How often have military service members been shuffled from one office to another—one organization to the next—before all of their records are pulled together and coordination of treatments or benefits can begin? The answer is too often.

But here is the good news: The U.S. Defense Department and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have launched an effort to combine their two electronic health record systems into one. Known as the integrated Electronic Health Record, or iEHR, it aims to ensure that health care records will follow troops for their rest of their lives, beginning from the day they swear in to serve their country. The move will improve medical care for all military community members, including those wounded in combat or trying to process a VA claim.

According to News Editor Rita Boland in her article, “Two Government Organizations, One Health Information System,” in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine, the iEHR program is not merely a clearinghouse that stores all information, but rather, a continually evolving network that will use the newest technologies developed in order to provide the best care to U.S. troops.

Utilizing the latest and most useful technical tools means that leaders have not identified an end date for this project. Work began on the new system this past summer, but it’s a continuing process, through which capabilities will be added when they become available.

Roger Baker, VA assistant secretary for information and technology and chief information officer, explains that:

In an ideal world, [users] will wake up one day and find out that we have snuck it in on them. All of a sudden it’s become a single electronic health record system, and they never really notice that we did it.

The VA and Defense Department have agreed to use common data standards, and developers began by putting into place the enterprise service bus, which Beth McGrath, deputy chief management officer for the Defense Department calls the “very foundational piece.”

Project personnel also have learned what impacts both medical providers—including pharmacists—and patients, to better understand what they need. With that knowledge, project staff can define the capabilities to build into the iEHR.

The iEHR fits into the larger virtual lifetime electronic record, a business and technology initiative introduced by the president that includes a portfolio of health, benefits, personnel and administrative information sharing among government and private organizations. Baker notes that:

On the medical side, this is an important component of the virtual lifetime electronic record.

McGrath personalizes the integration issue, saying she would like for her doctors to have all the information they need to make the best choices for future care:

Right now, the doctor is relying on less information rather than more. With access to the iEHR, health care providers will have more data so they can make the best possible decisions with regard to treatment options.

What pitfalls or roadblocks may exist to reach the goal of a fully functional iEHR? How can the military, industry partners and other interested organizations help this process fully succeed? All info in one place, imagine that? Share you opinions here. 

Technology transfer—a big buzzword some decades ago—is where companies found commercial uses for military technologies. Over the years, military and industry continue to share new ideas, programs and systems, and just about any otherwise awesome products that benefit both arenas. It’s perhaps another anchor in the military-industrial complex.

But when military technology is found to possibly fight cancer—that is welcoming news, as reported by George I. Seffers in his article,”Mine-Hunting Technology Learns to Fight Cancer,” in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine. Seffers speaks to the Office of Naval Research‘s Jason Stack, program officer in charge of the effort.

The ONR is developing active-learning software for identifying undersea mines. The goal is to make underwater mine-hunting robots smarter, eliminating the need for divers to risk their lives, according to Stack:

Within the world of naval mine countermeasures, our overarching goals are to find mines faster and get the man out of the minefield. That’s what we try to do. The active learning algorithms work with humans to help identify mines.

Doctors also face a similar problem: identifying specific cells in human tissue. Physicians must view hundreds of microscopic images containing millions of cells, which can take weeks for a pathologist to manually pinpoint cells in 100 images.

To aid in identifying cells, doctors commonly use an open-source computer program known as Fluorescence Association Rules for Quantitative Insight (FARSIGHT). Developed with funding provided by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Institutes of Health, FARSIGHT identifies cells based on a subset of examples initially labeled by a physician.

Doctors up until now, for example, have not been studying endothelial cells because of time constraints. With FARSIGHT’s integrated active learning, however, the process is now automated and “highly accurate.” The enhanced FARSIGHT can accomplish in a few hours what once would have taken days or weeks.

Badri Roysam is chairman of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the University of Houston in Texas. He is also the program investigator for FARSIGHT and says the technology also is being used to benefit the Defense Department’s research into neuroprosthetic devices—robotic arms and legs connected directly to the brain for more natural control and movement.

Right now, the state of the art in active-learning technology is software that asks simple questions requesting that the user label a piece of data, such as whether or not an image is a mine, Stack explains. The final version will feature a prototype that is able to ask many more questions and learn more quickly.

Can FARSIGHT be integrated seamlessly into the medical field, and what impact will this have on peoples’ lives and budgets? Share you opinions and suggestions here.

It’s an incredibly confusing world we now live in, with threats to the military and civilians posing vexing challenges that never truly existed before.

There really is no “traditional” battleground anymore, because it continues to morph into a field of asymmetric warfare, violent conflict between a formal military and an informal, poorly equipped, but elusive opponent.

According to Dr. Paul Monticciolo in his article, ”Finding the Hidden Opportunities,” in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine, trying to locate isolated explosives within densely populated cities, for example, or to identify small insurgent groups hidden in a mountainous wilderness, is like looking for a specific needle in a stack of needles.

The never-ending roadblock to acquiring systems and technologies that are able to keep pace with and address new threats is, of course, budget containment and reduction. Radars must track faster; data must be delivered more quickly; systems have to reach the field immediately. But how will these items be funded?

“Memorandum for Acquisition Professionals,” published by Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter in 2010, identifies procurement challenges, and it addresses 23 areas for acquisition reform designed to “deliver better value to the taxpayer and warfighter.”

The Defense Department’s focus on acquisition reform poses numerous difficulties that challenge the old way of doing business. But it also provides opportunities for those primes who can, in Deputy Defense Secretary Carter’s words, “do more, faster, with less.”

By adapting and partnering with companies that share risks and add business value, primes can profit in this new environment. Read the full article and share your opinions with us. We look forward to your input, criticisms and suggestions.

The worldwide budget crisis isn’t just an oft-repeated catch phrase—it’s the real deal—and it’s affecting how nations procure and oversee their security measures and infrastructure. In fact, the economy is recognized as one of the major concerns for security provision.

In “Aligning Acquisition Strategies With the Times” by Max Cacas in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine, Cacas gleans crucial insight into the effects of national fiscal woes and suggestions for the way forward from Dr. Jacques S. Gansler, a former U.S. undersecretary of defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.

In future fiscal years, the U.S. Defense Department must make major changes to the way it deals with the competing forces of decreased financial resources and continually morphing security challenges. Gansler suggests that it increasingly includes global commercial firms. And, the Defense Department’s struggles are not much different than those at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This, he says, is because the DHS taps into many of the same national security industrial base firms that sell goods and services to the Defense Department: According to Gansler:

The need to improve the acquisition process extends beyond just the defense arena. Technology has changed dramatically; geopolitics has changed dramatically; international economics has changed dramatically; and most importantly, national security has changed dramatically.

Gansler explains that both the Defense Department and the DHS have to cover a full spectrum of national security challenges at a time when government budgets are by necessity being drawn tighter. In characterizing increases in defense and homeland security spending over the past decade, Gansler explains:

We’re not talking about tank-on-tank from the Cold War. We’re talking about war among the people; we’re talking about everything from pirates to terrorists and unstable governments and even nuclear war. Since 9/11, we’ve lived in a rich man’s world.

He also references the late President Ronald Reagan’s signing of National Security Decision Directive-189, the National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information, which says fundamental research can be done by anybody, anywhere, and published freely.

True acquisition reform can and will result from an overall cultural change in the Defense Department and the DHS, Gansler emphasizes. Officials in charge of contracting and acquisition must recognize the need for change.

Defense/DHS officials must be willing to take steps to improve security procurement. But are they? Are these decision makers ready to establish and reach appropriate milestones to determine if acquisition changes are working? Discuss your opinions and suggestions here.

…When the international mining community is aiming to shake off the absolute dominance held by the People’s Republic of China in the market for rare earths, which are a series of elements in the periodic table. These elements are critical for the U.S. military’s high-tech communications and weaponry, as well as those of other allied nations.

According to Michael A. Robinson in his article, “Rare Earths to Become Less Scarce,” in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine, new mines could be supplying U.S. military needs, along with those of other nations, in just a few years.

China controls 97 percent of the world’s rare earths supply, and it is further choking availability by closing some of its mines by deeming them “environmentally unsafe.” The result is severe cutbacks on exports, in what some experts believe is that country’s attempt to completely monopolize the rare earths market.

Rare earths are a vital element in information technology circuitry. They also are critical to communications equipment.

The U.S. military, however, does not obtain rare earths directly from China and is prohibited from doing so under federal law. The Defense Department instead buys components that include rare earths. They often come from Japan and are used in an array of hardware, from missile guidance systems to fiber optic links to avionics.

Peter Cashin, president and CEO of Quest Rare Minerals Limited, says that to understand this market, it’s important to draw a distinction between light and heavy rare earths. This latter category is more difficult to obtain, Cashin explains, partly because processing these materials is quite complex:

Military applications require 100 percent reliability. And heavies do that because they are more heat-resistant than the applications that use the light rare earths.

The Chinese are very impoverished in heavy rare earths, says Cashin, whose company owns property with a massive deposit of rare earths in northeastern Canada. When his company’s Strange Lake mine opens in 2015-2016, Cashin says he expects more restraints from China.

Despite their need for rare earths, the Europeans continue to resist moving factories to China to obtain more stable supplies. Mark Saxon is CEO of Canadian company Tasman Metals Limited. His company has a large rare earth mine in Sweden, and he notes that Europeans in particular hope to have domestic sources by 2015. This is related to the European Union’s (EU’s) commitment to fostering green technology. Wind turbines and hybrid cars require vast amounts—literally tons—of these substances, Saxon explains:

When you talk about Europe and the rare earths, you are really talking about Germany. Germany is by far the major consumer within the EU. And most of the manufacturing lines where significant intellectual property exists are still being done inside Germany.

Whether they’re U.S., European, Australian, Canadian or other nationalities, each country has a critical, vested interest in developing resources to mine its own rare earths.

Dependence on a restrictive nation like China for rare earths cannot bode well. Determined nations now are seeing to it that they will catch up and remain on the cutting edge. Are they doing all they can to sever their dependence on China, and will this be completely possible? Read the full article; please share your opinions here.

A recently released draft plan provides a road map for federal agencies and industry to navigate through the development of the cloud-computing model. In the January issue of SIGNAL Magazine, Technology Editor George I. Seffers explores the document in his article, “Hitting the Hard Spots on the Road to Cloud.”

In November 2011, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released two draft volumes of what will eventually become a three-volume plan to foster cloud-computing efforts among the United States government and private sector. While federal agencies will not be mandated to follow the road map, people want and need guidance in this area, says Dawn Leaf, NIST senior executive for cloud computing. As with any new or evolving technology, many questions exist:

“There’s a tendency to explore the same types of issues—interoperability, portability, security, maintainability and reliability. The primary question is: What are the hard spots for the U.S. government in cloud?”

The most pressing issue among those hard spots: security. Leaf notes that physical boundaries associated with traditional computing don’t necessarily apply to the cloud environment. The same aspects that make the cloud valuable, such as connecting cloud services from common devices, also create potential risks. Although many conferences and seminars cover these challenges, Leaf says discussions often lack concrete answers:

“What you tend to see over and over is that we talk about the subjects a lot, but we go round and round in circles.”

Therefore, the NIST hopes the document will specifically identify what is needed for agencies and industry to move forward. Of the two segments released, Volume I provides a general understanding and overview of the road map initiative and gives agencies a way to define what they need in order to communicate effectively with industry. According to Doug Chabot, vice president, principal solutions architect, QinetiQ North America, gaining clarity in this area will help agencies write more consistent requests for proposals with clear requirements.

Volume II includes more technical detail as a reference for those working on cloud computing initiatives. It summarizes work completed in this area to date and explains the findings.

Leaf emphasizes that creating this clear map will help the United States stay at the forefront of cloud computing on the international level. The NIST intends to release further guidance in 2012, including the third volume of the set, which tackles information for decision makers in the field, and a special publication on the challenges and security deployments of cloud.

…When website spoofers do deceive—especially when the legitimate sites belong to the U.S. military. Untold damage could result should hackers glean crucial data, whether it involves service personnel, missions or daily operations.

Earlier in the year, the U.S. Air Force faced this very scenario when its portal was spoofed. The best defense, in addition to the 24/7 protection provided by military cyberspace operators worldwide, is vigilance by every service member from the top echelons all the way down.

In this issue of SIGNAL Magazine, Rita Boland talks to military and government cyber experts in her article, “Military Website Spoofing Is No Laughing Matter,” beginning with a look at the Air Force’s experience.

An Air Force member first spotted the spoofed portal and reported it up the chain of command so the 624th Operations Center, which provides that service with full-spectrum, integrated cyberops capability, could address the issue. It’s not known how much personnel info the spoofers obtained, but to date, no intrusion attempts have been detected as a result of the incident.

The National Security Agency has published a guide called Best Practices for Keeping Your Home Network Secure, which outlines safety measures ranging from the simplest security guidelines to little-known tips that make network protection easier and more understandable at all levels.

The Army is also on the cyber front lines, after a previous spoof of its Army Knowledge Online site. According to Army officials, the biggest danger bogus sites pose to soldiers is the capture of log-on credentials and passwords. This could enable threat actors to impersonate soldiers or civilian employees on Army or defense networks—including sites dedicated to paycheck information—or to steal someone’s identity.

For the Marine Corps, the overarching desire is to increase its cybercapability and capacity in planning guidance. Marines are encouraged to approach cyberspace as they would any operational domain. Lt. Col. Dave DiEugenio, USMC, executive officer, Marine Corps Network Operations and Security Center, believes the best practice is not to discuss potential advantages or disadvantages of threats. The focus instead should remain on staying sharp individually and collectively to ensure that people, processes and tools mitigate risks. According to Col. DiEugenio, cooperation is key:

We actively collaborate with the other services, U.S. Cyber Command and other partners to successfully operate and defend the Marine Corps Enterprise Network.

In the U.S. military’s defense of its cyber borders, what is being done right; what can be done better; and what unforeseen challenges may still lie ahead? Share your observations here. 

In what has been an extremely successful program on U.S. Navy submarines is now being readied for the surface fleet. The Navy’s subs have been operating with the Common Submarine Radio Room (CSRR) concept, and now hope to harness the benefits for Navy surface vessels.

In his article, “Underwater Communications Rise to Surface Fleet” in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine, Max Cacas talks with the Common Radio Room (CRR) program manager and others involved in this transition. Upgrades will bring older surface vessels into the current “century,” enabling them to use Internet-protocol-based tools.

The CSRR program concluded in 2008 with installation of upgraded radio rooms in various submarine classes, according to Capt. Ken Ritter, USN, CRR program manager, Program Executive Office, Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (PEO-C⁴I):

It’s an effort to try to replicate what the submarine community has done with the CSRR, [but] on the surface side. Design and engineer once, replicate many times.

Capt. Ritter directs CRR development from Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic. He says that just as with the CSRR, the intent is to develop a common architecture mainly in the external communications suites aboard various ship classes under construction.

The CRR program is being conducted at the behest of Rear Adm. David Lewis, USN, head of the Navy’s PEO Ships, to determine if CSRR program success can be captured again for both fleet combat ships and vessels being built for the Military Sealift Command.

The CRR project contains three pillars: Provide common, scalable communications architecture across a portfolio of ships; reduce the variation in hardware and software found in different ship classes and make them more common among each other; and introduce modernization to meet manpower requirements/reduce the crew workload. According to Capt. Ritter:

If we can ensure that our ships are more common, we can make sure that their jobs are a little easier. For the most part, they are similar, but we can always improve on that.

Capt. Ritter says that a broad agency announcement called for industry to provide its views on how to develop the technology primarily from an automation standpoint. A bid for contracting followed. The office awarded contracts to a number of companies. At this point, PEO-C⁴I is receiving and evaluating that input.

Comprehensive CRR specifications will be finalized for future upgrade programs and ships still on the drawing board. Common architecture enables systems to plug and play the new gear into a standard configuration—trumping the need to custom-install new gear.

Will the transition of technology from subs to surface ships be successful? Will it be as seamless as possible to ensure near-immediate interoperability? And are new technologies/solutions the best contenders for this transition? Share your thoughts here.

Having completed basic research and development (R&D) by its Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) creators, the Close In Covert Autonomous Disposable Aircraft (CICADA) is being primed to meet battlefield requirements.

One NRL source refers to CICADA as a “dumb” sensor because of its simple design, but other lab officials say the system’s genius lies in its simplicity. In his article, “It’s a Bug, It’s a Plane, It’s a Flying Circuit Board” in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine, Technology Editor George I. Seffers focuses on the “locusts”—these small flying marvels of the circuit board world.

CICADAs can be used to deploy an array of sensors, be tailored for a variety of missions, and launch by ones and twos or even by the thousands. They can be fired from a cannon, launched from a larger aircraft, dropped from a weather balloon or tossed out of the open hatch of a cargo plane. Deploying them by air eliminates the danger soldiers would face if placing the sensors by hand, explains Chris Bovais, NRL aeronautical engineer:

The CICADA is dropped from another airborne platform—manned or unmanned aircraft, weather balloon or precision munitions. It is simply a glider. There’s no propulsion system. It has a single wavepoint it can fly to, and it establishes an orbit around that wavepoint and descends in that orbit until it reaches the preprogrammed location on the ground.

There are three versions—Mark I, II and III. The autopilots for Mark II and Mark III are built on a single circuit board, which eliminates wires and harnessing and creates a rugged airframe structure. Depending on the version, the circuit board is also the structure for the wings or the fuselage. The original version featured wings that could fold down and be deployed by the thousands from an aircraft pod.

The research lab has not yet networked the sensors under the CICADA program, but doing so would not be a huge technological leap. CICADA Mark III underwent an autonomous deployment demonstration this summer that carried a Tempest unmanned aircraft transporting two wing-mounted CICADA Mark IIIs. That system can withstand winds up to 40 knots, and the Mark I avionics have been hardened to survive 10,000 gravitational force units for a gun-launch application.

Now that initial R&D is completed, NRL officials are looking for industry or government partners to further develop and ultimately deploy the system.

It’s said that necessity is the mother of invention—but experience can serve as the catalyst for action.

In this issue of SIGNAL Magazine, Michael A. Robinson’s article, “Putting Satellites in Soldiers’ Hands,” examines how a retired U.S. Army Signal Corps officer has parlayed his experience into developing more effective satellite apps for mobile devices.

Jim Ramsey is that retired officer, and now he’s president of MTN Government Services (MTNGS). While serving in the Army, Ramsey discovered the need for ever-more reliable communications systems to keep troops properly connected.

MTNGS is a unit of privately held MTN Satellite Communications, and it’s now a prime contractor on a $5 billion, 10-year joint program between the General Services Administration and the Defense Information Systems Agency. According to Ramsey, cutting-edge satellite communications (SATCOM) are crucial to the military’s functionality, right down to the mobile device in a warfighter’s hands:

As an infantry officer I was screaming at the Signal officers. And then, very shortly after that, I became a Signal officer and I was getting screamed at. But once I got transferred to the Signal Corps, I realized the ability to connect to the commanders on the battlefield was crucial. I really learned how important the Signal community was to the overall military fight, to what was going on in the battlefield.

Ramsey’s company delivers managed satellite services and adaptable alternatives for military and other government agencies. MTNGS works on solutions for legacy voice, voice over Internet protocol, data, Internet and compressed video using very small aperture terminal technologies.

He says the company is still working on different app formats. He also envisions ultimately bypassing hardware-specific solutions in favor of software that runs on multiple devices.

But as Ramsey sees it, this effort is part of a much larger paradigm of providing increasingly better services for the dollar in an era of tight Pentagon budgets.