiredjointly using specific joint standardsand trained periodically as a jointentity. Viewing integration from apurely technical aspect fails toproperly frame the principle. At-tempting to provide joint integrationusing only service and agencysystems and technical approacheswill result in continued deficienciesin joint force capabilities. Integrat-ing disparate systems as an afterthought is a technique prone forfailure.

It is important to note that theterms “integration” and“interoperability” are related but notsynonymous. Joint force C4Iinteroperability is the ability of

Joint Force C4I integration –significant challenges ahead

within a joint force increases propor-tionately. Because today’s opera-tions rely heavily on timely andaccurate information from jointservice (ground, maritime, air andspace) and now local and stateautomated systems, a case can bemade that joint C4I horizontal andvertical integration is the center ofgravity of force operations.

Winning quickly depends onthe ability of a joint force com-mander to rapidly process anddisseminate ground, sea, air andspace information from differentsources. Modern warfare is auto-

‘Joint force C4Iinteroperability is theability of combatantcommander’s andservice’s C4I systemsto provide and acceptcapabilities andinformation (e.g.,readiness, positional,targeting, intelligence,maneuver, support,transportation andmedical) from othersystems andprocessing theinformationeffectively.’

Army Communicator 25

combatant commander’s andservice’s C4I systems to provide andaccept capabilities and information(e.g., readiness, positional, targeting,intelligence, maneuver, support,transportation and medical) fromother systems, and processing theinformation effectively.

Joint interoperability is essen-tially about exchanging and process-ing multiple sources of informationto generate timely effective decisionsand actions. Joint integration is thenext necessary step beyondinteroperability and allows the jointforce C4I “system of systems” tofunction independently. An inte-grated joint C4I capability must beinteroperable but interoperablesystems need not be integrated.

Today, combatant commandersfrequently raise C4I integration ascritical shortfall. Cursory analysis ofpast joint operations in Grenada,Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwaitreveals that this is not a new prob-lem. The joint force to Grenadalacked an integrated andinteroperable communicationssystem. The uncoordinated andincompatibility of radio frequenciescaused a lack of tactical communica-tions between the services thatprevents force awareness andfacilitates a dangerous situationbetween the Marines and ArmyRangers. In one of the manyinteroperability problems duringDesert Storm, the airborne warningand control system could not relayinformation to each service becauseof frequency dissemination proce-dures. In his after-action report ofDesert Storm to Congress, theSecretary of Defense stated thatgreater attention must be paid forimproved interoperability in futureconflicts. Lessons learned fromOperation Restore Hope in Somaliarevealed that, “the continuingproblem of aligning systems, proce-dures and standards in the jointenvironment.”

Kicking the can down theroad

Granted, joint interoperabilityand integration receive much morenotoriety than in the past but a quick

review of current operations, recentexercises and service funding plansreveals the real story—slow progressis being made but joint integrationwill remain limited at best. Why?Service attempts to prioritize jointinteroperability requirements areunconvincing using affordability,sunk-costs and Title 10 as the keyreasons to continue development ofservice-centric programs. Servicesoperate in a bureaucratic, competi-tive and funding constrained envi-ronment.

The United States entered thesecond World War with an organiza-tional structure that was incapable of

opposition to defeat any jointrecommendations. The military’sperceived poor performance inVietnam and subsequent bungledoperations in Iran, Lebanon andGrenada further revealed the criticalneed for improvements in jointoperations and structure.

The almost five-year campaignto strengthen and improve capabili-ties of the Chairman of the JointChiefs of Staff and the unifiedcommanders began in February1982, when GEN David Jones, thenchairman, appealed to the HouseArmed Services Committee forimmediate reform. A senior studygroup recommended reforms withinthe department and reported that acertain amount of service indepen-dence was desirable but the currentdepartment balance always favoredthe parochial interests of the ser-vices. They claimed that the unifica-tion of commands and the state-of-the-art of the U.S. military fightingjoint are more cosmetic than sub-stantive. Indeed, in control of theirown fiefdoms, the service chiefs hadno intention of ceding even theslightest bit of control to the CJCS.Hard line legislation was needed.

The Goldwater-Nichols Act of1986 caused major defense reorgani-zation. Now, planning and opera-tional authority are centralizedthrough the CJCS as opposed to theservice chiefs. The CJCS wasdesignated as the principal militaryadvisor to the President, NationalSecurity Council and Secretary ofDefense. The act streamlined theoperational chain of command fromthe President to the Secretary ofDefense to the CJCS to the unifiedcommanders. And the Goldwater-Nichols Act further mandated theCJCS to closely monitor the serviceinteroperability attempts by review-ing requirements documentationand approving program milestones.On the surface, it appeared that jointintegration was moving towardsbeing a reality.

The joint strategic planningsystem is the formal means by whichthe chairman gives strategic plansand direction to the services. Amajor part of the JSPS is the joint

‘Joint integration isthe next necessarystep beyondinteroperability andallows the joint forceC4I “system ofsystems” to functionindependently. Anintegrated joint C4Icapability must beinteroperable butinteroperable systemsneed not be integrated.’

coordinating land, sea and airactivities across the two militarydepartments. In 1942, PresidentFranklin Roosevelt created the JointChiefs of Staff and the outcry overPearl Harbor prompted the creationof European and Pacific unifiedtheater commanders to wrestle withdelivering a U.S. military response.The National Security Act created a“national military establishment”construct to be placed over the WarDepartment. The act prescribed asecretary of defense with limitedpower and retains the service boardsto govern the organization. The actgave legal acknowledgement to theJCS but the services continued thedomination of the department withveto power and on issues of mutualinterest, the services aligned in

26 Summer 2003

warfighting capability assessmentprocess. The JWCA process is theCJCS vehicle for obtaining a system-atic view of future joint warfightingcapabilities. Assessments examinekey relationships and interactionsbetween joint capabilities, andidentify opportunities for improvingwarfighting effectiveness. Thecontinuous assessment processprovides insight into issues involv-ing interoperability, requirements,readiness and recommends plans forjoint military capabilities. Findingsare presented to the joint require-ments oversight council. The finalassessment products are intended toby used to influence service pro-gramming and budget guidance.

The JROC is the main the toolto assist the CJCS in the effort toforce joint integration. The JROC’sorigins date back to the early effortsof the Ronald Reagan administrationto develop more coherent defenseprograms and minimize servicesystem duplications. The initialrecommendation that a senior groupbe established to review and managejoint programs was proposed in a1984 study by the defense scienceboard.

In response, the CJCS estab-lished a joint requirements andmanagement board consisting of thefour service vice chiefs and interest-ingly not the unified commanders.The JRMB was renamed the JROCand agreement is based on consen-sus. The JROC has only recentlyrequested an operational concept,and operational and tactical architec-tures for a joint force C4I.

Today responsibilities of jointforces command as the joint forceprovider continue to increase in anattempt to define joint strategy,doctrine and force structure. Notonly does the JFCOM retain itsresponsibilities as the joint forcetrainer, integrator and force pro-vider, it assumed new highlyambitious responsibilities of combin-ing service and defense agencycapabilities to enhance jointinteroperability. JFCOM is to createnew joint war-fighting concepts aswell as design and prepare pro-grams for joint war fighting and

identify integrated systems that willoptimize interoperability keyperformance parameters for the jointforce. The services are keenlyobserving JFCOM’s progress.

New or enhanced technologicalinitiatives such as the net-centricenterprise services and the jointcommand and control systemspromise better C4I integration forthe combatant commanders and jointforce. The NCES has been proposedto provide a common set of informa-tion capabilities across the DoD.The department’s command andcontrol system is scheduled toevolve from its current state of joint

to accomplish the strategic objectivesof preventing terrorist attacks withinthe U.S. and reducing America’svulnerability to terrorism.

Integral to the DoD’s efforts tostrengthen joint operations andimprove integration, JFCOM isdeveloping the standing joint forceheadquarters. The deployable jointcommand and control will providethe materiel solution for the SJFHQ.

For all these technological,bureaucratic and resource intenseefforts, providing significant C4Iintegration to the joint force remainsslow.

However, some successes mustbe noted. Air tasking order dissemi-nation across the service systems is asignificant improvement from 1991.During the Gulf War, for example,commanders had to wait two orthree days to get assessments of thedamage caused by allied bombingrun. Today, commanders can getpreliminary data almost immedi-ately - either from the planes thatdropped the bombs, other aircraft orunmanned drones in the area.Commanders and analysts now canwatch live video of a battle as itunfolds from a Predator drone.Pilots from the Navy and Air Forcecan talk and share computerizedtarget data with each other and U.S.forces on the ground. Today com-manders have new capabilities thatallow full advantage of precision-guided munitions, flexible surveil-lance and reconnaissance assets, andreal-time situational awareness thatreaches across the full spectrum ofservice participants.

DoD is not organized forjoint warfare

Fundamentally the jointinteroperability challenge is deeplyrooted in the broader issue of thedistributed and horizontal structureof the DoD that promotes competi-tive relationships within the depart-ment between the military servicesand especially between the jointcommunity and the services.

The National Security Actcodifies into law the national mili-tary command structure that existstoday. The legislation clearly

‘Today, commanderscan get preliminary dataalmost immediately ...Commanders andanalysts now can watchlive video of a battle asit unfolds from aPredator drone. Pilotsfrom the Navy and AirForce can talk andshare computerizedtarget data with eachother and U.S. forces onthe ground.’

and service variants to a single jointC2 architecture and capabilities-based implementation comprised ofjoint mission capability packagesand service applications.

JC2 is based on NCES infra-structure enabling shared access toservice/agency/joint-provided datasources. As the DoD transforms theway it interacts with other elementsof national power and with theinternational community, JC2 willextend its C2 interoperability tosupport information exchange withmultinational and non-DoD part-ners.

For example, JC2 will enablethe DoD to exchange informationand work closely with key federalagencies and multinational partners

Army Communicator 27

intends the services to retain muchof their autonomy and promotesservice core expertise (ground, sea,air) but indirectly creates a competi-tive environment between theservices discouraging joint efforts.Because of decreasing fundingappropriations, joint interoperabilityusually takes a back seat to service-centric initiatives.

The Goldwater-Nichols Act isthe driver behind the shift in thefocus of conventional warfare from aservice centric operation to a jointoperation. But the legislation directsa complete overhaul of the defenseorganization by increasing someauthority of the chairman of the JointChiefs of Staff and the unifiedcombatant commanders.

Specifically, the legislationfocuses on improving the jointrequirements or capabilities side ofthe department but does nothing tothe business side of the department.While the Goldwater-Nichols Actrealigns organizationally, thefunding resource prioritizationremains with the already fundingconstrained services.

The CJCS and the combatantcommanders receive no fundingresources for development orintegration of joint C4I systems.That responsibility remains with theservices. Under U.S. Title 10,services organize, supply, equip,train and mobilize forces for theoperational requirements of theunified combatant commands.Today, the service departmentsremain centralized, hierarchical andhighly autonomous, and none viewthe primacy of joint C4Iinteroperability as the principalmandate.

Regional combatant command-ers wishfully expect joint C4Iinteroperability to be present inservice and agency systems.

Operation Iraqi Freedomdemonstrates the need for significanttechnological work-arounds andunique C4I configurations highlydependent on trained contractorsupport.

The way aheadIn the long run, improving joint

force C4I integration is largely amatter of prioritization and manage-ment rather than of resolvingtechnology issues.

While changes in doctrine,assessment, acquisition, standardsand training are the underpinningsof achieving joint force C4I effective-ness, focused management withimproved practices are the keys toreaching the required level of jointintegration.

The current and anticipateddefense budgets even with thebusiness efficiencies achieved to datethrough downsizing, best practices

and tactical architectures coveringthe totality of the joint force’s C4Irequirement is not feasible todayalbeit progress is being made. Thejoint staff J6 along with JFCOM isdeveloping operational and tacticalC4ISR architectures for a future jointforce founded on seven primarycapabilities—decision making,flexible synchronization to achieve anintent, shared understanding,tailorable organization, dispersedcommand and control, operationintegration, and simultaneouscommand and control processes.Each must have correspondingmetrics.

The tactical and operationalcapabilities needed by the joint forcecommander must remain the primarydriver of interoperability solutionsand investments. These capabilitiesneed to be defined at the operationallevel of command (e.g., the combat-ant commander, standing joint forceheadquarters and joint task forcecommander) and at the tactical levelwhere the services systems exchangeinformation to accomplish service-centric missions.

A continuing assessmentprocess needs to be in place tomeasure the C4I capability of a jointforce. The Secretary of Defense andthe CJCS should establish processesto assess C4I interoperability andintegration on a regular basis andestablish reporting requirements ofC4I operational and tactical integra-tion readiness by the combatantcommanders and the services.

The end stateThe objective therefore is an

integrated C4I joint force capabilitythat exchanges accurate air, maritime,ground, space, pertinent national,local and state information verticallyand horizontally in a required timeperiod and functions as an indepen-dent system.

The joint force system must notbe burdened with today’sdeconfliction approaches that arebased on work-around technicalsolutions using middleware andtranslators which hinder perfor-mance and limit accuracy. Integrat-ing legacy and “stand alone” service

‘Operation IraqiFreedom demonstratesthe need for significanttechnological work-arounds and unique C4Iconfigurations highlydependent on trainedcontractor support.’

and using commercial-off-the-shelfequipment and software are insuffi-cient to fund current or future jointC4I integration requirements,therefore tradeoffs will need to bemade based on the prioritizations ofthe combatant commanders. Noredistribution of C4I program orintegration funding from the ser-vices to JFCOM is forecasted there-fore without specific guidance priorto the yearly POM submissions, theservices will continue to dominatethe resource allocation process withservice-centric programs.

As an oversight measure, OSDshould realign the business end ofDoD with the intent to withholdservice C4I procurement and re-search and development fundingpending approval of a joint horizon-tal and vertical integration plan forall C4I systems. This measuremandates that a concise joint forceC4I functional operational andtactical architecture exists.

Development of operational

28 Summer 2003

and joint automated systemstogether into a makeshift jointsystem fails to provide the combat-ant commander and his force areliable warfighting tool.

Joint force C4I integrationmust be acquired, integrated,tested, trained and managed frominception as a joint initiative.

As with all needed capabili-ties, joint force C4I integration mustbe balanced against other require-ments to include system security,availability, flexibility, survivabilityand performance. While progress isbeing made, the vision of a defense-wide view of C4I articulated in JointVision 2020 remains highly ambi-tious.

While full joint force C4I isunachievable, a high degree of C4Iintegration is necessary. To achievejoint force C4I integration requiresjoint doctrine and definitive guid-ance and vigorous oversight. JointC4I integration will provide a jointforce the needed capabilities for a21st century force.

Mr. Saputo works for the Army CIO/G6. Supato has more than 25 years ofexperience primarily in command andcontrol systems and has a degree incomputer engineering from the GeorgeMason University.

‘To achieve joint forceC4I integration requiresjoint doctrine anddefinitive guidance andvigorous oversight.’

CJCSI 3137.02, The JointWarfighting Capabilities Assess-ment Process

CJCSI 5123.01, Charter of theJoint Requirements OversightCouncil

United States Code Title 10Armed Forces. As an example, usesections 3013, 3014, 3032, 3033, and3062. Services are to maintain, trainand equip the force.

Bibliography:

Joint Publication 3-56.1,Command and Control for Joint AirOperations, Joint Staff, 14 Novem-ber 1994

Joint Staff J6A, TransformingCommand and Control (C2) Refiningand Implementing an OperationalConcept for Joint Force C2 for 2005and Beyond, October 2002

Joint Staff J6, Joint Commandand Control (JC2) OperationalRequirement Document (ORD), 2003

USJFCOM, GIG CapstoneRequirements Document, JRCOM,30 August 2001

Joint Operations Concept, JCSJ7. An Evolving Joint Perspective:U.S. Joint Warfare and Crisis Resolu-tion in the 21st Century (draft) 19September 2002.

Navy N6, Deployable JointCommand and Control (DJC2)Mission Needs Statement (MNS),2002

National Military Strategy(NMS), Joint Staff, Strategic Plansand Policy Directorate (J5): 9 Decem-ber 02

Alberts, David S, Garstka, John,and Stein, Fredrick, Network CentricWarfare: Developing and Leverag-ing Information Superiority, 2d ed.)DoD C4ISR Cooperative ResearchProgram, Washington, DC: August1999

Joint Requirements OversightCouncil (JROC) MEMO 023-03,“Interim Range of Military Opera-tions (ROMO)” Washington, DC: 28Jan 03

Campen, Alan D., The FirstInformation War, Fairfax, VA.:AFCEA International Press, 1992

Gordon, Michael R. andGeneral Benard E. Trainor, TheGeneral’s War. Boston, Ma: Little,Brown and Company, 1995

McKnight, Clarence E., Controlof Joint Forces. Fairfax, VA, AFCEAInternational Press, 1989

Weigley, Russel F., AmericanWay of War, Bloomington, In: IndianaUniversity Press, 1973

Augustine, Norman R. TheCauses of Noninteroperability,Clarence E. McKnight, ed. Control ofJoint Forces. Fairfax, VA: AFCEAInternational Press, 1989

Herres, Richard T.Interoperability and Jointness.Clarence E. McKnight, ed. Control ofJoint Forces. Fairfax, VA: AFCEAInternational Press, 1989

Mundy, General Carl E., USMC(Ret), Cautions on Goldwater-Nichols Joint Forces Quarterly no. 13,Autumn 1996

Prueher, Joseph, WarfightingCINCs in a New Era, Joint ForcesQuarterly no. 13, Autumn 1996

C2 – command and controlCOTS – commercial-off-the-shelfDJC2 – deployable joint commandand controlJC2 – joint command and controlJFCOM – Joint Forces CommandJROC – Joint Requirements Over-sight councilJRMB – Joint Requirements andManagement BoardJSPS – Joint Strategic Planning Sys-temJWCA – Joint Warfighting Capabil-ity AssessmentNCES – Net-Centric Enterprise Ser-vicesSJFHQ – Standing Joint Force Head-quarters

ACRONYM QUICKSCAN

Army Communicator 29

Sheehan, John J., Next Steps inJoint Force Integration, Joint ForcesQuarterly no. 13, Autumn 1996.

Shore, David. Tactical C3I:Where Does It Stand??In Clarence E.McKnight, ed. Control of Joint Forces.Fairfax, VA: AFCEA InternationalPress, 1989

Toti, Cdr William J., Broken!Fix It! Why the Joint Staff JWCAProcess Doesn’t Work? Armed ForcesJournal International 133, no. 9, April1996

Army Vision 2010

Chairman of Joint Chiefs ofStaff Instruction 6212.01A. Compat-ibility, Interoperability, and Integra-tion of Command, Control Commu-nications, and Intelligence Systems.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Defense

C4I For the Warrior: Committed,Focused and Needed, Washington, DC:U. S. Department of Defense, C4Architecture and Integration Divi-sion, Joint Staff, 1993

Concept for Future Joint Opera-tions (Initial Draft), Fort Monroe, VA:Joint Warfighting Center, 1996

Conduct of the Persian Gulf War:Final Report To Congress. Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Department ofDefense, 1992. 3 vols. AUL 956.70442C746 V1, V2

Joint Interoperability Engineer-

ing Organization/JointInteroperability Test CommandCircular 9002. Requirements Assess-ment and Interoperability Certificationof C4I and AIS Equipment and Systems.Fort Huachuca, AZ: U.S. Departmentof Defense, 1995

Joint Publication 1, JointWarfare of the Armed Forces of theUnited States, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Defense, 1995

Joint Publication 6. Doctrine forCommand, Control, Communica-tions, and Computer (C4) SystemsSupport to Joint Operations. Wash-ington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofDefense,

Joint Vision 2010. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense,1996

Mission Need Statement forGlobal Command and Control System.Washington, D.C.: U. S. Departmentof Defense, 1995

Becker, Mark A. CommandControl in a Joint Operational Environ-ment: The Hybrid Control Maxim.Newport: U.S. Naval War College,Joint Military Operations Depart-ment, 8 February 2000

Boardman, Michael W. Leashingthe Hydra: Control of Joint IntelligenceArchitectures. Newport: U.S. NavalInstitute, Joint Military OperationsDepartment, 19 May 1997.

Clapp, Anthony J. Information

Operations and Joint Vision 2020:Ready to Accept the Challenge. New-port: U.S. Naval War College, 4February 2002. 24pp.

Crowe, Kenneth M. Goldwater-Nichols Act: Time for Reform. StrategyResearch Project. Carlisle Barracks:U.S. Army War College, 10 April2000. 25pp. (AD-A377-194)

Final Report on Strategic Respon-siveness: Early¾. From a conferenceorganized by the Fletcher School ofLaw and Diplomacy, and theInstitute for Foreign Policy Analysis,held in Washington, D.C., 2-3November 1999. 38pp.

U.S. General AccountingOffice. Joint Military Operations:Weaknesses in DOD’s Process forCertifying C4I [Command, Control,Communications, Computers, andIntelligence] Systems’ Interoperability:Report to the Chairman, Subcommitteeon Military Research and Development,Committee on National Security, Houseof Representatives. Washington: U.S.General Accounting Office, March1998. 28pp.

Recommendations and Proceed-ings of the Joint Homeland SecurityTask Force January 2002

Network Centric Warfare,Developing and Leveraging Infor-mation Superiority, Alberts CCRP

Rand Corporation US ArmyCommunications Using CommercialSatellites

30 Summer 2003

Commentaries and letters to the editor... to correct “the record” and express opinions

PulseCOMMENTARY: AREYOU A TRANSFORMINGMAMMAL, BUG ORDINOSAUR?by Patrick Swan

WASHINGTON - Somethinghappened a long time ago that led tochange on our planet.

One popular theory is that alarge meteor crashed into the Earth,dramatically altering the environ-ment. As a result, we believe thedinosaurs perished, the bugs stub-bornly survived and the mammalsthrived.

A few years ago, anothermeteor slammed into the Earth, atleast in a figurative sense. We callthat meteor Army KnowledgeOnline, https://www.us.army.mil.

Since its inception in 1999,AKO has delivered the tools, infor-mation and services that best helpthe Army to serve the country at anytime and from every station. AKO isthe pivotal tool in transforming theArmy into a knowledge-basedorganization. And, as the one stopfor Army information, AKO isstrategically changing the way theArmy does business.

It enables greater knowledgesharing among Army communities,provides a career lifetime e-mailaddress, a customizable portal,online transaction-processingcapabilities, and is accessible to itscustomers anywhere in the world.To face the many challenges of achanging future, AKO continuouslyenhances its capabilities as technol-ogy is developed and the needs ofthe Army demand.

And the thing is, AKO is notsome abstract concept that is “com-ing soon” to a post, camp or stationnear you. It has already hit the Army— and hit the Army hard. How wellsoldiers and civilians adapt to AKOwill determine whether they trot inthe footsteps of the dinosaurs, bugs

or mammals of our day.Those soldiers who emulate

dinosaurs are those who generallyavoid computers. They still dothings by hand (rather than byfingers on a keyboard). They fill outleave forms by hand. They plot theirmovements with grease pencil overacetate on hard-copy maps. Theyshare information in person withonly the first rung in their chain ofcommand. These soldiers aredinosaurs in the network-centric,transformed Army of the 21stCentury. They don’t look for newways of doing business.

Other soldiers will acknowl-edge AKO by dutifully, if notreluctantly, signing up for AKOaccounts, as required by the 2001joint memorandum from the secre-tary of the Army and chief of staff.But, that’s as far as they’ll go. Ratherthan exploring the benefits andresources offered on AKO, they’llshun what is new and innovative forwhat is known and tried. Thesesoldiers will still use their unit orinstallation e-mail addresses — andhave to change them each time theychange duty stations. They will clogour limited bandwidth by e-mailinghuge files to multiple accounts. Theywill save files to their local “shareddrives.” They will scurry like bugson the outer edge of AKO, but areeasily squashed by advances intechnology.

The soldiers who will thrive inthe AKO world, as the mammals didin olden times, are those who clearlyembrace all the Army Portal offers.They’ll send digitally encrypted e-mail to other us.army.mil addresses.They’ll post large files to AKO’sknowledge collaboration centers forcomment, thereby saving hugeswaths of bandwidth for warfighters to use. They’ll share infor-mation through the collaborationcenters, which they can access fromany computer with an Internetconnection — rather than only those

with a local connection to a shareddrive. These soldiers will make AKOan integrated part of how theyoperate.

For sure, some soldiers findtransformational change to bedifficult. And yet, as Army Chief ofStaff Gen. Eric Shinseki has so aptlynoted, irrelevance is even worse.Soldiers who allow themselves tobecome as relevant as the dinosaurswill surely go the way of the dino-saurs as well.

Soldiers who allow themselvesto merely scurry around the edge ofthe Army are more bugs than keyplayers.

But, the soldiers who embraceAKO and all it offers will findthemselves integral to daily opera-tions of this network-centric Army,just as the mammals are to life onEarth today.

The metaphor of mammals,bugs and dinosaurs is just a morecolorful way of saying there arethree types of people in the Army.Those who make things happen arethe mammals. Those who watchthose who make things happen arethe bugs. And those who say, “whathappened?” well, they are thedinosaurs.

Informed soldiers who useAKO as a routine part of their dailymission are the ones who are makingit happen for the Army. On the fast-paced, highly lethal battlefields ofthe 21st century, these “wired”soldiers allow us to see first, under-stand first, act first and finishdecisively.

The time is now for us all tobecome AKO mammals if we wantto win and thrive in the Army ofOne.

Mr. Swan, is the public affairsofficer for the Army’s Chief InformationOfficer/G-6.

ACRONYM QUICKSCAN

AKO – Army Knowledge Online

Army Communicator 31

Book reviews of Signal-relevant published works

BooksIt was a dark and stormy night ...

59TH’S THOMASPUBLISHES FOURTHMYSTERY BOOKby Bill McPherson

ANCHORAGE -- In his offduty hours, S.E. Thomas, chief of theAdministrative Services Division,59th Signal Battalion, is an accom-plished author who has written andpublished four crime-mystery novelsto date, with his newest edition, DarkShaman, hitting bookstore shelvesand websites in April.

Since April, Thomas haspromoted the book on several localtelevision and radio shows and atautograph sessions at bookstoresaround the Anchorage area, givinghim much more than the averageindividual’s 15 minutes of fame.

All four books focus on Ser-geant Robert Sable, an Alaska StateTrooper -- a hero Thomas developedin 1991.

“Robert Sable is a man caughtin conflict between two cultures --white and Tlingit Indian, modernand ancient,” Thomas said. “Mycharacter has developed fully overthe four novels I’ve written.”

“My inspirations have beenboth from the mysteries I’ve readand from Alaska itself, a land withmany myths and mysteries,” heexplained. “Dark Gold, for example,came from a myth concerning Armyquartermaster planes that hadcrashed during World War II on anAlaskan glacier carrying tons ofgold.

“Back in the mid 1880s, I had afriend who wanted me to dropeverything and go after the planethat had crashed with gold on it, youcan bet that the Army would haverecovered it by now. Even now,some of my fans ask if the story isbased on fact.

“Dark Shaman comes from an

Alaskan myth: to gaina shaman’s power,you must drink fromhis skull,” Thomascontinued. “Mystories are kind of‘what ifs.’ If thishappened, whatwould be the conse-quences? Currently Ihave over 48 plotlines for books mostlypertaining to Alaska.My favorite writeruntil recently wasDean R. Koontz, untilhis writing stylechanged -- his proseis now too flowery for my taste.”

Thomas has enjoyed creativewriting since high school. As anArmy officer in missiles, lasers andin equal opportunity and then acivilian in the equal employmentopportunity and records manage-ment arenas, he edited newsletter,technical articles and wrote articlesfor national publication.

He joined a local writer’s groupin 1990, initially writing sciencefiction stories. “From the commentsin the writer’s group, I knew Ineeded help writing; so I tookseveral creative writing courses andcriminal investigations courses at theUniversity of Alaska,” Thomasrecalled. “These courses helpedchange and mold a new style ofwriting for me, especially one class,Writing for stage and screen, taughtby Kim Rich, author of Johnny’s Girl.It was then that I developed RobertSable and wrote my first mysterybook, Dark Project.”

His other earlier publishedbook is entitled Dark Soul. He hasalready begun writing his fifth Sablemystery, Dark Conspiracy, whichconcerns the attempted take over ofAlaska by domestic terrorists. Theworking title for book six is DarkStalker.

Thomas writesunder the pen nameSean E. Thomas.

“My real nameis S Elgin Thomas,with no period afterthe S -- just likeHarry S Truman,” hesaid. “After thenumber of approvalprocess steps I had togo through in 1990 toget my article oncopy machinespublished in anational magazine, Iknew there had to bea better way.

“If one writesabout the Army in any way even infiction, he has to get approval fromthe Army. However under a penname, you don’t,” Thomas ex-plained. “Also, if you write underyour name, the copyright is good foryour lifetime plus 50; but if youwrite under a pen name, the copy-right is good for a lifetime plus a 100years. Also, I can autograph mybooks as S E. Thomas withoutadjusting my signature much.”

Writing a book doesn’t happenlike magic Thomas pointed out.

“I usually work winter eve-nings and weekends on my laptopcomputer, spending two to threehours each night and 10 hours ormore on the weekends, writing mybooks,” Thomas noted. I usually tryto hammer out 10 pages per week,sometimes less. When I hit a road-block, I write a quick outline of theproblem area and go on to the nextscene. Sometimes, I move chaptersand scenes around to improve theflow of the story,” Thomas contin-ued. “Normally, it takes about twoyears from start to finish on a book. Iwork with one or more writer’sgroups to help critique and improveon my work. I also have a friendwho edits my work for grammar.

32 Summer 2003

Finally, I turn my wife, Doris looseon the novel to proof it. Doris has adegree in journalism and Englishand works for the Air Force as anenvironmental public affairs special-ist. She is very exacting and helpsme make major modifications to mywork to ensure it flows smoothly.

“During the summers I hardlyhave the chance or time to write. I’musually involved in so many activi-ties -- U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary (asafety organization), boating,fishing, etc.” Thomas explained. “Itake a vacation from writing.”

After a book is written, thework really begins, Thomas noted.

“I didn’t realize that thepromotion process was so involved:getting the word out -- TV and radiointerviews, speaking at groups,visiting bookstores, letting themknow your book is out and of coursebook signings, writer’s conferences,etc.,” he said. “Sometimes, it’s funand a lot of times it’s not. Theproblem is that when I’m out doingall these things, it’s hard to findtime.”

Thomas graduated fromAlaska Methodist University with abachelor of arts degree in chemistryand then attended the University ofIdaho graduate school on a fellow-ship, studying organic chemistry. Heserved several years as an Armyofficer, before entering U.S. CivilService in 1980.

Dark Shaman is available atseveral bookseller websites and thelink to Thomas’ computer siteexplaining further detail about hisbooks is www.seanethomas.com.

About Dark ShamanChildren are being kidnapped and slaughtered in

the Alaskan bush. Alaska State Trooper Robert Sabletakes over the investigation from Nicholas Kelly, whohas vanished without a trace. Sable has to deal with anelusive killer who is more cunning than all his previousadversaries. FBI Agent Annelle Carpenter joins Sable onthe case to help track down the serial killer. Their huntencompasses the town of Token, nearby Indian villages,and hundreds of miles of wilderness. As they interrogatelocal rapists, pedophiles and sexual deviants, the bodiesof children keep turning up. Each clue and suspect leadsto a dead end. A Tlingit village shaman, Dan-e-wåk,believes the killer is a powerful ancient evil shaman,Auktelchnik, resurrected. Though Sable and his partnerscoff at the idea, the mounting evidence seems to vali-date the absurd theory. Working almost 24 hours a day,Sable realizes he needs a break to gain a new perspectiveon the case. He takes a weekend off to visit an archeo-logical excavation with professor Lisa Ridell from theUniversity of Fairbanks. At the dig, Sable finds ancientevidence of similar murders. Could this be coincidence oris someone imitating the ancient legend? Returning fromhis weekend, he discovers someone is killing off thesuspects one by one. Is the new killer an irate parent orsomeone else? A long-time friend reports trapper missingand strange things are happening at one of his huntingcabins. While looking for the missing trapper, an encoun-ter almost costs Sable his life. A SWAT team tries tocapture the shaman is annihilated, making Sable realizethe killer cannot be captured by any conventional meansand that killer and the shaman Auktelchnik are one andthe same. Sable, his friends, uncle, and Dan-e-wåk mustunite to stop Auktelchnik.

Courtesy Sean E. Thomas website: www.seanethomas.com

Army Communicator 33

Enlisted news ... officer news ... warrant-officer news — from the enlisted and officer divisions at Office Chief of Signal, Fort Gordon, Ga.

SignalsEnlisted Division Updateby MSG John R. Plotts

The Gulf War served as aproving ground for weapons sys-tems technology developed for theCold War. The Gulf War also servedas a starting point for a technologicalrevolution within the Tactical VisualInformation Community. For DesertStorm a Joint Combat PictorialDetachment was formed to rapidlymove images from the battlefield tothe Joint Combat Camera Center atthe Pentagon. The use of theseimages produced by tactical visualinformation assets proved to be sucha force multiplier, it prompted theChief of Staff of the Army to standup a new Combat Camera (55COMCAM) Company.

The primary mission ofCOMCAM is to provide the Na-tional Command Authority, theChairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,The Military Departments, and theUnified Combatant Commands witha directed imagery capabilitysupport of operational and planningrequirements during worldwidecrises, contingencies, exercises, andwartime operations.

Since its inception the 55COMCAM Company along with itsUSAR counterpart (982 COMCAMCompany) has served in everypeacekeeping and humanitarian rolethe Army has undertaken. In fact,the demand for battlefield visualiza-tion has grown to such a degree thatCOMCAM as structured couldbarely facilitate the demand for itsservices without going beyond thePersonnel Tempo guidelines. InApril 2002, a COMCAM restructureproposal was submitted and ap-proved as part of a Force DesignUpdate to meet the future demandsof COMCAM assets.

Writers of VI doctrine – for-

merly Field Manual 24-40, VisualInformation Operations, Dec 91 -now FM 6-02.40, Jan 2002, envi-sioned this emerging technologygrowing and becoming more com-mon place on the battlefield. Theauthors not only laid out doctrine forCOMCAM operations but also forTactical Video Teleconferencing.

This vision of future operationscame to fruition November 1997 asFt Hood hosted the Division Ad-vanced Warfighter Experiment. Thepurpose of this experiment was toevaluate which collaborative plan-ning tools heighten the availabilityof information on the battlefield.During this experiment BattlefieldVideo Teleconferencing was provento be a useful tool for commandersin their decision making process.BVTC was only one of numeroussystems that made up the communi-cations network. The digital com-munications network has beennamed the Warfighter InformationNetwork- Tactical. The Army’sCOMCAM Companies made thecomplete move to digital severalyears ago. The challenge for Armyarchitects of today will be to inte-grate our COMCAM assets intoWIN-T to allow them to digitallymove their imagery across thebattlefield through WIN-T. Thesuccess of BVTC and COMCAMindicated the need for an increasednumber of Visual Informationpersonnel on the Battlefield. Thesetactical operations presented uniqueopportunities for CMF 25 soldiers.

The domain of the Army’sVisual Information soldiers has inthe past predominately been theTDA world. Their mission require-ments at the tactical level of opera-tions assignments are a far cry fromthese more traditional assignmentsand have caused a number ofmanagement changes to occur to

more accurately reflect their emerg-ing role. This split between strategicand tactical job requirements hasprompted the Army to add newStandard Duty Title Codes for thetactical positions within CMF 25.The names changes affecting MOS25V included COMCAM Documen-tation Specialist for those 25Vsserving in a COMCAM Companyand Tactical VI Specialist for thosepersonnel working in the BVTCsection of a Corps or Division G6.The title also changed for the 25Msworking in a COMCAM Companyto Tactical Multimedia Specialist.The duty title for SSGs at COMCAMCompanies, previously called teamleader was changed to squad leader.

As compression technologiesadvance and bandwidth increases,more and more VI tools will beavailable to the warfighter of the XXICentury. The VI personnel of today,still predominantly working in theTDA environment, are trained andready to assume their rightful placenext to the warfighter in the “Armyof the 21st century.”

MSG Plotts is the future operationsNCO with Office Chief of SignalEnlisted Section.

ACRONYM QUICKSCAN

BVTC – Battlefield Video Telecon-ferencingCJCS — Chairman of the JointChiefs of StaffFDU – Force Design UpdateFM — field manualMILDERPS – military departmentsNCA – National Command Author-ityPERSTEMPO – Personnel TempoTDA – Table of Distribution andAllowancesVI – visual informationWIN-T – Warfighter InformationNetwork-Tactical

34 Summer 2003

Updates from Training and Doctrine Command systems managers for satellite communications, tactical radio and Warfighter Information Network-Tactical

TSM update

TSM-TACTICAL RADIOENHANCED POSITIONLOCATION REPORTINGSYSTEM

Customer cold-weather testingfor the Enhanced Position LocationReporting System Net ControlSystem, Model “A,” NetworkManager was successfully com-pleted at the Cold Regional TestCenter in February 2002. With theannouncement of the 172nd InfantryBrigade in Alaska as the ThirdStryker Brigade Combat Team,modifications needed to be made tomake the configuration operationalin this environment. In preparationfor testing at the CRTC, a D5 engineheater and theD4 personnelheater wereinstalled to helpachieve optimalperformance incold weather.Both heaters,manufacturedby ESPAR, havebeen used incold climates ona variety ofvehicles with anexcellentperformance history.

The winterized NCS-A vehicleis a High Mobility Multi-WheeledVehicle that has been modified withan insulated fiberglass hardtop toenclose the HMMWV. The ESPARheaters will allow for pre-heating thevehicle and electronics beforestarting in temperatures below –20Fand keep the electronics at anoperational temperature. The majorelectronics components comprisingthe NCS-A system are an EPLRS RT,a Panasonic CF-28 toughbook laptopcomputer, cryptographic key

generator, user readouts, printerand the power distribution system.During the testing there wereseveral findings, none of whichsignificantly affected the perfor-mance of the vehicle. Correctionsare complete and final technicalmanual verification is ongoing.Training to support the first fieldingto the 172nd is scheduled for thefourth quarter fiscal year 2003.

MULTIFUNCTIONALINFORMATIONDISTRIBUTION SYSTEMLOW VOLUMETERMINAL–2

The Department of Defenserecently approved a decision tooutfit select Short Range Air De-fense units with Multifunctional

with JTIDS terminals, many have yetto be outfitted. Developed as a low-cost, functionally-interchangeablereplacement for the JTIDS Class 2Mterminals, the Army recently bud-geted to purchase a total of 45 MIDSterminals to support fielding toremaining SHORAD units throughfiscal year 2010. In support of theClear Skies Deployment, an ongoingair defense exercise, the SHORADhost platform office purchased fiveMIDS terminals and has plans topurchase another three by the closeof the year. Three MIDS terminals,originally destined for integrationinto Patriot Battery Command Postsystems at Huntsville, Ala., werediverted to fill shortages inSHORAD units as part of DoD’shomeland defense operations. TheMIDS terminals will be used to

support AirDefenseArtilleryengagementsand opera-tions byprovidingcommunica-tions for thehigh-speeddistributionof air picturedata betweenjoint serviceaircraft,

ground-based sensors, and ADAcommand, control, communicationand intelligence elements.

MIDS is a major AutomatedComputerized Axial Tomography IDacquisition program, and a trueacquisition success story in its latterstage of procurement. In January2003, PM MIDS requested that full-rate production decision be del-egated from the Assistant Secretaryof the Navy for Research, Develop-ment and Acquisition to the Navy’sProgram Executive Officer forTactical Aircraft. However, Office

Figure 1. (NCS-A), AN/TSQ-158A

TSM-TACTICAL RADIO

Information Distribution Systemterminals. MIDS, a command,control, communications andintelligence program, is the nextgeneration of Link-16 terminals andthe Department of Defense’s firstsuccessful international cooperativedevelopment of a major electronicssystem. A tactical, secure, jam-resistant, voice and data communi-cations system, MIDS is fullyinteroperable with the earlier Link-16 system, the Joint Tactical Informa-tion Distribution System. Althoughsome SHORAD units are equipped

Army Communicator 35

of the Assistant Secretary of De-fense for Acquisition, Technologyand Logistics policy precludedfurther delegation of the FRPprocurement decision. The decisionis planned for late July or earlyAugust, which will likely supportcontract award in August 2003.

NEAR TERM DIGITALRADIO

The Program Manager forTactical Radio Systems has receiveda waiver approval from Headquar-ters Department of the Army andthe Assistant Secretary of Defensefor command, control, communica-tions and intelligence to procureadditional Near Term DigitalRadios to fill a void that wascreated when a decision was madenot to field the BAE Step 2C radio.The NTDR system is a DA-directed,experimental, mobile packet dataradio network that links TacticalOperations Centers in a brigadearea. The NTDR provides a self-organizing, self-healing, networkcapability. Radio network manage-ment is provided by a NetworkManagement Terminal. Theprimary purpose of the NTDR is toprovide data transport for theArmy Battle Command Systemautomated systems to units atbrigade and below. Lessonslearned from this experimentalfielding provide a portion of thetechnical baseline for radios beingdesigned for future fielding (i.e.,Joint Tactical Radio System).Brigades in the First DigitizedDivision (4th Inf Div)/First DigitizedCorps (III Corps) use approximately28 radios to form digital TOC-to-TOC networks. The Stryker Bri-gade Combat Teams will useapproximately 48 radios to formtheir TOC-to-TOC networks. TheNTDR has been fielded to two ofthree maneuver brigades of the 4th

Infantry Division (Mechanized);two of three maneuver brigades ofthe 1st Cavalry Division; 3rd Brigade,2nd Infantry Division; and 1st

Brigade, 25th Infantry Division(Light) (SBCT-2). Fieldings planned

during the next two years are the 3rd

Brigade, 4th Infantry Division(Mechanized); 3rd Brigade, 1st Cav-alry Division; and 172nd InfantryBrigade. Training for the NTDR isprovided by new equipment trainingteams supported by the PM TacticalRadio Communication Systems as itis fielded to the units.

JOINT TACTICAL RADIOSYSTEM

The genesis of the Joint TacticalRadio Set program was to addressthe historicallack ofinteroperabilityamong tacticalradios. Cur-rent tacticalradio familieshave evolvedto meetspecializedfunctionalitiesdemanded byspecializedusers. Thedisparity inradio designresults in majorlimitations tointeroperability.The JTRS willfeature a software communicationsarchitecture that provides a coreframework for developing softwareapplications that can operate effec-tively on every JTR Set. The JTRSwill replace over 30 tactical radiofamilies with a single family. Ini-tially, JTRS waveforms will providefunctionalities compatible withcurrently fielded radios and willintroduce the new WidebandNetworking Waveform as a commonnetwork with access for all JTR Sets.The JTRS family is sub-classified into“clusters” for acquisition purposes.The Cluster 1 program focuses onvehicular and rotary wing JTR Setsand is currently in the SystemDevelopment and DemonstrationPhase under the leadership of theU.S. Army Project Manager forTactical Radio CommunicationsSystems. Full-rate production is

projected to start in fiscal year 2007.The U.S. Special Operations Com-mand is leading Cluster 2 to modifythe Thales Multiband Inter/IntraTeam Radio for JTRS softwarecommunications architecturecompliance, and will procure alimited number of these “JEM”(JTRS Enhanced MBITR) radios. TheNavy is the lead agency for Cluster 3procurement of maritime/fixed-siteJTR Sets. The Air Force is the leadagency for Cluster 4 procurement offixed-wing aircraft JTR Sets. TheArmy will lead the Cluster 5 pro-

curement forembeddedsmall form/fit,handheld, andmanpack JTRsets. AlthoughJTR Sets maydiffer in formand fit, all willbe over-the-airinteroperableusing commonwaveforms.The true powerof the JTRS isits networkingcapabilitiesthat providescaleablenetworking

services for connected radio fre-quency networks, enabling simulta-neous translation among multiple RFsystems, and providing networkbridges between terrestrial RF, fiber-optic cable and/or wire systems, andairborne or space-based telecommu-nications systems. This simulta-neous, real-time access to multiplechannels of information allows jointcombatants to access maps and othervisual data, communicate with acommand post, coordinate withallies, and obtain informationdirectly from sensors in a networkcentric warfare environment. Thisunprecedented access to informationwill support shorter decision cyclesand provide the information superi-ority to enable the Joint Vision 2020mandate of increased combat power.

Figure 2. Boeing’s Three-Channel JointTactical Radio

36 Summer 2003

THE ASHES: PHOENIXRISING FROMNEW TRI-BANDTERMINAL CONTRACTAWARDEDby Debbie Linton

The Army tri-band satellitecommunicationsprogram has hadits ups and downsover the past fewyears but it’sdefinitely on theupswing now.Although greatstrides were madein developingrequirements forthe SHF Tri-bandAdvanced Range-extension Termi-nal, programdifficultiesnecessitated thetermination ofthat program.However, therequirements for a tri-band terminalremained. April 14, 2003, the Armyofficially awarded a new contract toL3 Communications System Westbased out of Salt Lake City, Utah, todesign, test and produce a new tri-band terminal called the Phoenix.The Phoenix terminal is an interimsolution for SHF tri-band require-ments until the Multiband Inte-grated Satellite Terminal is fielded inthe 2011-2012 timeframe. ThePhoenix will replace AN/TSC-85/93terminals in selected Signal unitsand will complement those AN/TSC-85/93 terminals that have hadtheir “lives” extended via the ServiceLife Enhancement Program.

DESCRIPTION ANDMISSION OF THEPHOENIX

The Phoenix terminal will be atransportable tactical SATCOMterminal that operates in the SHFfrequency range (C, X and Ku-band)

with growth to Ka-band. ThePhoenix terminal will consist of anintegrated assemblage of non-developmental items, commercialoff-the-shelf items, governmentfurnished equipment, and otheritems adapted for Army use neededto meet the requirements. ThePhoenix will be backward compat-ible with legacy GMF satelliteterminals (to the second levelmultiplexer) and will support up to

four full duplex links deployed inhub-spoke, hybrid mesh or point-to-point configurations.

The mission of the Phoenixterminal is to provide flexible,mobile, high capacity, extendedrange communications connectivity.The Phoenix will operate overmilitary and commercial satellitespace segments, and provide highcapacity communications links tosupport voice and data. The Phoe-nix terminal may interface withother strategic networks via stan-dardized tactical entry points orstrategic assets. For commercialbands, the Phoenix terminal will usestandard commercial gateways orDISA Quad-band teleports and/oraccess the DISN via leased lines.

TERMINALCHARACTERISTICS

The entire Phoenix terminal“package” is contained on twoM1113 Enhanced Capacity Vehicles.The first ECV contains the Phoenix

terminal and the second ECVcontains the mobile power unit. Bothvehicles will have 400 amp kits toprovide a secondary power sourceand the terminals can operate usingcommercial power. The MPU willcontain one palletized MEP-803A,10kW tactical quiet generatormounted on the ECV. The Phoenixterminal equipment will be designedfor operation and transport on theECV. The Phoenix terminal primary

ECV and theECV trans-porting theMPU will beconfigured totow theexternal AS-4429/TSCantenna. ThePhoenixterminal willalso transportthe crew andtheir per-sonal equip-ment (A & Bbags, ruck-sack, weap-ons, etc),

camouflage, 5-gallon fuel and watercans, cable, wire, spares and othermission support equipment.

Every Phoenix terminal will beconfigured to support hub terminaloperations and contain the equip-ment required to support a networkconsisting of up to four EnhancedTactical Satellite Signal Processormultiplexed full duplex links,orderwire communications, andsupport beacon tracking for twoantennas (but not simultaneously).The equipment will be configuredfor operation with either an integral2.4-meter dish antenna or theexternal AS-4429/Lightweight HighGain X-band Antenna. The integralantenna shall operate at C, X andKu-bands and the external LHGXAwill operate at X-band. The Phoenixterminal will include baseband,intermediate frequency and radiofrequency patching to enable theoperator to configure systemsequipment to meet mission require-ments. The Phoenix terminal willinterface with the TRI-TAC/MSE

TSM-SATCOM

The Phoenix terminal package is contained on two M1113 Enhanced CapacityVehicles.

Army Communicator 37

family of switches, commercialswitches and various basebandpackages.

The Phoenix terminal will beoperated and maintained by a crewof four MOS 31S soldiers. The set-up and tear-down time is 30 minutesor less under normal conditions.The Phoenix will be C-130/C-141/C-17/C-5 roll-on/roll-off capable andcan be single-point sling loaded byCH-47 rotary-wing aircraft.

CONTRACT SPECIFICSThe Phoenix terminal program

was awarded as a “firm fixed pricecontract”. It covers the initial tri-band effort and the integrated Ka-band upgrade. This contractprovides for a “Block 1A” tri-bandPhoenix terminal to be deliverednine months from the award dateand a “Block 1B” Phoenix terminalin eighteen months. The differencebetween the Block 1A and 1Bterminals is that the Block 1B termi-nal will have the integrated Ka-bandupgrade in addition to the C-, X- andKu-band. This will make the Phoe-nix terminal a true “Quad-band”satellite terminal.

Nine terminals will be boughtin fiscal year 2003. All nine termi-nals will be used for initial develop-mental testing and logistics/mainte-nance demonstrations. At the end ofthe nine months (January/February2004), six of these terminals (Block1A) will be sent to the First UnitEquipped which currently is the112th Signal Battalion at Fort Braggto begin the operational test. TheFUE will be used to conduct theLimited User Test which will takeapproximately two to three months.

The remaining three terminalswill be used to conduct additionaldevelopmental testing for three tofour months and then will beupgraded to Ka-band. Ka-banddevelopmental testing will beconducted prior to a second Ka-bandoperational test at the end of theeighteen month delivery date (Oct.4).

According to the currentcontract, the next order for terminalswill deliver six more Block 1A

terminals. All terminals thereafterwill be Block 1B. All Block 1Aterminals will be brought up toBlock 1B standards.

For further information on thePhoenix SATCOM terminal, contactBill Campbell, TSM-SATCOM, (706)791- 7886, DSN 780-7886, email:campbelw@gordon.army.mil.

Ms. Linton works with TSM-SATCOM.

MILSTAR

MILSTAR 6 SATELLITESUCCESSFULLYLAUNCHED TOCOMPLETE THECONSTELLATION

“Milstar is literally theFedEx® of telecommunications. Ifyou have to get a message through,Milstar is your choice”.

—Christine Anderson, USAFJoint Program Office

The loud roar heard fromFlorida’s Cape Canaveral Complex40 at 9:43 EST on April 8, 2003,could be attributed to more than theTitan 4B rocket that blasted the lastMilstar satellite into space. It wasalso the cheers and applause fromthe many military customers,engineers, and aerospace profes-sionals who designed, planned,constructed and worked for yearsto see the first worldwide, secure,anti-jam communications service fortactical users. Operating in theextremely high frequency range, theMilstar satellite system providesprotected, interoperable communi-cations among all services withMilstar ground terminals. Milstar 6was successfully placed into ageostationary orbit about 22,300miles above the earth. It joins fourother Milstar satellites already inorbit to complete the constellation(one satellite suffered a malfunctionat launch and was placed in a safebut unusable orbit).

Although the Milstar system

was originally designed during the1980s, it was restructured in 1991 inacknowledgement of the significantgeopolitical changes in the worldand to meet the communicationsneeds of a modern military force.The first two Milstar satellites werelaunched in 1994 and 1995 andcarried only a low data rRatepayload. The last three Milstarsatellites carry both the LDR andmedium data rate payload whichrepresents a 600 percent increase incommunications capacity over thefirst two satellites. With the success-ful launch of Milstar 6, there arenow five Milstar satellites encirclingthe Earth, linked together in a ring,and responding to the urgentcommunications needs of themilitary.

With the MDR payload,Milstar 6 is capable of processingdata at speeds up to 1.5 megabitsper second. With the LDR payload,the satellite can transmit voice anddata at 75 to 2400 bits per second.After testing and systems evalua-tion, the $800 million Milstar 6 isexpected to be fully operationalwithin two months and will aidmilitary forces worldwide byensuring critical information reachesits destination quickly and securely.The Milstar 6 satellite is expected tolast at least ten years.

Each Milstar satellite weighsabout 10,000 pounds and can bedescribed as a “switchboard” inspace, directing the traffic it receivesfrom terminal to terminal anywhereon Earth. Since each satellite has thecapability to process the receivedsignals on board and then“crosslink” with the other Milstarsatellites, there is no need forground controlled switching sta-tions. Milstar satellites responddirectly to service requests fromusers - establishing, maintaining,reconfiguring, and disassemblingthe required communicationscircuits as directed by the users onthe ground.

Army users communicateusing the Milstar satellites via twoground terminals – the singlechannel anti-jam manportableterminal and the secure mobile anti-

38 Summer 2003

jam reliable tactical Terminal. TheSCAMP handles protected singlechannel communications and theSMART-T handles both single andmultichannel protected communi-cations thus enabling these twodifferent terminals to “talk” to eachother. This integration of single andmultichannel communicationsprovides a networking capabilitythat was previously non-existent.The Air Force, Navy and Marinesalso use these terminals providingthe interoperability required forjoint operations.

The successful completion ofthe Milstar constellation is a extraor-dinary achievement and is the resultof the best synergetic efforts be-tween the military and industry.Already tested successfully inOperations Enduring Freedom andIraqi Freedom, Milstar is workingnow and making a positive contri-bution towards the efficient syn-chronization of combat power. TheMilstar constellation will provideprotected, assured and responsivecommunications for deployedwarfighters of all services for yearsto come.NOTE: Photos provided courtesy ofLockheed-Martin Space and SatelliteSystems.

Milstar 6 is capable of processing data at speeds up to 1.5 megabits persecond. With the LDR payload, the satellite can transmit voice and dataat 75 to 2400 bits per second. Tested successfully in OperationsEnduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, Milstar 6 is making a positivecontribution towards the efficient synchronization of combat power.

ABCS – Army Battle Command SystemACAT – Automated Computerized AxialTomographyADA — Air Defense ArtilleryASN(RD&A) – Assistant Secretary ofthe Navy for Research, Developmentand AcquisitionBCP – Battery Command PostC3I – command, control, communica-tions and intelligenceCOTS – commercial-off-the-shelfCRTC – Cold Regional Test CenterECV – Enhanced Capacity VehiclesEHF – Extremely High FrequencyEPLRS – Enhanced Position LocationSystemENM – EPLRS Network ManagerETSSP – Enhanced Tactical SatelliteSignal ProcessorFRP – full rate productionFUE – first unit equippedGFE – government furnished equip-mentHMMWV – High Mobility Multi-WheeledVehicleIF – intermediate frequencyJEM – JTRS enhanced MBITRJTRS – Joint Tactical Radio SystemLDR – Low Data RateLHGXA – lightweight high gain X-bandantennaLUT – limited user testMBITR – Multiband Inter/Intra TeamRadioMDR – Medium Data RateMIST – Multiband Integrated SatelliteTerminals

MPU – mobile power unitNET – new equipment trainingNCS-A – Net Control System, Model“A”NDI – non-developmental itemsNTDR – Near Term Digital RadioOASD(AT&L) – Office of the AssistantSecretary of Defense for Acquisition,Technology and LogisticsOW – orderwirePEO(T) – Program Executive Officerfor Tactical AircraftRF – radio frequencyTRCS – Tactical Radio Communica-tions SystemsSATCOM – satellite communicationsSBCT – Stryker Brigade CombatTeamsSCAMP — Single Channel Anti-jamManportableSHORAD – Short Range Air DefenseSLEP – Service Life EnhancementProgramSMART-T – Secure Mobile Anti-jamReliable Tactical TerminalSOCOM – Special Operations Com-mandSTAR-T – SHF Tri-Band AdvancedRange-extension TerminalSTEP – standardized tactical entrypointsTQG – tactical quiet generatorTRCS – Tactical Radio Communica-tions SystemWNW – Wideband Networking Wave-form

ACRONYM QUICKSCAN

Army Communicator 39

News and trends of interest to the Signal Regiment

Circuit check

NEWS

NEW BATTLE FOCUSEDTRAINING FMAVAILABLE THISSUMMERTRADOC News Service

FORT MONROE, Va. — Thenew Field Manual 7-1, “BattleFocused Training,” maintains theArmy’s philosophy of training theway you fight, and tells leaders at alllevels how to do it.

The new manual replaces FM25-101 with the same title. It is theArmy’s “how to” training manual,and is the second volume dealingwith Army training. The first, FM 7-0, “Training the Force,” replaced FM25-100 as the Army’s capstonedoctrine on training and was fieldedin October 2002.

“This FM creates trainingdoctrine for both current and futureoperating environments that willendure for the Objective Force,” saidCOL Bob Clapsaddle, chief of theTraining Management WritingTeam.

The drawback to FM 25-101,the colonel said, is that it wasoriented to training for the ColdWar. The new manual reflects theuncertain world of today and thefuture.

Writers also took a newapproach to focus on companies asthe lowest combat unit, rather thanon battalions, as in the old manual.

“Some companies supportunique outfits, and each has amission essential task list,” COLClapsaddle said. “If they can’taccomplish those tasks, they can’taccomplish their missions.

“Division commanders havethe responsibility for enforcing anddisciplining the Army TrainingManagement System,” he said.

“Our squad leaders can’t trainsoldiers unless the division andbrigade commanders protects theirtime to train from distractions.

In the 1990s Army units beganto deploy more frequently forpeacekeeping missions in othercountries. Some pundits suggestedthat the Army create a separate“peacekeeping force,” becausesoldiers in combat units weren’ttrained for that role.

“We realized that out soldierstrained for combat missions canadapt to peacekeeping roles,” COLClapsaddle said. “A unit can betrained for peacekeeping missions ina fairly short time when time isavailable.”

Units designated for peace-keeping mission in Bosnia, forexample, undergo training at theJoint Readiness Training Center, FortPolk, La., before deployment.

Occasionally, a unit will bedeployed for a mission for which notasks and standards exist, such as inthe 1990s when V Corps under GENJohn N. Abrams, former TRADOCcommander, deployed for the firstpeacekeeping mission in Bosnia.

“They had to do a lot of thingswhich hadn’t been identified astraining tasks and, as such, had nostandards,” COL Clapsaddle said.“So they created the standards andthey created lessons learned.”

FM 7-1 tells how to developtasks and create standards so theDepartment of the Army can ap-prove them.

“It would be a tragedy if youhad learned something or a tech-nique for doing urban operations inIraq and you fail to tell the follow-onunit as they roll in because you’regoing home,” COL Clapsaddle said.

Feedback and after-actionreports are also crucial to battlefocused training.

The AAR method is an ap-proach that no other service or army

in the world uses, according to COLClapsaddle.

“We look internally and dissectwhat happened for every trainingevent,” he said. “We look at whatcaused us not to achieve the stan-dard, retrain and then execute tostandard.”

COL Clapsaddle explained thatAARs are particularly valuable tounits training at one of the CombatTraining Centers. After a trainingmission, observer controllers andumpires help the unit’s leaders toidentify errors and find solutions,usually areas in which more trainingis needed.

“The nature of our business isinherently dangerous,” he said, “butwe have to minimize risks to soldiersto ensure they’re not trainingcasualties.

“Doing risk assessment is justlike an operation. You have anenemy and you’re constantly makingassessments and then mitigatingthose threats against you. We’resaying that you must operationalizesafety in the same way.

“FM 7-1 is not a safety manual,but we owe it to the soldiers to trainrealistically so they are prepared togo into combat. We also owe it tothem to minimize the chances theywill be injured in training.”

Manual writers gather inputfrom battalion training officers andcommand sergeants major, as well ascaptains serving as company com-manders. According to COLClapsaddle, the writers asked theirexperts what they would cover inthe manual.

The draft was reviewed byretired generals, active and reservebrigade and battalion commandersand command sergeants major, andcurrent and recent company com-manders.

“We specifically asked forcaptains,” he said. “These are theguys who are going to read and use

40 Summer 2003

the book, and we wanted it to beright.”

A general officer steeringcommittee reviewed the manualbefore it went to former Chief ofStaff of the Army GEN Eric K.Shinseki, who was an ardent sup-porter of the manual.

“He was very adamant aboutmaintaining battle focused training,”COL Clapsaddle said. “Training isnot mission-focused, not event-focused, not collective-focused, butbattle focused.”

The manual was approved forpublication June 6.

FM 7-1 will available in lateAugust through the Reimer DigitalLibrary at http://www.adtdl.army.mil/.

AGREEMENT ALIGNSRESERVE ITFUNCTIONS WITH G6,NETCOMby Joe Burlas

WASHINGTON — The Armyjust got a bit closer to truly being anArmy of One — at least in theinformation management field.

LTG Peter M. Cuviello, Armychief information officer/G-6, andLTG James R. Helmly, chief of theArmy Reserve, signed a memoran-dum of agreement that aligns allArmy Reserve information manage-ment governance and security underthe Army staff G6 and its subordi-nate Network Enterprise Commandat a ceremony in Crystal City, Va.,June 25.

Cuviello said the MOA signingwas the next logical step in a processhe started two years ago when theArmy Reserve and National Guardassigned officers to his office. Thoseofficers are fully integrated withtheir active-duty counterparts -–working Army issues, not Guardadvisers working Guard issues orReserve advisers working Reserveissues, he said.

While the Army NationalGuard is working toward fullerArmy Knowledge Managementintegration, it is not part of the MOAas it has its own system that commu-

nicates within the National GuardBureau that also contains the AirNational Guard, Cuviello explained.

The G6’s vision for the Army isan Army Knowledge Enterprisenetwork for all components, with thesame policies and procedures for all.The MOA is a major step towardachieving that goal, Cuviello said.

“We’re breaking the cultureparadigm –- if I don’t own it, if Idon’t run it, I don’t trust it,” Cuviellosaid. “Look at the chief communica-tor in the Iraq theater -– he’s aReserve two-star; and in anotherplace of interest in the world today,Korea, there is another Reserve two-star chief communicator. There isnothing the Army does today whereyou don’t have active, Guard andReserve soldiers working side byside.”

Helmly said the MOA is aboutequal satisfactory services across allof the Army.

“It’s a signal about puttingyour money where your mouth is –-(that) we are walking the walk —that we are moving along in trans-formation,” Helmly said. “It’s aboutincreased efficiencies.”

Both generals agreed theagreement will save money, butwarned against anyone expecting to

see a savings in the form of futuresmaller Army Knowledge Enterprisebudgets.

“The fact is the informationdemands of the Army are so greatand are growing significantly everyyear,” Cuviello said. “The challengeis to get those efficiencies now. Thedemand just keeps going up.”

Part of those efficiencies isincluding the purchase of all ReserveArmy Knowledge needs – to includecomputer hardware and software,and phone, cell phone, handheldwireless e-mail devices and servicecontracts –- with those of the activeArmy. This economy of scale allowsfar greater purchase power in termsof getting more for a lesser-per-itemcost than the former method ofcompeting for the same needs withseparate purchase orders or con-tracts, Cuviello explained.

While NETCOM will provideadvice to what needs to be pur-chased and do the actual purchasingof Reserve Army Knowledge needs,the money for those purchases willstill come out of the Army Reservebudget. By Congressional mandate,“the Army Reserve is still legallyaccountable for the control anddisbursement of those funds,”Helmly said.

(Right) LTG Peter M. Cuviello, Army chief information officer/G-6, and LTGJames R. Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, sign a memorandum ofagreement that aligns all Army Reserve information managementgovernance and security under the Army staff G6. The ceremony was heldin Crystal City, Va., June 25.

Army Communicator 41

And while the Army Reservewill follow the same informationmanagement rules the active Armyfollows, there are still some specialReserve needs that will be met, theG6 said.

“General Helmly knows that ifthere is ever a problem, all he has todo is pick up the phone and call,”Cuviello said.

Mr. Burlas is a writer for Army NewsService, Washington, D.C.

G-6 SAYS OIFVALIDATES ITTRANSFORMATIONPATHby Joe Burlas

WASHINGTON — While therestill remain some bugs to tweak anda lot of work, Operation IraqiFreedom has validated the ArmyKnowledge Management frameworktrack for transforming the waysoldiers of all ranks get and shareinformation, both in peace and war,according to the Army’s top SignalCorps officer.

LTG Gen. Peter Cuviello, theArmy G-6/chief information officer,shared his vision of how future jointand netted Army command, control,communications and computerssystems should operate over a globalbroadcast system. He explained hisvision to more than 200 InformationTechnology military, governmentand industry officials who attendedthe third annual Army IT Day inMcLean, Va., May 27.

“The Army today is at war andtransforming at the same time,”Cuviello said. “As we see seniorleaders go, some may wonder whatthe future will bring. I believe wehave reached a point of irreversiblemomentum.

“The real work is getting donein the field — that is where thefighting and transformation isgetting done. As new senior leaderscome, we will probably see somestrategic changes, but the core workwill continue.”

Lessons learned from Armyoperations in Afghanistan and Iraq

over the past year have validatedmany IT Transformation concepts,Cuviello said.

The Army has realized forsome time that it needs better energysources than batteries to power themajority of its IT systems, Cuviellosaid, and thus has been exploringfuel-cell technology — a mini/micro-powered generator poweredby liquid fuel. The supply of batter-ies of units in Iraqi Freedom werehard pressed, he said, for tworeasons: the high temperaturesdrained them more quickly thanexpected and the very mobile natureof the operation meant more relianceon batteries over the generatorsnormally in use from fixed locations.

“Batteries are heavy items tocarry around the battlefield — notonly to keep them stocked andtransported, but also the transporta-tion requirements to dispose ofthem,” Cuviello said. “That is whyfuel-cell technology needs to bepushed very hard and fast.”

Another lesson learned is a realrequirement for a more mobile andsmaller IT support footprint on thebattlefield, Cuviello said. Antennafarms sprung up around majorArmy units in both Afghanistan andIraq as different antennas wereneeded for each of six differentsatellite bands and four differenttypes of radios in order to keep thecommunication links open betweenall service components and com-manders in and out of theater. Allthose antennas sometimes caused co-site interference with each other, hesaid.

The science and technologycommunity is researching multi-band antennas that may be sharedwith more than one radio or satellitelink to alleviate that problem.

Cuviello said the Army got theright balance between military andcommercial satellite use in Afghani-stan. The commercial satellites usedtriple digital encryption to transmitmostly unclassified information,while the military satellites wereused mostly for classified material,he said.

“With commercial satellites,you can turn it off or on as needed,”

Cuviello said. “You put up a militarysatellite with all the ground-basedterminals and people that go withthem — you have got to run it,maintain it.”

Afghanistan and Iraq alsovalidated that the Army has strongpartners in private industry, thegeneral said.

In one instance, the Army washaving challenges in getting a radiotransceiver-based system in place totrack all friendly forces in a timelymanner. Industry partners steppedin and within three months installeda satellite-based “Blue” force track-ing system, Cuviello said.

In another instance, unitsearmarked for Iraq from the XVIIIAirborne Corps, V Corps and IIICorps, had different softwareversions of the Army Battle Com-mand System, Cuviello said, as eachwere at different points of thesystem’s materiel lifecycle. That wasfine for sharing information withineach corps, but it did not work forsharing across the theater. Industryagain stepped in and quickly fixedthe problem by integrating all to acommon version, he said.

The general then asked the ITprofessionals present to becomemissionaries in working toward aninformation-dominant future forcewhere:

Everyone in the Army, soldiersor civilians, in 20XX (xx being date tobe determined) will be constantlyplugged into one global Army net —each with their own handheldwireless computer, on and off thebattlefield. That Army KnowledgeEnterprise net should be used as asingle virtual system for tactical andnon-tactical use such as finance ortravel, Cuviello said.

All fixed locations should bewired for that single network withfiber-optic cable. Military satelliteswill be laser-backbone with a relayof networked satellites for thetactical environment, he said.

All leaders must have a firmgrasp of managing and using IT,Cuviello said.

Almost all meetings should beheld online, he said. Seventy-fivepercent of the civilian workforce

42 Summer 2003

may telecommute out of virtualhome offices three days a week and30 percent will work always fromhome.

All military and civilian recruit-ing will be done online, he said, toinclude digitally signed contracts orjob offers to seal the deal.

Accessing military installations,workplaces and computer systemswill be via a Department of Defensebiometric capability, such as finger-print, iris scan, voice recognition orfacial recognition, he said.

“All these great ideas are onlypower-point (briefing slides) until weget them out there on the ground —not just to one or two units — but toevery unit,” Cuviello said.

Mr. Burlas is a writer with Army NewsService, Washington, D.C.

NEW WEB SITE ONLINEFOR UNIT MANNINGby Joe Burlas

WASHINGTON - The UnitManning Task Force now has adedicated Web site that can beaccessed via PERSCOM On-line andAKO.

The new site at https://www.unitmanning.army.mil pro-vides unit manning information infive broad categories: overview,research/history, current events,products, and discussion/feedback.

The Unit Manning Task Forcewas chartered by Army Vice Chief ofStaff Gen. John Keane on Oct. 18 todevelop unit manning recommenda-tions to reduce turbulence in theoperational force, and enable unitcommanders to build and sustainhighly cohesive and well-trainedteams.

The Army announced May 5that it will use the 172nd InfantryBrigade (Separate) as the first unit touse unit manning personnel policesinstead of the current personnelsystem of individual replacements.The 172nd, based at Fort Wain-wright, Alaska, will use the UnitManning Initiative as it becomes thethird Army unit to transform into aStryker Brigade Combat Team.

Under the Unit Manning

Initiative, groups of soldiers willarrive together at a unit and traintogether day-to-day, through astandard 36-month tour, said Lt. Col.Paul Thornton, unit manning actionofficer. He said under the currentindividual replacement system,soldiers leave and come into units ona monthly basis.

The current system requiresconstant retraining of individual andcollective tasks to get new soldiersup to speed, Thornton said.

Unit manning will supportPersonnel Transformation, enableunit rotations, and provide cohesiveArmy units that will excel in theuncertain environment faced today,personnel officials said.

There are many misconceptionsabout unit manning, according tomembers of the task force. They saidthe Web site will help clarify theissues.

“Unit manning is not CO-HORT,” explained Lt. Col. DaveGoehring, a program manager onthe task force, “this site will providesoldiers with the latest informationon this Army initiative.”

Task force members alsoencourage soldiers to check the Website often and provide suggestions.

Mr. Burlas is a writer for Army NewsService.

‘DIGITAL BRIDGE’BRINGS TECHNOLOGYTO STRYKER BRIGADEAT NTCby SPC Alfredo Jimenez

FORT IRWIN, Calif. — Thefirst-ever Stryker Brigade CombatTeam out of Fort Lewis, Wash., is notonly demonstrating how rapidly itcan deploy, it’s showing the value ofspeedy digital information.

The “digital bridge,” whichwas designed last year, providesSBCT units with information viasatellites instead of the usual line-of-sight radios. With this system, vitalinformation and pictures can betransmitted to units on the groundfrom anywhere in the world.

The SBCT participated in anexercise at the National TrainingCenter, April 1-11, as the first phaseof its Operational Evaluation,designed to certify the unit ascombat ready. The OE culminatedwith an exercise at Fort Polk, La.,May 17-27.

“The digital bridge comple-ments the SBCT’s extensive comput-erization, plus it allows the SBCT toconnect to any system,” said MAJBrian Edholm, digital bridge execu-tive officer.

“The digital bridge allows the3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division tosee a real-time picture of the battle-field, and it’s evolving still becausethe SBCT is still in a testing phase,”said CWO Ronald Carrasquillo, 29thSignal Battalion network manager.

The system is made up ofseveral central nodes, that transmitinformation into the main hub. Thehub, in turn, transmits informationdigitally to the commanders on thebattlefield and the tactical operationcenter.

“It’s interesting because we’retrying to use the old equipment withnewer technology,” said SGT LuisRobles, node center chief, 29th SignalBattalion.

The bridge gives these plannersa few advantages, including show-ing the movement of friendly andenemy soldiers and allowing infor-mation to be transmitted betweenthe commands very quickly.

“This SBCT exercise will allowus to use our mobility,” SGT Roblessaid.

It will also mark the first timethe digital bridge will test severalpieces of equipment at the sametime.

“Before, we’ve been able to testthem one thing at a time,” MAJEdholm said.

MAJ Edholm added thatsoldiers involved with the digitalbridge are very excited about theirrole in the first-ever SBCT exercise.

“They’ve been executing verywell,” MAJ Edholm said. “They arealways training and have beenwaiting to perform out here.”

“I’m happy to be here,” SGTRobles said. “I enjoy this stuff

Army Communicator 43

because it’s all about combat.”

SPC Jimenez is a member of the 28thPublic Affairs Detachment.

TECHNICIANSENHANCE PERSONALSURVIVAL RADIO FORWARFIGHTERSby Michele Yeager

TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT,Pa.—Tobyhanna is part of a teamingeffort that will produce a newgeneration of high-quality perfor-mance personal survival radios.

Communications SystemsDirectorate employees receivedtraining last month to install up-grade kits in the AN/PRC-112personal survival radio.

“This is a very critical missionbecause the radio is proven to savelives,” said George Bellas, director.“The radio, previously used only byairmen, is now being used by specialforces.”

Representatives of Engineeringand Professional Services providedTactical Radio Division personnelclassroom and hands-on training inJanuary.

Tobyhanna, a subcontractor ofEPS, is responsible for the installa-tion and final testing of the up-graded kits.

“Delivery of the improvedproduct will enhance missionreliability for the warfighter,” Bellassaid. “The teaming venture we arecommitted to will assure the AN/PRC-112 is ready, as needed.”

“The radios they trained on areactual production units and will beshipped to the users,” Bellas added.“We foresee a requirement toproduce thousands more in thefuture for the Army and the AirForce and will be able to do so at acost substantially less than any othercontractor capable of building theproduct.”

EPS is the prime contractorresponsible for program manage-ment. They oversee the design anddevelopment of the PRC-112 up-grade for the Army, which willconvert it into a search and rescue

ing services in support of the PRC-112 upgrade mission.

“They oversee the hardwarecomponents and module as well asthe assembly of the circuit cardupgrade kits,” Bellas said.

The teaming venture began onJuly 12, 2001, with the AN/PRC-112Modernization/ImprovementProgram Review, according to DaveBaron, an electronics engineer in theProduction Engineering Directorate.

“All relevant contractors wereinvolved, as well as representativesof CECOM [U.S. Army Communica-tions-Electronics Command],” hesaid. “Continuing efforts includedvarious visits to the depot by EPSrepresentatives to test prototypesand provide training to our techni-cians. Tobyhanna’s offer to providefacility space and test equipmenthere is resulting in additional costsavings and minimal scheduleimpacts.”

Ms. Yeager is a writer with theTobyhanna Public Affairs Office.

Ed Wood, an electronics mechanicin Tobyhanna Army Depot’sCommunications SystemsDirectorate receives hands-ontraining to assemble an AN/PRC-112D personal survival radio with anupgrade kit. Tobyhanna foresees arequirement to produce thousandsof PRC-112Ds in the future for theArmy and Air Force.

radio that will be more reliable andeasily maintainable.

The conversion combinesbeacon, radio, and transpondercapabilities, in addition to new eraseand sleep-mode features and three-color LED battery status indicatorwith a built-in tester.

The enhanced radio will bedesignated AN/PRC-112D and willinclude provisions for rechargeablebattery kits.

New battery cases, an adapterto allow the new cases to be usedwith the PRC-90 radios and acharger controller were developed.

“They designed two differentbattery cases, one for non-recharge-able batteries and one for recharge-able batteries,” Bellas said. “Nowairmen and soldiers can use stan-dard AA battery cells, availablecommercially. We’ll be shipping thebatteries from Tobyhanna, as well.”

EPS also oversees manufactur-

TRC-170S SUPPORTEDBY TOBYHANNA KEYTO COMMUNICATIONFOR TROOPSby Michele Yeager

Three depot techniciansprovided communications supportto Marines in Kuwait just daysbefore Operation Iraqi Freedombegan on March 18.

Gene Collarini, Ken Aten andShannon Falls work in the depot’sWideband Communications Divi-sion and volunteered for the over-seas assignment.

“Our mission was to helptroops of the 1st Marine Expedition-ary Force by evaluating and prepar-ing their TRC-170 systems for use,”said Collarini, team leader. “Theirsystems needed realignments andadjustments to meet specificationsfor mission readiness.”

The AN/TRC-170 is atroposcatter wideband communica-tions system that links voice andcritical war data by providingtransmission and reception of radio

44 Summer 2003

frequency signals.“The Marines use it to maintain

communications among theirlocations at various camps,” saidFalls, an electronics mechanic. “Weworked closely with members of the9th Communications Signal Battal-ion. They were a great bunch ofyoung Marines to work with andwere eager to learn more about theTRC-170s.”

After preparing their systems,the team also set up class schedulesand provided field-level training onhow to calibrate and test them. TheMarines learned quickly and said thetraining received from depot techni-cians was very beneficial, Falls said.

Additionally, the depot teamaddressed issues about obtainingneeded parts, such as circuit cards,diodes and cables. Because of thesand, the equipment also neededextensive cleaning.

The men arrived in Kuwait onFeb. 25 and completed their missionby March 1. However, when a callcame into the depot requestingadditional support on other systemsthat just arrived in country, the threetechnicians stayed 10 more days tocomplete that mission, too.

“This time we worked with thewhole Expeditionary Force, insteadof just one battalion, training a smallgroup of Marines at a time,”Collarini said. “It was brutal work-ing 12- to 16-hour days, seven days aweek in an area with such a highterrorist alert status, but theseMarines have been there sinceOctober. “We certainly respect themand sympathize with their situa-tion.”

“On one occasion, shots werefired by terrorists very close to ourcamp,” Falls added, “and the sandstorms were the worst. There wasno recreational activity, and the foodwas pretty bad. The Marines don’thave cooks like the Army does, butthey hired caterers. They tried tomake American food, but everythingseemed to have too much currypowder in it. The MREs [mealsready-to-eat] were actually betterthan expected.”

Of course, no one wanted tosee the war begin, but the Marines,

knowing it would be inevitable,seemed anxious to get things startedand finished as quickly as possible,Collarini said. “They ask no ques-tions, but they’re ready to comehome.”

When asked if they wouldvolunteer for a similar assignmentagain, depot team members saidthey understand the risks involvedand the concerns of families andfriends. “But if our troops need us,Tobyhanna will be there,” Collarinisaid.

“We participated in many airraid drills during our stay,” Fallssaid. “You just never knew when adrill would take place. As soon aswe would hear the warning sirens,we would put on our gas masks,report to our bunkers and wait forthe ‘all clear’ signal. We knew theywere drills, but sometimes we justweren’t sure.”

The war began shortly afterthey departed Kuwait. Collarini

Ken Aten, an electronics mechanicin the Wideband CommunicationsDivision at Tobyhanna Army Depot,monitors the reflective power onthe high-powered amplifier of anAN/TRC-170 troposcatter widebandcommunications system. He andthree other division employeesperformed similar work for Marinesin Kuwait in February.

said the first Iraqi missile firedlanded only 100 yards away fromthe camp at which they were sta-tioned just a few days earlier.

Ms. Yeager is the assistant editor,Tobyhanna Reporter, Tobyhanna ArmyDepot Public Affairs Office.

BACK TO KUWAIT:TEAM RETURNS TODESERT TO PROVIDERADIO SUPPORTby Anthony Ricchiazzi

TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT,Pa.—After completing a mission inKuwait in December, employeesdidn’t expect to be back there just amonth later.

Four employees from theCommunications Systems Director-ate spent January assisting Armyunits to prepare radios for opera-tions in Iraq.

Ted Fravel and Ron Saar,telecommunications mechanics,Digital Group Multiplexers Division;Glen Hill, electronics technician,Field Service Division; and Electron-ics Mechanic John Wasko, TacticalCommunications Facilities Division;were in Kuwait testing mountingkits for the Single Channel Groundand Airborne Radio System.

“We [Saar and Fravel] had justfinished repairing and testing eightDGM shelters in the field,” Fravelsaid. “When we returned, we weretold we were needed for aSINCGARS mission. “We trained onSINCGARS at the [High TechRegional Training Site-Mainte-nance], then left for Kuwait inJanuary. Our mission was to installand test the radios to get themoperational.”

SINCGARS provides highlyreliable, secure, easily maintainedcombat net radio service with voiceand data handling capability. Theradio supports command andcontrol operations.

A contractor was setting upvehicles with the SINCGARSmounting kit and antenna. Theirmission changed from checking

Army Communicator 45

radios to checking themounts and antennas.

“We made sure thatthe mounts, antennas andany modifications weredone correctly,” Saar said.“The mounts were in-stalled in Humvees,Bradleys [fighting ve-hicles], APCs [armoredpersonnel carriers], trucksand Abrams tanks. Allvehicles there were beingset up for a SINCGARS.”

Saar and Fravel saidthe mission wentsmoothly with only minorproblems.

“The soldiers wouldcheck everything in thevehicles prior to going to anotherlocation for the radios,” Saar said.“When they were done, they wouldload them with whatever wasneeded – food, water, weapons,ammunition.”

“Soldiers were very happywith our work,” Fravel added. “Weworked with personnel from AMC[Army Materiel Command head-quarters] and one of them told us weput them at ease because we madesure there were no major problemswith the mounting kits.”

The DGM system is composedof AN/TRC-173B/175B RadioTerminal Sets, AN/TRC-174B/138C Radio Repeatersand antennas.The systems are used to send andreceive several secure radio mes-sages simultaneously.

“We worked 12 and 14 hourdays extensively testing each compo-nent,” Saar said. They realigned theshelters, setting all components sothey would work on the samefrequencies, and returned on Dec.19.

Both said that when they werethere to test the DGM shelters, thesoldiers were anxious, but ready togo. “When we returned for theSINCGARS mission, we could tellthey were nervous, but morale washigh,” Saar said. “You could sensethe camaraderie.”

Saar and Fravel said they areavailable if needed to deploy to

Kuwait again.Tobyhanna Army Depot is the

Defense Department’s largest centerfor the repair, overhaul and fabrica-tion of a wide variety of electronicssystems and components, fromtactical field radios to the groundterminals for the defense satellitecommunications network.Tobyhanna’s missions support allbranches of the Armed Forces.

About 3,200 personnel areemployed at Tobyhanna, which islocated in the Pocono Mountains ofnortheastern Pennsylvania.

Tobyhanna Army Depot is partof the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command. Headquar-tered at Fort Monmouth, N.J.,CECOM’s mission is to research,develop, acquire, field and sustaincommunications, command, controlcomputer, intelligence, electronicwarfare and sensors capabilities forthe Armed Forces.

Mr. Ricchiazzi is with the TobyhannaPublic Affairs Office.

Ted Fravel, a telecommunications mechanicin Tobyhanna Army Depot’s CommunicationsSystems Directorate, checks the installationof the Single Channel Ground and AirborneRadio System mounting kit on a Humvee inKuwait.

TROOPS PHONE HOMECOURTESY OF 40TH

SIGNAL TEAMby SPC M. William Petersen

KUWAIT — At CombatSupport Center-Kuwait, less than amile from the Iraqi border, Staff Sgt.Chris Mize, a squad leader for 594th

Transportation Company, 106thTransportation Battalion, wasmaking an important call.

“That’s good, sweetie,” he said.“Now put your mom on the phone.”

The call was to Fort Campbell,Ky., where his wife and two childrenare living. Mize has been deployedmore than two months, and hisoccasional phone calls to the UnitedStates have made his deploymentbearable.

“I don’t know how to put inwords the fact that there’s a lifelinewhere you can call your family,”Mize said.

SGT. Ivan Alicea-Lopez, SPCShane Fligor and SPC KeithKilpatrick are a team of signalsoldiers from Company B, 40thSignal Battalion, 11th Signal Brigadehere. Their primary mission is toprovide telecommunications forCSC-Kuwait. As a voluntary secondmission, Lopez and his team providemorale phones for the soldiers to calltheir families in the United States.

SSG Chris Mize, a squad leader with594th Transportation Company,makes a call to his family in theStates from within a stone’s throwof Iraq. Morale phones at CombatSupport Center-Kuwait are providedvoluntarily by a three-person teamof B Company, 40th Signal Battalionsoldiers.

46 Summer 2003

While the military police unitsand transportation units at the campaccomplish their missions of secur-ing the checkpoint and keepingthings rolling, respectively, thesoldiers from these units see the 40thSignal Battalion team as theirfavorite troops in town.

“I’ve been here for about aweek,” said SGT Judson Moore, amilitary police officer at CSC-Kuwait. “These guys are one goodthing about being here because theylet us use their phones but [they]don’t have to.”

Moore makes a weekly call tohis wife in Texas.

Lopez and his team have beenat CSC-Kuwait for only two weeks,but have been deployed for morethan four months. While at thesupport center, the soldiers fromCompany B, 40th Signal Battalionsupport a variety of units operatingthere, including 106th Transporta-tion Battalion, and Military PoliceCompanies 302nd, 504th and 220th.The signal soldiers also supportmultinational troops at the check-point including British soldiers.

“All of these people have theirphone services provided by us,”Lopez said. “And they have anoutstanding service.”

While the soldiers lack a postexchange in which to shop, havelimited laundry facilities and as ofyet, no plane tickets home, theyseem pleased with their temporaryhome.

“It’s not bad at all here,” saidFligor, a native of Greenfield, Ohio, “but it’s nice to be able to providephones, especially for morale calls.We’re not required to do this. Wevolunteered to.”

The morale phones have alimited availability for the troops,however. The 40th Signal Battalionteam only offers the phones for 19hours per day.

As for the reactions of thesoldiers using the phones, Fligorsaid, “They’re ecstatic. A lot of themhaven’t been able to call home formonths.”

While Fligor admitted he wasinitially nervous being so close to the

border, he puts his trust in the MPsand the equipment they brought.

For the troops at CSC-Kuwait,the phone calls home are a realprivilege.

“I try to make a call once aweek,” Mize said. “This is like atreasure chest of gold when you canput your hands on it.”

SPC Petersen is a writer with the 11th

Signal Brigade Public Affairs, FortHuachuca, Ariz.

TEAMWORK STARTSMISSIONS, IMPROVESHANDBOOK

TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT,Pa—Innovation, dedication andplain hard work have earned severalemployee teams here TeamworkAwards.

Satellite CommunicationsSystems Directorate teams taskedwith standing up the MILSTAR andAir Force SATCOM missions

conducted repair and research torestore several automated testsystems, including:

• The Antenna PedestalAssembly Test Station had to bemoved due to workload require-ments.

Employees disassembled,moved, reassembled and tested thestation.

• Modular Automated TestEquipment Stations was in aninoperable condition.

A team spent the next 18months restoring the station to fulloperational ability. Work includedfabricating new cables and restoringsoftware and hardware. Tobyhannais the only military depot withdepot-level MATES systems.

• The Teradyne L-393 testsystem was also in an inoperablecondition. Employees conductedextensive research to restore thetester’s hardware and software.

• A team repaired the circuitcards and modules of the Interconti-

Members of Tobyhanna Army Depot’s Maverick Missile Guidance andControl Systems Section, Communications Security and Tactical MissileSystems Directorate, were presented with a Teamwork Award by depotcommander Col. Patricia E. McQuistion and American Federation ofGovernment Employees Local 1647 President Richard Joyce (a resident ofClarks Summit) for their efforts to set up repair of Maverick GCSs.Kneeling, from the left: John Shulenski, Tom Aleski, Gary Gardsy andDennis Pace. Standing: Rick Switzer, Steve Janiga, John Miles, WayneWatkin, McQuistion, Joyce, Mike Basta and Chuck Gorey. Missing: JimFoley, Dave Lynn and Kathleen Mooney. Several teams were presentedwith the awards on Feb. 21 for their efforts to improve work processes andefficiency.

Army Communicator 47

nental Ballistic Missile Super HighFrequency Satellite Terminal TestBed.

They developed and validatedtest procedures.

They also worked with theProduction Engineering Directorateand a contractor to develop andvalidate the test procedures for theEnhanced Link Simulator.

• Employees in the MaverickMissile Guidance and ControlSystems Section, CommunicationsSecurity and Tactical Missile Sys-tems Directorate, made the transitionof this workload from LetterkennyArmy Depot seamless to the cus-tomer.

They prepared and began themission in a short amount of time.

They also assisted in eliminat-ing a multi-year backlog of GCSswhile undergoing on-the-job trainingat Letterkenny Army Depot.

On their own initiative, theemployees cross-trained on severaldifferent test consoles, many earningcertificates in numerous areas of therepair process.

This benefited Tobyhanna inseveral ways, including providingvaluable flexibility once productionbegan and increasing the number ofcertified operators who could trainmore personnel.

Because of their outstandingaccomplishments, the Air ForceMaverick Program Office hascommitted to enhancingTobyhanna’s Maverick repaircapability.

In addition, other customershave indicated a desire to transfertheir related workload toTobyhanna.

• A Secretarial EmployeeInitiative Team assisted administra-tive personnel in the development ofa Secretarial Handbook.

The team reviewed processesused to administer and control alladministrative aspects of correspon-dence. They also reviewed currentcorrespondence regulations andcontacted employees to identifyareas for improvement and clarifica-tion of guidance. The handbookthey developed includes informa-tion, instructions and samples for

easy reference.The EIT conducted research to

ensure all information is current andin accordance with related regula-tions. The handbook is formatted foreasier addition of updates.

Tobyhanna Army Depot is theDefense Department’s largest centerfor the repair, overhaul and fabrica-tion of a wide variety of electronicssystems and components, fromtactical field radios to the groundterminals for the defense satellitecommunications network.Tobyhanna’s missions support allbranches of the Armed Forces.

About 3,200 personnel areemployed at Tobyhanna, which islocated in the Pocono Mountains ofnortheastern Pennsylvania.

Tobyhanna Army Depot is partof the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM).Headquartered at Fort Monmouth,N.J., CECOM’s mission is to re-search, develop, acquire, field andsustain communications, command,control computer, intelligence,electronic warfare and sensorscapabilities for the Armed Forces.

11 SOLDIERS FIRST TOGRADUATE FROMARMY DEPOT’S 35ECOURSEby Michele Yeager

TOBYHANNA ARMY DE-POT, Pa. — Tobyhanna ArmyDepot, one of only two militaryfacilities accredited to conductradio/communications securityrepairer training, held a ceremonyto recognize its first graduatingclass. The course is part of the 35EMilitary Occupational Skill Qualifi-cation.

Eleven soldiers completed the35E course at Tobyhanna’s HighTech Regional Training Site-Mainte-nance.

Each received a Certificate ofTraining and the U.S. OrdnanceCorps Certificate of RegimentalAffiliation from depot commanderCOL Patricia E. McQuistion duringthe ceremony, held April 11.

McQuistion, who previously

met with each of the studentsindividually, said she is particularlyproud of this accomplishment andspecifically asked to be part of thecelebration. “I’m extremely proud ofthis inaugural class that was notwithout pain and perseverance,” shesaid during her remarks. “This maybe a premiere course for Tobyhannabecause of our basis as a COMSECdepot.”

Because of Tobyhanna’sCOMSEC facility, the installation isqualified to conduct MOSQ trainingand repair COMSEC equipment forthe 35E MOS. Fort Gordon, Ga., isthe only other facility with similarcapabilities. Both are accredited bythe U.S. Army Training and DoctrineCommand.

“If not for the expertise andassistance of Tobyhanna’s COMSECpersonnel, we could not havecompleted this training,” said MAJRandy Riedy, HTRTS-M comman-dant. “They went above and beyondthe call of duty to assist us bysharing their skills and knowledge,and providing equipment andstorage space.”

Recognition and gratitude alsogoes to the HTRTS-M staff andinstructors, added CWO JamesManess, technical coordinator. “Ittook three years to get this programoff the ground,” he said during theceremony. “It was a long, hard roadand you all did an excellent job.”

After the conversion of the 29Eradio repairer MOS to 35E radio/COMSEC repairer, there wasn’t aProgram of Instruction for the newMOS, Maness explained. The POItook three years to develop.

The ceremony concluded withthe announcement of the distin-guished honor graduate, SGT. PaulA. Pavlich, of Detachment 3, 397thMaintenance Company (DirectSupport), Franfort, Ky., and honorgraduate SGT Timothy D. Winters,298th Combat Support Company,Detachment 1, Punxsutawney, Pa.

The HTRTS-M believes incontinuing improvements, said theinstructors, so they encouragedcomments and critiques from thesoldiers who completed this firstcourse. In the future, the training

48 Summer 2003

site plans to include depot civilianemployees in its 35E courses.

Ms. Yeager is assistant editor with theTobyhanna Army Depot Public AffairsOffice.

NEW SWITCH BEEFSUP DISN-E BACKBONEby Pat Connell and Doug Rasmussen

MANNHEIM, GERMANY -The U.S. Army cut a new telephoneswitch into service at CampbellBarracks, Heidelberg, Germany onFeb. 7, 2003, marking a majormilestone in the Defense InformationSystem Network-Europe switchmodernization project.

The Heidelberg Campbellswitch is one of three major U.S.military switches in Europe and oneof the seven switches that make upthe DISN-E switching backbone, thesuccessor to the 1980’s-era EuropeanTelephone System.

According to LTC SimonHolzman, the Army’s productmanager, Defense CommunicationsSystems - Europe, the DISN-E digitalswitches - state-of-the-art Siemensswitches, produced by Siemens AG -not only incorporate the latesttechnological advances, but are alsocapable of being certified for De-fense Services Networkinteroperability by the DefenseInformation Systems Agency JointInteroperability Test Command.

“The switching platformincorporates both European andNorth American features andstandards,” said Holzman, “allow-ing interoperability with the Euro-pean Integrated Services DigitalNetwork for commercial services. Italso can incorporate SignalingSystems 7, which is the cornerstonesignaling system of the evolvingDISN-E network.”

The DISN-E contract wascompetitively awarded to SiemensAG on March 4, 1999.Interoperability certification testingof the Siemens switch began inOctober 1999 on the initial softwareload. Subsequent software loadswere tested by the JITC, leading tofull certification of the current

Army. “Previously, three separateswitching systems were required toserve the Campbell Barracks com-munity,” said Courtney, “while thenew EWSD installation combinesthese services into a single platform -with expansion capabilities farbeyond anything previously avail-able.” As proof, Courtney ticked offimplementation details, including anew main distribution frameequipped for 23,000 cable pairs andcapable of terminating over 33,000cable pairs; a new Deutsche Telekompoint of presence, with upgradedfiberoptic equipment and Synchro-nous Digital Hierarchy technology;and a completely upgraded govern-ment owned transmission infrastruc-ture, with new fiberoptic andAsynchronous Transfer Modeswitching equipment. The moderninfrastructure includes new ATMswitches at Heidelberg Campbell,Heidelberg Patton, HeidelbergHammond, Schwetzingen,Germersheim and HeidelbergHospital.

In addition to the switch workat Heidelberg Campbell, Courtneysaid PM DCS-E provided 12 newconsoles to upgrade and update thetelephone attendant capabilities atHeidelberg, one of the major centersfor attendant service in Europe. PMDCS-E also upgraded the 5th SignalCommand Remote Operations andMaintenance Center at Heidelbergwith workstations connected to theSwitching Control Center NetworkManagement System, which pro-vides management oversight andcontrol of the installed base of EWSDswitches in Europe. The HeidelbergEWSD switch interfaces with theDISA Network Management system,allowing DISA network oversight.

PM DCS-E reports to theProject Manager, Defense Communi-cations and Army Switched Systems,located at Fort Monmouth, N.J.,which has the mission to provide thebackbone infrastructure for voice,data and video at Army posts campsand stations around the world. PMDCASS is part of the Fort Belvoir,Va.-headquartered Program Execu-tive Office for Enterprise Informa-tion Systems.

software release in October 2002.Holzman said the Army

cutover the first DISN-E switch atMannheim Funari in August 2000,and since then has cutover 17 moreSiemens switches into the DISN-Enetwork, in locations throughoutGermany and the Benelux countries,including the large multifunctionswitch serving HQ USEUCOM atPatch Barracks, Stuttgart, Germany.“The installation of the HeidelbergCampbell switch was two years inthe making and was successfullyaccomplished by a true teamingeffort by PM DCS-E, 43rd SignalBattalion, 5th Signal Command andSiemens,” said Holzman.

GREATLY EXTENDS DISN-ESWITCH NETWORK

The cutover of the Heidelbergswitch – which provides service to7th Army Headquarters, Headquar-ters U.S. Army Europe and NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization forcesstationed in the Heidelberg area –greatly extends the span of theDISN-E, said Tom Courtney, PMDCS-E Site Manager for HeidelbergCampbell. “The Heidelberg switchalso provides service to the Stabiliza-tion Force in Bosnia andHerzegovina and the Kosovo Force,”said Courtney. He added that theswitch is equipped to serve 5,000analog subscribers and 2,000 ISDNsubscribers and can be greatlyexpanded in the future; serves as agateway to switches throughoutEurope and CONUS, including theDefense Red Switch Network,NATO and tactical network gate-ways; and serves as the host switchfor four remote switching unitslocated in the Heidelberg area –which, in turn, collectively servemore than 3,900 analog subscribersand 900 ISDN subscribers in theHeidelberg area.

Courtney maintains that thePM DCS-E switch installation effort -combined with the efforts of 5thSignal Command to upgrade thesupporting telecommunicationsinfrastructure at Heidelberg -provides a “world class” switchingand telecommunications network forthe commander, USAREUR/7th

Army Communicator 49

Mr. Connell and Mr. Rasmussen arewriters with the Program ExecutiveOffice Enterprise InformationSystems,Defense Information SystemNetwork-Europe.

CAISI COME TO BATFOR COALITIONWARFIGHTERS IN IRAQby Stephen Larsen

FORT MONMOUTH, N.J. -When you have forces conducting21st century mobile warfare, withsupply chains stretching hundreds ofmiles as warfighters thunder for-ward – as is now happening in Iraq –how do you keep the warfighterssupplied with everything they need,from bullets to butter?

One way is with CAISI, theCombat Service Support AutomatedInformation Systems Interface, asecure, wireless local area networkthat provides “last-mile” connectiv-ity between combat service supportcomputers and their logistics basenetworks. CAISI, with 11Mb wire-less line of sight transmission,encryption on all wireless LAN linksand 2Mb Digital Subscriber Linebackup capability for non-LOSrequirements within a four miledistance, extends tactical connectiv-ity capability from the Theater levelto the Brigade Support Area, and isproviding traditionally-lackingcommunications for combat servicesupport missions such as supplychain management, maintenanceand business systems.

In support of Operation IraqiFreedom in Southwest Asia, CAISI isconnecting logisticians at a remoteammunition outpost to their basetwo miles away, allowing them basicInternet access and to automaticallydownload critical information backto the base - helping ensure thattroops get ammunition when theyneed it.

Before CAISI? According toJose Ilarraza, a logistics managementspecialist from the Combined ArmsSupport Command, Fort Lee, Va.,who is deployed in Southwest Asiaas part of the Automated LogisticsAssistance Team, previously the

remote ammunition outpost had torely on “sneaker net” - saving thedata on a disk and then walking ordriving to hand-deliver the disk tothe required location on base. Now,they can do it with a few keystrokesand use the power of the net toensure they have the latest, updatedinformation.

In another location, CAISIallowed coalition forces to wirelesslyconnect logisticians to a facility 3.5miles away, according to MAJForrest Burke, chief, logistics auto-mation with the Coalition ForcesLand Component Command inKuwait, saving four weeks installa-tion time, $40,000 in installationcosts and the need to obtain hostnation property clearances.

“CAISI is a tremendous value,in terms of less labor, reducedenvironmental impact of digging inwire and cost of lost wire,” said MAJBurke. “Plus, CAISI is allowing us tobe much more flexible in where weposition units, both in tactical andgarrison facilities.”

Accelerated fieldingAccording to MAJ Sal Fiorella,

assistant project manager, CAISIwith the Project Manager DefenseCommunications and Army Trans-mission Systems here, his team got

the call fromCFLCC in October,2002, to provide awireless CAISIsolution for coali-tion forces inSouthwest Asia. Hesaid they coordi-nated with unitsthat had prioritydue to deploymentschedules to pro-vide new equipmenttraining, thenstarted fielding inDecember, complet-ing the fielding inmid-March.

“I have a greatteam,” said MAJFiorella. “My teamwas able to adjustfire and be respon-sive to the customer.

We’re not only meeting the require-ments of the Coalition Forces LandComponent Command, but we’reworking with the AutomatedLogistics Assistance Team to ensureconnectivity for all standard Armymanagement information systems inTheater.”

MAJ Burke echoed thatthought. “Connectivity issues hereare the same as we went through inthe Balkans and before,” said MAJBurke. “A distinct network forSTAMIS is necessary.”

COL Lee Price, the ProjectManager Defense Communicationsand Army Transmission Systems, isproud of the way MAJ Fiorella andhis team have fielded CAISI.“Combat service support peopletraditionally haven’t gotten much inthe way of communications when abattle is ongoing because they don’tmove fast and they have a bigfootprint,” said MAJ Price.

“Now they have a tool.”Next, said MAJ Price, will be

satellite connectivity for CAISI,which is right in line with the April3 decision of Kevin Carroll, theprogram executive officer forEnterprise Information Systems, tomake PM DCATS responsible forthe acquisition of the proof ofconcept and end-state satellite

Helping keep Warfighters driving towards Baghdadsupplied with everything from bullets to butter isCAISI (foreground), the Combat Service SupportAutomated Information Systems Interface, a secure,wireless local area network that provides “last-mile”connectivity between combat service supportcomputers and their logistics base networks. Shownhere with CAISI is MAJ Sal Fiorella, assistant projectmanager CAISI, whose team accelerated fielding ofthe system.

50 Summer 2003

communications for all future PEOEIS system satellite connectivityrequirements. “We believe this is thebeginning of the synergies LTG(Peter) Cuviello (Army Chief Infor-mation Officer/G-6) aims to achieveby placing the emerging satelliterequirements with PM DCATS,”said Price.

The field is equally excited,according to MAJ Burke. “DivisionSupport Commands and CorpsSupport Commands are clamoringfor CAISI-SAT and are excited aboutwhat it will do for their customers inreduced customer wait time andflexibility in the battle space,” saidMAJ Burke.

“It’s coming,” said MAJFiorella. “It is next on our agenda.”

Mr. Larsen is a Public Affairs Officer,with Program Executive Office,Enterprise Information Systems at FortMonmouth, N.J.

SATELLITE TERMINALPROGRAM EARNS AMCPARTNERING SUCCESSAWARDby Stephen Larsen

FORT MONMOUTH, N.J. -The U.S. Army Materiel Commandhas honored the AN/GSC-52Modernization Program - a partner-ship of the Program ExecutiveOffice, Enterprise InformationSystems’ Project Manager forDefense Communications and ArmyTransmission Systems, HarrisCorporation and the U.S. ArmyCommunications-Electronics Com-mand - with its 2003 AMCPartnering Success Award.

GEN Paul J. Kern, command-ing general of AMC, presented theaward on April 29 to Vic Ferlise,deputy to the commanding general,CECOM, LTC Arthur Earl, productmanager, Defense Satellite Commu-nications System Terminals andTriscia Conti and Chris Buck ofHarris Corporation at the NationalDefense Industrial Association’sAtlanta XXIX conference, which wasco-sponsored by AMC and the Army

Acquisition Executive.According to Earl, the AN/

GSC-52 Modernization Program isextending the life of medium termi-nals - with 38-foot diameter dishantennas - and heavy satelliteterminals - with 60-foot diameterdish antennas - for 15 to 20 years.

“Despite its name,” Earl said,“under the program we’re modern-izing 39 AN/GSC-52 mediumterminals and also modernizingoperator consoles for 21 AN/GSC-39medium terminals and 22 AN/FSC-78 heavy terminals.” He added thatthe team has modernized 20 termi-nals to date, at sites includingBahrain and MacDill Air Force Base,Tampa, Fla., home of the U.S. StatesCentral Command, which is thecombatant commander for Opera-tion Iraqi Freedom.

“The main purpose of the AN/FSC-52 Modernization is to providethe warfighter reach back to commu-

nicate with the sustaining baseduring war or contingency opera-tions,” said Earl. “I’m proud that ourteam provided this support for ourtroops fighting in Iraq.”

COL Lee Price, project man-ager for Defense Communicationsand Army Transmission Systemsechoed that thought. “Strategicreachback is the most importantthing we do,” said Price, who addedthat a great deal of credit should goto Gerald Cristophe, PM DCATS’project leader for the program.

Christophe, an engineer withthe Space & Terrestrial Communica-tions Directorate of CECOM’sResearch, Development and Engi-neering Center who is “embedded”within PM DCATS, said the creditshould go to the members of thepartnership for their “trust andintegrity in working towards com-mon goals.” He cited Ted Kordower,contracting officer with CECOM’s

The U.S. Army Materiel Command has honored the AN/GSC-52Modernization Program - a partnership of the Program Executive Office,Enterprise Information Systems’ Project Manager for DefenseCommunications and Army Transmission Systems, Harris Corporationand the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command - with its 2003AMC Partnering Success Award. Under the program, PM DCATS isupgrading 39 AN/GSC-52 medium terminals (foreground of photo) andalso modernizing operator consoles for 21 AN/GSC-39 medium terminalsand 22 AN/FSC-78 heavy terminals (background of photo).

Army Communicator 51

Acquisition Center; Bob Riley,Triscia Conti, Chris Buck and TrudiLannon of Harris Corporation;Vernon Haney of Computer SciencesCorporation; and integrated processteam leaders Michael Jackson ofCECOM’s Logistics and ReadinessCenter, Ken Buergin of CECOM’sSoftware Engineering center, ChuLai of S&TCD and Joe Shields of PMDCATS.

“Thanks to their efforts, we metall program milestones and com-pleted all five separate first articletests on schedule,” said Cristophe.He added that their partneringhelped to develop and deliver“superior quality” software andinteractive electronic technicalmanuals and user-friendly operatorinterfaces.

“More important for thewarfighter,” Christophe said, “thecontractor delivered virtually everysystem ahead of schedule. Thepartnering parties responded torapidly-changing world events byadjusting schedules and reactingquickly.”

Mr. Larsen is a Public Affairs Officer,with Program Executive Office,Enterprise Information Systems at FortMonmouth, N.J.

DEPLOYABLECOMMUNICATIONSSYSTEM UNSNARLSPORT CARGO SNAFUSby Bob Fowler and Stephen Larsen

FORT MONMOUTH, N.J. –According to retired Army LTGWilliam G. “Gus” Pagonis, whomasterminded logistics during theGulf War, the easiest part of going towar is getting soldiers to the battle-field; the hardest part is gettinglogistics support to soldiers. Butthanks to new deployable command,control and computer systems, thetask of moving military cargothrough ports and sending it theright place – the mission of theMilitary Traffic and ManagementCommand - is becoming moremanageable.

These C4 systems, known as

the Multi-Media CommunicationsSystem are the heart of Mobile PortOperation Centers, which includetactical vehicles and support smallscale, short-duration contingencyoperations at secondary ports, andshelterized versions calledDeployable Port Operations Centers,used for major or regional conflicts.

MPOCs and DPOCs providethe C4 systems MTMC requires tocontrol cargo moving through ports -to identify it and report it to thevarious intransit visibility systems inDepartment of Defense - accordingto Corrina Panduri, project leaderwith the Product Manager, DefenseWide Transmission Systems. PMDWTS, which reports to the ProjectManager Defense Communicationsand Army Transmission Systemsand is part of the Program ExecutiveOffice, Enterprise InformationSystems, is providing the commer-cial-off-the-shelf MMCS suite toMTMC.

Panduri said MPOCs andDPOCs are basically “mobile MTMCoffices” that provide the sameinformation technology capabilitiesMTMC personnel have at their homestations – the Worldwide PortSystem; the Integrated Computer-

ized Deployment System; an Ex-change Server with e-mail andinternet access; and the MMCScommunications module, whichprovides satellite access (viaINMARSAT, the InternationalMarine/Maritime Satellite, forMPOC and FTSAT, the FlyawayTriband Satellite Terminal, forDPOC) so they can tap intoNIPRNET (Unclassified but Sensi-tive Internet Protocol Router Net-work) and SIPRNET (Secret InternetProtocol Router Network )andprovide cargo status reports.

WHY MMCS?During Operation Desert

Storm, the United States movedmore than 40,000 containers to thetheater of operations. You don’t haveto be a logistician to realize that,with a paper-based supply systemand that many containers in theater,the biggest bottleneck in the logisticspipeline was right where the sup-plies came off the ships – in theports.

“More than half of the cargocontainers in theater were filled with“mystery” items,” said Panduri.“Nobody knew where theses items -including more than $2.7 billion

Pictured above is a Mobile Port Operation Center – which includes a HighMobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) and tent housing theMulti-Media Communications System (inset). The MPOC and MMCS helpthe Military Traffic Management Command keep track of cargo movingthrough ports via the same information technology capabilities MTMCpersonnel have at their home stations.

52 Summer 2003

5TH SIGNAL COMMANDGENERAL PINS ONSECOND STARby Danny M. Johnson

MARS GRAMS SENDMESSAGES TODEPLOYED SOLDIERSby Denise Allen

FORT GORDON, Ga. — Whilethe Internet and email have gainedin popularity as means of communi-cations, Edwin Dodson has a love foran older technology.

“I’m retired Army. My fatherwas a radio amateur, and I grew upin it,” said Dodson, a JohnsonControls employee who is a volun-teer radio operator with the ArmyMilitary Affiliate Radio System orMARS.

When Dodson was in theArmy during the Vietnam War,MARS was vital to getting messagesthrough to deployed service mem-

LEADER TRANSITIONS

dollars in spares - were supposed togo.”

Add to that the fact that thecommunications infrastructure insome ports is lacking and you get asense that finding items in the mazeof pallets and containers could belike searching for the proverbialneedle in the haystack.

Now, thanks to MPOCs,DPOCs and MMCS, along with newtechnological advances, such ashandheld scanners and radiofrequency identification tags –fielded by PEO EIS’ Product Man-ager, Automatic IdentificationTechnology - on every air pallet andcargo container, logisticians can keeptrack of cargo every step of the way.

“With MMCS, we can provideimmediate information on thelocation and status of the containersand their contents,” said Panduri.“This Web-based tracking systemallows personnel working at theMPOC, as well as unit supplypersonnel, to determine exactlywhere a given shipment is locatedand accurately predict a deliverydate.”

The goal is total asset visibility– “and no more mystery containers,”said Panduri.

Mr. Fowler and Mr. Larsen work withthe Program Executive Office,Enterprise Information Systems.

bers. “In 1969 in Vietnam, we didn’t

have phones,” he said. MARS grams, like telegrams,

were relayed via the radio fromfamily members to service members.

MARS grams are still avail-able; however, with email communi-cation and widely available phonecards that service members have,MARS grams aren’t used as much asthey once were.

“A lot of the older folks whohad heard of MARS are surprisedwe are still here,” said Ed Butovjac,another Johnson Controls employeeand MARS volunteer operator.“We’ve just turned down a differentroad.”

Today one of MARS’ focuses ison the homeland, said Dodson.

In the event of a naturaldisaster such as a flood or tornado,communication lines might be lost.MARS operators could fill thecommunication gap between hospi-tals and emergency managementagencies.

MARS operators have estab-lished relationships with the FederalEmergency Management Agencyand the Georgia Emergency Man-agement Agency. They’ve also beenincluded in the last three SignalCorps Grecian Firebolt exercises.

There are about 5,000 volun-teer MARS operators in the ArmyMARS program. The Navy andMarines have a combined MARSprogram and the Air Force has itsown MARS program. MARS is aDepartment of Defense sponsoredprogram and is headquartered atFort Huachuca, Ariz.

To find out more about MARSor to send a MARS gram, visit theorganization’s website atwww.gamars.org.

Ms. Allen is a staff writer for FortGordon’s The Signal newspaper.

MANNHEIM, Germany –Another milestone in the history ofthe U.S. Army Signal Corps wasachieved when BG MarilynQuagliotti became the first femalesignal soldier to pin on the rank ofmajor general.

GEN B.B. Bell, commander U.S.Army Europe and Seventh Armyand BG Quagliotti’s husband,Gregory, pinned on her second starin a ceremony held Feb. 6. Her dateof rank was Feb. 1.

“This is a festive moment,”said Bell after promoting BGQuagliotti. “She is at the top of herprofession. It’s all about achievingthis most special place.”

MG Quagliotti now serves asthe deputy director for operations(D3) for Defense Information Sys-tems Agency in Washington, D.C.

“There has been a fundamentalshift in 5th Signal Command in thelast three to four years,” said GEN

Bell in his introductory remarks.“The Balkans was disconnected. Theinformation sphere has improvedthere.”

Speaking about how importantinformation is in the military, GENBell said, “Information is an elementof combat power as a tank and anartillery round are,” said GEN Bellon the importance of information inthe military.

Network Operations, known asNETOPS, in the field has become amodel for use in the Armed Forcesthanks to MG Quagliotti said GENBell. She has made a difference inher unit and the community.

When asked to sum up herfeelings on the new promotion MG

GEN B.B. Bell, commander U.S.Army Europe and Seventh Armyand BG Quagliotti’s husband,Gregory, pinned on MG Quagliotti’ssecond star.

Army Communicator 53

Quagliotti said, “I am here todaybecause of all the people I haveserved with and met in the Armyover the years. I learned somethingfrom all of them. It’s been an honorand privilege to serve with them.”

BG Carroll F. Pollett replacedMG Quagliotti as the commander of5th Signal Command.

Mr. Johnson is the chief of PublicAffairs, Headquarters, 5th SignalCommand.

CIO’S CAREER SPANSTHE DRAFT, ALL-VOLUNTEER ARMYBy Joe Burlas

WASHINGTON — Thebiggest difference between the ArmyLTG Peter Cuviello joined as asecond lieutenant in 1969 and theArmy he left is the quality andprofessionalism of its people,Cuviello said.

Cuviello retired from activeservice July 3 in the top SignalRegiment position in the Army asthe Army chief information officer/G6.

“When I joined the Army, therewas no choice (about militaryservice) — either you joined or youwere drafted; I joined,” Cuviellosaid. “When you were in the Armyback then, you were in with a lot ofpeople who just didn’t want to bethere. If you tried to talk aboutteamwork, commitment or some-thing like Army values, it just didn’twork.

“Today we have a volunteerforce with people who want tosucceed and who truly live the Armyvalues in all that they do everyday.”

Another significant difference,Cuviello noted, is that today’s Armyhas the backing of the Americanpeople, compared to the low regardmany Americans held for those inuniform during the Vietnam War.

Looking back over the past 34years, Cuviello said he neverplanned to make the Army a career,but there always seemed to be onemore interesting opportunity just onthe horizon. And while he said hewould love to stay in uniform, the

G6 also said to do so would be adisservice to a chain of people whoare ready to move up to positions ofincreased responsibility.

And people, Cuviello said,specifically the soldiers and Depart-ment of the Army civilians that haveworked for him, will be the legacy heleaves the Army.

“I spent my time in the Armytrying to be a people-oriented typeof leader,” Cuviello said. “Managingis important in the informationtechnology field, but you leadpeople -– ensuring the right people,with the right skills and the rightattitudes, are there to get the jobdone. I hope that everyone whofollows in my footsteps, and I don’tmean just the next G6, but those whopass through the ranks, lead.

“If everyone does that at eachlevel, and they pass that people-oriented leadership mantle on tothose who work for them, the Armywill be in great shape.”

Cuviello has held leadershippositions from platoon to brigadeand served as the chief signal officerand commanding general for theArmy Signal Center prior to his finalassignment as CIO/G6 of the Army.

During his last week on activeduty, the general gave advice forsuccess for those starting a career inthe Army:

—Focus on being competent inthe job you have; don’t immediatelyplan for a career with the goal ofbecoming the sergeant major or chiefof staff of the Army.

—Seek leadership positions.—Seek jobs that lead toward

your goals –- some of those jobs maybe tough, be prepared to work hard.

—Don’t depend on others tomanage your career -– you are yourbest career manager.

—Once you meet a goal, don’trest in place -– keep on trucking.

—Take care of yourself physi-cally, mentally, spiritually andmorally.

—Take care of your peoplewhen in leadership positions.

—Enjoy what you do.LTG Steven Boutelle, formerly

G6 director of Information Opera-tions, Space and Networks is thenew CIO/G6 of the Army sinceCuviello’s retirement.

Mr. Burlas is a writer with the ArmyNews Service, Washington, D.C.

LTG Peter Cuviello, retired fromactive service July 3.

GERSTEIN MADEIMPACT ON 93D SIGNALBRIGADE

FORT GORDON, Ga. – Aftertwo outstanding years, COL DanGerstein relinquished command of93rd Sig. Bde., Fort Gordon, Ga., onJuly 25, 2003. Gerstein also steppeddown from his roles as the U.S.Army South’s G6 (informationofficer) in Puerto Rico and the ArmySignal Activity’s Director of Infor-mation Management, located inMiami.

Prior to taking command of the93d, Gerstein was the Army’sdeputy director for Army Transfor-mation in the G-3 Directorate.

“When I found out I was goingto the 93d, I was very excited,” saidGerstein. “The 93rd had a greatreputation and very few signalofficers get a chance to command atactical signal brigade.

“I wanted to focus on the warfighting aspects of our jobs and theindividual soldiering skills,” saidGerstein. “So, we developed and

54 Summer 2003

implemented a commandvision based on tough,realistic training; takingcare of soldiers and fami-lies, and building esprit.The idea was to train hardso that we could save livesin a real world situation,which resulted in theSituational TrainingExercise.”

LTC Stephen Jurinko,former 93d Signal Brigade,deputy commander,arrived in September 2000,making him one of the fewsoldiers to have seen,firsthand, how Gersteintransformed the brigade byimplementing his trainingphilosophy of tough,realistic training.

“Before he came on board, weboth sat down and talked, and heasked what I felt the brigade neededto work on,” said Jurinko. “We wereboth of the same mindset—we (thebrigade) were a tactical unit thatwasn’t tactical enough. We bothagreed that we had a huge responsi-bility to prepare our soldiers to go towar.

“It’s easier to be tough andhave the soldiers go out there andfind out that the real thing is easierthan it was during training,” saidJurinko. “We have a responsibility tomake sure that they come home totheir families. The only way to dothat is to recreate the scenariosduring the Situational TrainingExercises that they would experi-ence in combat.”

CSM Paul E. Scandrick, formercommand sergeant major of the 93dSignal Brigade, arrived in December2000. When Gerstein arrived, theydiscussed how to build the “will towin” in the brigade’s soldiers. Gerstein and Scandrick both be-lieved that an effective brigadedepended on the squads, sectionsand teams having the motivationand training to achieve a combatready state. Both believed that itwas crucial to place trust in the NCOleadership to train their soldiers, atthe lowest level; provide toughstandards, and then to assess the

training to ensure compliance.LTC Steven Ingwersen, the 93d

Signal Brigade security officer, alsoarrived just after Gerstein and beforeSept. 11.

“COL Gerstein has a greattraining philosophy—it has beenproven time and again, and whenour soldiers were deployed tosupport the war on terrorism afterthe attacks on Sept. 11,” Ingwersensaid. “He’s very demanding, but hisdemands are within reason. Whenyou listen to what he says andunderstand the intent, then you canattain great things.”

Besides training, one of theareas where Gerstein has had themost impact is in relations with alliesin the Latin America and Caribbeanareas of operation. Gerstein hasplayed a crucial role in structuringthe Latin American-CaribbeanConference that has been heldannually at Fort Gordon and improv-ing interoperability and cross-bordercommunications between the UnitedStates and countries throughout theregion.

Along with MG Luis AlbertoPozzi, director of Communicationsand Information Systems (G-6),Argentine Army, Gerstein pioneereda major command, control, commu-nications and computersinteroperability initiative betweenthe two countries. Through thisinitiative, the two armies conducted

an exercise in which the93d Signal Brigade pro-vided Defense ServiceNetwork, commercializedInternet service provider,and video teleconferencingdirectly to Argentina usingan Argentine Armysatellite terminals linked tothe brigade’s TheaterNetwork OperationsSecurity Control Center.

“We have been verysuccessful interfacing withthe Argentine Army,” saidMike Roman, operationschief. “We have it downnow to where we can do itas a routine operation fromour TNOSC, and moreimportantly, we have

demonstrated a capability toprovide C4 (command, control,cmmunications and computerSupport) services to the coalitionarmies.”

Likewise, the Andean RidgeC4 Conference, which Gerstein co-hosted with his Colombian counter-part, COL Alvaro Viveros, facili-tated cross-border communicationsbetween the countries of the AndeanRidge, to include Colombia, Peru,Panama, Bolivia and Ecuador. Thisinitiative resulted directly in C4cooperation at the strategic, opera-tional and tactical levels. Armies ofthe region now can communicate inreal time based on the work doneduring this conference. In addition,the methodology that was devel-oped has been broadened to includecooperation in other key areas,including logistics.

Gerstein has also played a vitalrole in advancing the technologicalcapabilities of the 93d SignalBrigade.

“This brigade has madetremendous progress in acquiringand assimilating cutting-edgetechnology into its operations,” saidLTC Paul LaDue, battalion com-mander, 67th Signal Battalion. “Hehas been the driving force behindthe technological achievements,which run the gamut from Interna-tional Mobile Satellite Organizationphones to the data packages, and

COL Dan Gerstein (left), 93rd Signal Brigade, brigadecommander, discusses field site layout issues withCPT Brian Tidwell, former commander of B Company,67th Signal Battalion, during a situational trainingexercise.

Army Communicator 55

the commercial satellite service toColombia, LaDue said.

“This brigade has becomerelevant on the battlefield todaybecause of the investments made intechnology. In addition to procuringnew, commercial off-the-shelfequipment, like the Promina multi-plexors, we have also upgraded ourexisting military equipment toinclude installing the enhancedtactical satellite signal processors inevery brigade multichannelTACSAT (tactical satellite) to doublethe number of links that we caninstall.”

Finally, Gerstein’s concern forsoldiers is embodied in the numer-ous garrison improvements madeduring his command. There havebeen several improvements to thebrigade’s billets, dining facility, animproved Lightning Universityfacility, and many enhancements tothe brigade’s Gym 3.

Current renovation projectshave improved quality of life andthe overall work environmentincluding an old dining facilitywhich was renovated and nowhouses 56th Signal Battalion head-quarters and 63d and 67th SignalBattalion operations.

COL Gerstein relinquishedcommand of the 93rd to COLNathaniel Smith.

OF INTEREST

SIGNAL CENTERWELCOMES NEWMUSEUM DIRECTOR

by Steve Brady and Bob Anzuoni

FORT GORDON, Ga. – TheSignal Corps Museum commemo-rated the D-Day Invasion June 6with a display of different communi-cation devices used by the corpsduring World War II.

Bob Anzuoni, the new museumdirector, said he wanted the displayto show the Signal perspectiveduring the time.

There were many differenttypes of communication devices

including whistles that could beheard above the gunfire, the ‘cricket’clicking device and others, he said.Wired and wireless telephones,lights, flags and other devices werealso part of the display marking the59th anniversary of D-Day.

“I wanted to recognize theanniversary of the Normandyinvasion,” he said. “It was a largeoperation and a lot of people losttheir lives. I wanted something thatwould reflect the sacrifice of thosetroops. And since I am new here, itgave me the opportunity to have asmall event I could organize fairlyquickly.”

Robert Anzuoni arrived to fillthe position that had been vacant forsix months. He has already begun totake the museum in a new direction.

The mission of the museum isto preserve the history and materialculture of the Signal Corps, and toeducate the soldiers and leadersabout those traditions.

The director serves as thecoordinator for all the museumactivities, such as collections man-agement and exhibits, to ensure they

are conducive to soldier training.“As the director, I provide the

command with a historical trainingfacility. Even though Signal is ahigh-tech field now, history can berelevant for training today’s Signalsoldiers. The museum provides anatmosphere in which the soldier canreflect on the humble beginnings ofthe Signal Corps and see the techno-logical progression of Army commu-nication from flags and torches tocomputers and satellites. Moresignificantly, the soldiers see thesacrifices made by those who wentbefore them.”

Anzuoni said he plans toupdate and restructure the exhibitgalleries to create a classroom andimprove the storyline flow. Theclassroom will be a Regimental roomin the center of the exhibit space. Theroom will serve both as a place ofinstruction for advanced individualtraining students and a tool to buildesprit-de-corps among Signalsoldiers. The new exhibit arrange-ment will serve better to guidesoldiers and visitors through the richhistory of the Signal Corps. Side

Bob Anzuoni, (right to left) museum director, shows LTC Ronald Tilly,French liaison officer, and MAJ Bob Adamczyk, Canadian liaison officer,examples of old Signal equipment Friday. Anzuoni was dressed in an M-1942 paratrooper uniform like the ones used during the Normandyinvasion. June 6 marked the 59th anniversary of D-Day.

56 Summer 2003

galleries will tell the story of unitswhich trained at Fort Gordon duringWWII.

Anzuoni also said he wants toimprove outreach and volunteerprograms. Outreach programs canbring the Signal story to more thanwould normally visit the museum.

Making use of volunteersallows more programs and offersmembers of the community, militaryand civilian, to participate in some-thing they enjoy doing. He wouldalso like to see more donations fromSignal soldiers who have partici-pated in recent operations. “Today’smissions are tomorrow’s history,” hesaid.

“We have to collect headgear,uniforms, footgear, and other itemsused by our soldiers today, before itis too late.”

A former paratrooper with the505th Parachute Infantry Regiment,82nd Airborne Division, Anzuonicomes to Fort Gordon after ten yearsat the 82nd Airborne Division Mu-seum. He has served as a member ofthe U.S. Army Center of MilitaryHistory Certification InspectionTeam. He also served as adjunctfaculty for a community college anda contributing editor to AirbourneMagazine.

Anzuoni holds a B.A. inAmerican Studies from StonehillCollege and an M.A. in History andArchival Methods from the Univer-sity of Massachusetts at Boston.

If you would like to volunteerto be a museum docent, livinghistory interpreter, greeter, or doother volunteer work, or if you haveitems to donate, please contact thedirector by telephone at (706) 791-4793 or by e-mail atanzuonir@gordon.army.mil.

Mr. Brady is the editor of The Signalnewspaper at Fort Gordon, Ga.

WHITE HONORS THOSEKEEPING THE FORCEMANNEDby Joe Burlas

WASHINGTON — To a man,this year’s top recruiters, career

counselors and retention noncom-missioned officers agreed that whilethey were honored and humbled tobe selected as the best in their fields,they are only representative oftoday’s superb workforce that keepsthe Army fully manned.

Secretary of the ArmyThomasE. White recognized sixmembers of that workforce during aPentagon awards ceremony April 3.

Honorees were: SFC ShaneWentz, active-Army career counse-lor of the year; SFC Mark Gearing,Army Reserve career counselor ofthe year; SFC Thomas Downs,active-Army recruiter of the year;SSG Calvin Lamont, Army Reserverecruiter of the year; SSG TeranceAnderson, Army Reserve retentionNCO of the year; and SFC BarryBond, Army National Guard recruit-ing and retention NCO of the year.

SFC Wentz, a member of theNetwork Enterprise TechnologyCommand/9th Army Signal Com-mand, has been stationed in Kuwaitfor six months, and returned to theCentral Command area of operationsApril 5.

“I had real mixed emotionsabout coming back for the cer-emony,” SFC Wentz said. “Of courseit is nice to see my wife, but I need tobe there supporting the troops andwhat is going on over there.”

The other sergeants echoedSFC Wentz’s remarks, saying theirthoughts and prayers were withthose actively engaged in OperationIraqi Freedom and “The real heroesare over there, not us sitting here inthis room.”

“What we have done to gethere pales in comparison to whatour troops are doing over in Iraq,”said SSG Anderson, 89th RegionalSupport Command, Wichita, Kan.

SFC Gearing, working withsoldiers leaving active duty fromEighth Army, Korea, said his biggestchallenge in getting them to considerthe Army Reserve was a sense ofburnout.

“Soldiers work hard and whentheir tours are up, they want toreturn home and relax,” SFC Gear-ing said. “They see how much thereserve component is used around

the world. But, people want to be apart of something bigger thanthemselves and to make a difference.The reserves can give them that.”

The three recruiters of the yearsaid the biggest challenges theyfaced were getting their foot in thedoor and clearly demonstrating themany opportunities the Army offersas something real and attainable.

SFC Downs, working out of theJacksonville, Fla. Recruiting Battal-ion, said a big part of his success hasbeen persistence. He spoke about theyear he spent keeping in contactwith Justin Molotzak as the youngman drifted between part-time jobs.Molotzak is now out of militarypolice training and assigned toEighth Army. He will attend the U.S.Military Preparatory School, FortMonmouth, N.J., next school year.

For SFC Lamont, from theDallas Recruiting Battalion, Denton,Texas, success in recruiting meansfinding out what potential recruitswant in life and then showing themexactly how the Army can helpachieve their goals. Some want acollege education; others job skills;and some, travel opportunities, SFCLamont said.

All of the honorees agreedhonesty was critical in establishingand maintaining relationships withrecruits, soldiers and their families.

Another point of agreementwas each of their successes could nothave been possible without a sup-portive and understanding wife.

“I spend a lot of hours at nightgetting the job done because that isoften the only time potential recruitsand their parents can meet with me,”SFC Downs said. “My wife runs thehousehold — taking care of the kids,watching over the finances andcooking the meals. I would not bewhere I am today without hersupport.”

Mr. Burlas is a writer with the Army NewsService.

NETCOM TRANSITIONTEAM WINS AWARD

FORT HUACHUCA, Ariz. --Army Transformation is not justabout new weapons systems; it’s

Army Communicator 57

Team members include: Larry McKenzie(G8) -lead, Elizabeth Patten (G3),Steve Saway (G8), Michael Stephany (G3), Neil Hains (G3), Joe Griego (G8),Cheryl Griego (G8), Debbie Pool (G8), Tom Skinner (G8), Linda Guinter(G8), Mary Holte (G8), Hanna Hooper (G8), Marybeth Slauenwhite (G3),Marie Hayward (G3), Linda Buetow (G3), Linda Howard (G3), John Gonzalez(G8), Belinda Stoll (G8), and Victoria Kiser (G8).

more time for negotiating with theappropriate major commands totransfer these authorizations toNETCOM and it would have madethe whole process of documentingand receiving approval on theseactions from DA less stressful.”

“It would have also benefitedthe Fort Huachuca based teammembers who were developingcomprehensive concept plans. Thescope of the task was very broad andrequired a lot of networking, saidCheryl Griego, another team mem-ber. “It included the transformationof the Army Signal Commandheadquarters and reorganization ofone of its major subordinate com-mands, U.S. Army Networks Engi-neering and Technology Activity.We were tasked with using theseassets to create a superstructure thatmet the dictates of the secretary ofthe Army’s reorganization guid-ance,” she added.

“Other operational missionstook priority after 9-11,” saidElizabeth Patten, who was also amember of the team. “We wereintensely involved in fighting thewar on terrorism in the fall of 2001so we ended up with only about 10months to actually make everythinghappen. Normally changes like thisspend years in the planning phases.We took the senior leadership’s

vision for NETCOM and with inputfrom the entire staff, and lots of hardwork by the team, we designed thenew organization.”

“Regional offices were plannedin the continental U.S. to collocatewith the Army’s new installationmanagement regional directors.Staffing documents for all majorArmy commands were reviewed toidentify the spaces needed to staffthese new regional informationoffices,” said Mike Stephany,another team member.

“Every authorization in theASC headquarters was reviewedand evaluated. We reassigned officespace and people. We formed a newsubcommand called the EnterpriseSystems Technology Activity,” saidteam leader, Larry McKenzie. “Thenew NETCOM began emergingfrom all this analysis and planning.It was crafted from the core organi-zations of the Army Signal Com-mand, the IT authorizations gar-nered from other major Armycommands and the operationaldirectorates transferred from theCIO/G6.”

“It really started comingtogether last summer,” McKenziesaid. “We had enough authoriza-tions and funding to begin imple-menting the plan. The mounds offorms and information papers the

about restructuring how the Armydoes business. A team of 19 Depart-ment of the Army civilians knowsfirst hand how much work restruc-turing can be.

Known as the NETCOMTransition team, they are all employ-ees of the newly created NetworkEnterprise Technology Command atFort Huachuca, Ariz. They willreceive the American Society ofMilitary Comptroller’s MeritoriousTeam Achievement Award at theASMC Professional DevelopmentInstitute in New Orleans, May 30.This award is presented annually toa Department of Defense teambrought together temporarily toperform a specific task.

Nominated by NETCOM’sassistant chief of staff, G8 (resourcemanagement), the NETCOM Transi-tion Team is being honored fordeveloping the organizationalconstructs for the headquarters,Army Signal Command, portion ofthe secretary of the Army’s directiveto restructure information manage-ment. NETCOM, the Army’s firstDirect Reporting Unit, was createdfrom elements of the Army SignalCommand, elements of the ChiefInformation Office/G6 (command,control, communications, andcomputer systems staff office) andadditional manpower resourcesidentified for transfer from otherinformation technology organiza-tions throughout the Army.

“It was December 2001 beforewe got to sit down and get startedwith the very tedious and verydetailed work of analyzing man-power spreadsheets, identifyingauthorizations and dollars to createthe new enterprise-level command,”said Debbie Pool, a team member.

“A lot was accomplished in alittle bit of time. The operation wasoriginally scheduled to begin inSeptember 2001,” said JohnGonzalez, who was part of theNational Capital Region teamelement. “This would have giventhe members of the team a wholeyear to complete the daunting taskof identifying IT manpower authori-zations and associated dollarsArmywide. It would have allowed

58 Summer 2003

JWID LEADS THE WAYTO INTEROPERABILITYby Michael A. Brown Sr.

HAMPTON, Va. (NNS) —Coalition interoperability is a vitalcapability in today’s worldwideoperations, according to officials atthe Joint Staff and at the DefenseInformation Systems Agency.

That’s why the annual JointWarrior Interoperability Demonstra-tion and its focus on command andcontrol, communications and

NETCOM transition committeegenerated and pushed to headquar-ters DA were getting approved. Wesaw light at the end of the tunnel.Then, Aug. 13, 2002, a general orderwas signed creating NETCOM. Theteam had done its job. We wereofficial.”

“Hours were long and it wasquite different for me,” said teammember Marie Hayward. ‘It was thefirst time I worked at that echelon. Itwas a great time to learn aboutteamwork and be able to do some-thing for the Army.”

“I’ve been here thirteen years,”said team member Linda Howard.“The information technology arenahas been in transformation thewhole time. For me, this missionwas just another ‘new pair of tapshoes.’ I expect I will see morechanges before I retire.”

Team member Cheryl Griegosummed it up this way: “LastOctober, during the official cer-emony redesignating Army SignalCommand as the core organizationof NETCOM, I felt some deepemotion. I knew it meant somethingvery different to me than it wouldhave if I had not been a member ofthis team. I knew what kind ofteamwork - what kind of effort - hadgone into the creation of this newcommand. It was a good feeling.”

“We owe a debt of gratitude toevery employee who worked on thistransition, said MG James C. Hylton,NETCOM’s commander. I amthrilled that this transition team isbeing honored for the outstandingcontribution they made to thiseffort.”

gate C4 solutions that focus onselected core objectives.

The demonstration is con-ducted over the Combined Feder-ated Battle Laboratories Networkand features assessment of morethan 46 coalition interoperabilitytrials at operating sites around theworld. Coalition partners conducttheir own interoperability trials andassessments.

JWID is conducted in a simu-lated operational environment toprovide context for warfightervalidation of C4 solutions. Each CITwill receive a comprehensiveassessment. Depending on the CIT,the assessment may include awarfighter, technical and/or asecurity assessment.

JWID is conducted over aworldwide secure research anddevelopment network. A keyobjective of JWID 2003 is to investi-gate how to provide multiple levelsof security on the network asoutlined in specified objective areas.

Six core objectives covermultiple levels of security, logistics,language translation tools, situ-ational awareness, coalition networkvulnerability assessment capabilityand core network services.

“Each objective is a refinementor restatement of an underlying U.S.combatant command, CombinedCommunications Electronics Boardnation or NATO nation require-ment,” according to Brown. “TheCITs seek to demonstrate a capabil-ity to improve or even establish acapability in support of one or moreof the objectives.”

Mr. Brown works with the DefenseInformation Systems Agency.

computer (C4) solutions is especiallyimportant in 2003.

Rear Adm. Nancy E. Brown,vice director of Command, Control,Communications and ComputerSystems Joint Staff, saidinteroperability is absolutely essen-tial to allow information superiorityto evolve and grow.

“We must continue to fieldsystems that are conceived and borninteroperable,” she said. “Themilitary services are providingfunding to allow warfighters toassess the technologies. Our com-bined operations in Afghanistan andother worldwide locations will beusing JWID developed products, likethe defense collaboration tool suite.”

JWID focuses on “CoalitionInteroperability, the 21st CenturyWarfighter’s Environment.” Thechallenge is to define solutions tointeroperability issues; ensure thosesolutions can be applied to theoperational community; and enablea standard solution for informationsharing between coalition partners.

In addition, JWID will featureinformation exchange across mul-tiple domains, a critical capability inthe global war on terrorism.

The U.S. Pacific Command,Camp Smith, Hawaii, is the host,and DISA, in Arlington, Va., is thelead agency for the event.

Additional U.S. sites includethe Naval Surface Warfare Center,Dahlgren, Va.; SPAWAR SystemsCenter, San Diego; and ElectronicSystems Center, Hanscom Air ForceBase, Mass.

“One of our key operatingprinciples is that interoperabilityshould be built in, not bolted on,”said Brig. Gen. Carroll F. Pollett,DISA principal director for opera-tions and commander, DISA globaloperations. “JWID will lead the wayto more effective operations, like aroad map. We all need a road map,because interoperability should notbe an afterthought, ...something wetry to incorporate after a system isfielded.”

This annual Chairman of theJoint Chiefs of Staff event enablesU.S. combatant commands and theinternational community to investi-

SEMINAR DEVELOPSJOINT OPERATINGENVIRONMENTby Jim Caldwell

FORT MONROE, Va. The firstactions to develop a shared vision ofthe world’s future military environ-ment for the United States armedforces were taken at a first annualJoint Operational Environmentseminar in Williamsburg cohosted by

Army Communicator 59

“We can inform our experimen-tation and exercises and ask ourselvessome really tough questions, such asdo we have the right doctrine?”

“This will have to be updated atleast annually, so if we’re successfulin getting the Joint OperationalEnvironment rolling the way we’dlike to, we anticipate we’ll be doingthis again next year and years tocome.”

COL Bob Johnson, the FutureWarfare Director for TRADOC’sDeputy Chief of Staff for Doctrine,Concepts and Strategy, is one of theinterested customers.

“One of the emerging insightscoming out of Iraqi Freedom is thatthe work that DCSINT has alreadydone on the operational environmentis right on the mark,” Johnson said.“Their description of the environmentwas that the enemy will not want tostand and fight you in the conven-tional sense. What he will want to dois attack you in those places whereyou are vulnerable.”

The TRADOC OE said that Iraqiopposition would attack the longsupply line supporting the 3d InfantryDivision’s rapid advance towardBaghdad.

“That part of the environmentwas right,” Johnson said.

The JOE serves as the basis forwhich training and experimentationfor current and future environmentsis conducted. Johnson pointed outthat the training goals and scenariosat the National Training Center, FortIrwin, Calif. and the Joint ReadinessTraining Center, Fort Polk, La., werethe result of the DCSINT operationalenvironment. The JOE will soonbecome the important document forthose activities.

The DCSINT operationalenvironment was key to creatingscenario for Unified Quest 03, awargame at Carlisle Barracks, Pa., inwhich TRADOC and JFCom werecodirectors this spring. It was the firsttime an Army wargame took on ajoint aspect. Johnson is responsiblefor staging the game.

Unified Quest 04 is scheduledfor May 2-7, 2004. By that time, theJOE will allow all the services’operational environment products to

reflect a shared view of the future.To develop the JOE, JFCOM and

TRADOC officials invited to theseminar active and retired militarypersonnel and noted individuals invarious fields of study and applica-tion.

Some of the individuals hadpreconceived thoughts about whatmay happen.

“The seriousness with which theArmy has undertaken this effort tomake this joint was sort of unexpectedfor us,” said retired Rear Adm. EricMcVadon, an independent consultanton East Asia security affairs.

“What will our combat forcesface in the future? There are no easy,glib answers to that. So this is truly aserious effort for the Army and theJoint Forces Command to step backand take a look at that whole situa-tion.”

Dennis Bushnell, chief scientistat the National Air and Space Admin-istration Langley Research Center,noted the depth of the seminarinvestigations.

“We’re in the midst of a veryrapid global technological set ofrevolutions in IT (information tech-nology), bio (biological) and nano(nanotechnology) and these willchange the operational environmenttremendously. This study is, in fact,looking into these changes.”

Robert Engelman, vice presidentof research for Population ActionInternational, said that based on hisexperience he initially thought theworking groups were too large to beeffective. At the end he had changedhis mind.

“It’s been a very impressiveprocess,” he said. “I think we’regoing to have a pretty good consensusof what the key trends are in each ofthese areas to present to the custom-ers of this process. I think it’s beenvery impressive.”

Mr. Caldwell is a writer for the Trainingand Doctrine Command News Serviceat Fort Monroe, Va.

the Joint Forces Command and theU.S. Army Training and DoctrineCommand June 3-5.

“We’ve been studying the OEnow for the past four years, whichdescribes the future out to 2020,” saidLt. Col. Tony Huggar, Future Con-cepts Division chief for the TRADOCDeputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence.

“What we were invited to do atJoint Forces Command was topartner with them so that a documentthat was previously somewhat Army-centric would be now relevant to allthe services, as well as to a jointwarfighter,” said Navy CPT DennisFengya, JFCOM Director of Intelli-gence.

The JOE provides to the servicesand to joint forces commanders apicture of global trends from thepresent out to 2020 and beyond. TheJOE assessment is based on a varietyof factors, including economics,politics, geography and technology.They are possible “friction points,”according to Fengya.

There is a strategic and anoperational JOE for actual combatoperations throughout all stages.Joint forces currently engaged in Iraqand Afghanistan present two differentoperational environments.

“At Joint Forces Command,when we look at the operationalenvironment we talk about the varietyof factors,’ Fengya said. “They wouldbe very different for Iraq than theywould be for Afghanistan. At theoperational level you’re talking abouthow you orchestrate all of the thingsthe nation can bring to bear inside acountry under the control of a jointforces commander.”

The strategic JOE tracks devel-opments that might turn into hotspotsthat could involve American militaryforces. That look at trends and factorsextends more than 15 years into thefuture.

“The kind of Joint OperationalEnvironment that we think we’reproducing is one that will allow us tolook at major trends in the world sothat we can identify the friction pointsand the root causes of war and whatmight be the general operatingconditions for our forces somewherein the world.

60 Summer 2003

ACRONYM QUICKSCAN

AAR – after action reportADIMSS – DISA Network ManagementsystemAKO – Army Knowledge OnlineALAT – Automated Logistics Assis-tance TeamAFSC — Automated Flight ControlSystemAMC – Army Materiel CommandAMP CAISI – assistant project man-agerAPC – armored personnel carrierASMC – American Society of MilitaryComptrollersATM – Asynchronous Transfer ModesBFT – Blue Force TrackingBDI/KDI – Balkans/Kosovo Digitiza-tionCAISI – Combat Service Support Au-tomated Information Systems InterfaceCAT – categoryC3 – command, control and computersystemC4 – command, control, communica-tions and computersCECOM – Communications Electron-ics CommandCFLCC – Coalition Forces Land Com-ponent CommandCIO – Chief Information OfficerCITs — coalition interoperability trialsCOTS – commercial-off-the-shelfCSS – Combat Service SupportCOMSEC – communications securityDA – Department of the ArmyDCATS – Defense Communicationsand Army Transmission SystemsDCS-E – Defense CommunicationsSystems-EuropeDDTP – Defense Distribution DepotTobyhannaDCSINT -- Deputy Chief of Staff forIntelligenceDGM – Digital Group MultipliersDISA – Defense Information SystemsAgencyDISN – Defense Information SystemsNetworkDISN-E – Defense Information Sys-tems Network-EuropeDPOC – Deployable Port OperationsCenterDSCS – Defense Satellite Communi-cations SystemDSL – Digital Subscriber LineDSN – Defense Services NetworkDSOY – drill sergeant of the yearDWTS – Defense Wide TransmissionSystemsEPS – Engineering and Professional

ServicesETS – European Telephone SystemFBCB2 – Force XXI Battle CommandBattalion/Brigade and BelowFM – field manualFTSAT – Flyaway Triband SatelliteTerminalGCS – Guidance and Control Sys-temsHEPA – high efficiency particulate airfilterHQ USAREUR – Headquarters U.S.Army EuropeHTRTS – High Tech Regional Train-ing Site-MaintenanceISDN – Integrated Services DigitalNetworkICODES – Integrated ComputerizedDeployment SystemINMARSAT – International Marine/Maritime SatelliteISDN – Integrated Services DigitalNetworkIT – Information TechnologyIPT – integrated process teamJFCOM – Joint Forces CommandJITC – Joint Interoperability Test Com-mandJOE -- Joint Operational EnvironmentJWID – Joint Warrior InteroperabilityDemonstrationKFOR – Kosovo ForceLAN – local area networkLED – light emitting diodeLOS – line of sightMARS – Military Affiliate Radio Sys-temMATES – Modular Automated TestEquipment StationsMETL – mission essential task listMDM – Mobile Depot MaintenanceMIDAS – Multiplexer Integration andDigital Communications Satellite Sub-system Automation SystemsMILSTAR – military strategic, tacticaland relayMIT – Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nologyMMCS – Multi-Media Communica-tions SystemsMOA – memorandum of agreementMOSQ – Military Occupational SkillQualificationMP – military policeMPOC — Mobile Port Operation Cen-terMTMC – Military Traffic and Manage-ment CommandNATO – National Treaty OrganizationNCO – noncommissioned officer

NET – new equipment trainingNETCOM – Network CommandNETOPS – network operationsNIPERNET – Unclassified but Sensi-tive Internet Protocol Router NetworkPBC – printed circuit boardPMD – Production Management Di-rectoratePEO EIS – Program Executive Officefor Enterprise Information SystemsPM – project managerPM DCASS – Project manager, De-fense Communications and ArmySwitched SystemsPM DCATS – Project Manager, De-fense Communications and ArmyTransmission SystemsPM DCS-E – Defense Communica-tions Systems- EuropePM DWTS – Product Manager, De-fense Wide Transmission SystemsPOI – program of instructionPRN – Protocol Router NetworkRDEC – Research, Development andEngineering CenterRFID – radio frequency identificationROMC – Remote Operations Mainte-nance CenterSAS1 – Analog Stability Augmenta-tion SystemSAS2 – Digital Analog Stability Aug-mentationSAS – Stability Augmentation SystemSATCOM – satellite communicationsS&TCD – Space and Terrestrial Com-munications DirectorateSBCT – Stryker Brigade Combat TeamSCCNMS – Switching Control CenterNetwork Management CenterSDH – Synchronous Digital HierarchySFOR – Stabilization ForceSINCGARS – single channel groundand airborne radio systemSIPERNET – Secret Internet ProtocolRouter NetworkSPAWAR – Space and Naval War-fareS&TCD – Space and Terrestrial Com-munications DirectorateSTAMIS – standard Army manage-ment information systemsSTEP – Standardized Tactical EntryPointTDD – Technical Development Divi-sionTDY – temporary dutyTNOSC – Theater Network Opera-tions Security Control CenterWPS – Worldwide Port System

by James Hudgins

With the passing ofretired LTG Douglas D.Buchholz, the Signal Regi-ment and the U.S. Army lostan enlightened leader,visionary, scholar anddedicated advocate. As theArmy’s 26th Chief of Signaland in his final assignment as theJoint Staff’s J-6 he left a legacy ofdistinguished service, commitmentto duty and an unwavering concernfor fellow soldiers and their families.

After more than 30 years ofuniformed service, Buchholz hadreturned to Augusta, Ga., to residewith his wife, Muriel, and devotedthe same diligence that he displayedas an officer and soldier to issuesand causes of his adopted home as acommunity leader, volunteer andhighly respected consultant.

He will be remembered as aleading light in the enhancement ofthe relationship between FortGordon and the Central SavannahRiver Area, and his tireless work forthe Fort Discovery and the NationalScience Center.

In memoriam:LTG Douglas D. Buchholz, 1946-2003

During his Armycareer, Buchholz served twotours in Germany as well asa tour in Vietnam, dutywhich placed him in thespecial ranks of thoseveterans who served duringcombat.

In 1993, he wasassigned to the position of

deputy commanding general of theSignal Center and Fort Gordon. Thenext year and the following twoyears he was Chief of Signal andcommanding general.

After a long battle with leuke-mia, he died peacefully April 26. Hisfuneral services were held on FortGordon with burial at ArlingtonNational Cemetery.

He is survived by his wife,Muriel, and his son, Russell, whoresides in San Francisco.

For those who had the privi-lege and pleasure of knowing orworking with Buchholz, he will betruly missed.

Mr. Hudgins, Fort Gordon publicaffairs officer, served under Buchholz’sleadership.

Retired LTG Douglas D. Buchholz, DistinguishedMember of the Regiment, served as the 26th Chief ofSignal from 1994-1996.

Buchholz served as the Joint Staff’sJ-6 before retiring.

ArmyCommunicator

PERIODICALSPostage and fees paid

at Augusta, Georgia, andadditional cities

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYARMY COMMUNICATOR

USASC&FGATTN: ATZH-POM

Fort Gordon, Georgia 30905-5301

OFFICIAL BUSINESSISSN 0362-5745

Signal Towers, Room 713Fort Gordon, Georgia 30905-5301

PIN: 080952-000