Beginning on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, check this site regularly for speaker and panel blog coverage, Twitter conversations, show photography and updates to the conference schedule from WEST 2012.

The Online Show Daily also is available through this site, and it will be updated before 8 a.m. each day on  January 25, 26, and 27, providing comprehensive editorial coverage about the previous  day’s events.

The generals who lead the U.S. Army’s cyber force are responding to a diminishing budget believe that changes to its architecture already under way will not only save money but also greatly increase military cybersecurity. Among the first advances are the introduction of servicewide enterprise email—a move that will save the service an estimated $500 million—and the introduction of secure computer tablets that accept CACs and allows individuals access to the data they need.

Lt. Gen. Susan S. Lawrence, USA, chief information officer/G-6, says the first step toward the Army network of 2020 is an infrastructure that accepts a single ID—the CAC—and brings soldiers directly to their desktops no matter where they are and allows access to the applications he or she needs. This year, the final two hubs are being completed, to accomplish this capability. The next piece of her vision for the service involves cloud computing, but she admits that to move in this direction the service must first clean up the number of applications and amount of data it currently has.

The general’s four imperatives for the near future are to establish a secure, standard-based network; increase the ability for warfighters to collaborate; access the network at the point of need; and ensure that this network is capable, reliable and most importantly trusted. She admits culture change remains one of the largest challenges to realizing this vision.

Also participating in the media briefing with Gen. Lawrence were Lt. Gen. Rhett A. Hernandez, USA, commanding general, U.S. Army Cyber Command. Gen. Hernandez’s primary focus will be on developing a cyber brigade in response to the growing number of cyberthreats. To this end, the Army is incorporating cyber operations into military exercises and conducting a cyber assessment as part of the Network 2020 Strategic Plan. In addition, the service is introducing the use of avatars and gaming to attract and train new recruits.

Maj. Gen. Jennifer L. Napper, USA, commanding general, Network Enterprise Technology Command/9th Signal Command, explained that one of her command’s primary focuses today is transforming the way it delivers capabilities and services to camps, posts and stations globally. To accomplish this, the service is taking an enterprise approach and has developed Army Baseline IT Services to identify what capabilities are needed and the resources available to deliver those, and then it will whittle that down to one enterprise.

Gen. Napper pointed out that one of the biggest challenges to achieving this vision is the availability of qualified personnel. Approximately 34 percent of the people qualified to carry out this work will be eligible to retire in the near future. As in Gen. Hernandez’s units, the goal will be to find and train—or retrain—personnel to develop this enterprisewide network.

Maj. Gen. Alan R. Lynn, USA, Chief of Army Signal Corps, also briefed the press about his vision for the future of the force, which includes fundamental changes. He explained that current processes are based on the Army that fought in operation Desert Storm when the goal was to communicate down to the battalion level. Now, the goal is to be able to communicate down to company and below levels, a gain that must be accomplished without additional personnel. This will require smaller, more capable teams using smaller and more capable systems, he explained. The Army will look to off-the-shelf solutions to provide these, which is likely to include secure cell phones issued to more soldiers.

Gen. Lawrence concluded the briefing calling the future a “year of action. In the next 18 to 24 months, you will see a different [Army] network.”

Lt. Gen. Susan S. Lawrence, USA, chief information officer/G-6, opened LandWarNet 2011, by promising that every one of the 453 vendors at the conference will be visited by a member of her senior team. They will fill out surveys describing the technologies they saw, which she will review, and she encourage all attendees also to contribute their insights about solutions that can address the Army’s challenges by filling out the surveys.

Gen. Lawrence introduced Maj. Gen. Alan R. Lynn, USA, Chief of Signal, Fort Gordon, who described some of the changes that are on the way, including the use of avatars to track each soldier as he or she enters the Army. The avatars will have the same characteristics of the individuals from their PT score to their weapons qualifications. Change is coming, Gen. Lynn said, from equipment to training to education to the way the Army employs troops.

AFCEA International President and Chief Executive Officer Kent Schneider made one of the top announcements during the opening presentation about the future of the conference itself. In response to the need to tightened financial belts, LandWarNet 2012 will be the conglomeration of three regionally dispersed smaller events, reducing travel costs. Renamed TechNet Land Forces, the first event will take place in Tucson in March and focus on security and network operations. The second will be located in Tampa in July and concentrate on joint and coalition issues. The third will occur in Baltimore in August and focus on cyber.

Vincent Viola, West Point graduate and financial sector entrepreneur extraordinaire, emphasized that the difference technology has made in both industry and the military transcends any changes that have occurred in the past. Prior to 1997, trading pits required physical fitness to literally elbow competitors out of the way to get an edge. Ten years later, with the introduction of technology, six times the amount of trading goes on, yet it is so quiet that the sound of a pin drop means something’s not working right, he related.

The military has experienced a comparable sea change, though Viola candidly revealed that at first many commanders were not thrilled about computers replacing their push-to-talk radios. Although today command centers are quieter than in the past, he challenged the Army to hold “silent exercises,” where commanders would only be able to use a computer tablet to command and control the troops. “And if they talk, there’s a punishment,” he quipped.

The drawback to these great technological advances, Viola was quick to point out, is that the cyberthreat has increased in tandem with benefits. Both to the military and industry, the ability to disrupt communications has a lower barrier to entry as technology costs plummet; malware is proliferating at a rate that can no longer be handled; cyberspace has truly become the 5th domain of warfare; and now battles are no longer about topography but about topology, he stated.

These changes mean the military must rethink the people they seek to recruit. New soldiers not only must be physically fit but also have mental stamina as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance will be ever ubiquitous, which will require warfighters who can quickly assess incoming information. “They must be able to get ‘inside the code,’” he said.

“The Army of the future will be one of force power and a heart. We need to gather around the geeks. Maybe we need to find geeks who love their country. The Gestalt will be around ‘geek-dom,’” Viola stated with a smile.
The military must think of cyberwarfare in active rather than reactive ways, he added. There must be an offensive doctrine that includes identifying proactive, preemptive opportunities. “If you are not encouraging penetration tests of your systems, you’ll fail,” Viola stated. “We are at cyber war right now. There’s no doubt in my mind.”

If people want changes in the way the Defense Department procures and manages information technology (IT), then it may be time for them to put their money where their mouths are. The department is proposing sweeping reforms that will revolutionize every aspect of IT procurement and management. If successful, these reforms conceivably could address all of the IT acquisition complaints that have been echoing across the department.

All this effort needs is a buy-in from all of the players.

Elizabeth A. McGrath, Defense Department deputy chief management officer, and David Wennergren, Defense Department assistant deputy chief management officer, described to a luncheon audience how their office’s proposed new approach to IT procurement would be a “radical change” across the board. Calling it an IT consolidation road map, the two officials said the changed approach would place an emphasis on transparency both to improve performance management as well as build trust.

McGrath explained, “We are looking to break down the existing process for IT procurement to have more modular, faster delivery of these capabilities.” She added that currently, “we’re not hitting the capabilities in the first five years.”

These vast changes proposed by the office will require all participants to do their part, or the effort will fall short. “It’s a matter of choice,” McGrath declared. “If we decide we won’t, then we are detracting from the department’s goals.

“I’m not painting a picture of doom and gloom,” she continued. “The opportunities are sitting right there in front of us.”

Most analysts recognize the need for the defense community to be able to adapt to changes, but established techniques and procedures often block progress. The two chairmen of a Defense Science Board study on enhancing adaptability offered suggestions on how traditional roadblocks can be overcome.

Alfred Grasso, president and chief executive officer, the MITRE Corporation, and Dr. William A. LaPlante, head, Global Engagement Department, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, told a roundtable audience at West 2011 about four themes that dominated the study. One theme, preparing for degraded operations, generated some concern in the study.

LaPlante related that one common characteristic is that militaries that trained with realistic degraded operations—brutal honesty and realism—did much better than those that didn’t. While the realism of degraded operations across the services is good at the command level, the operational level is another story. With two exceptions—cyber and space—the realism is not there at that level.

LaPlante called for more realism in operational exercises, and he cited the advantages of red/blue teaming—where technicians and engineers find vulnerabilities and fix them simultaneously.

Grasso supported the idea of planned adaptability. “Adaptability often is viewed as a responsive act,” he said. “However, adaptability and preparation are inexorably linked.”

The U.S. Coast Guard is facing the dilemma of its traditional threats combining to pose a synergistic danger to U.S. homeland security. Longtime menaces such as drug smuggling, alien immigration and terrorism may be merging their organizations and their tactics to pose an even greater threat to the nation.

Stopping these threats will require data sharing and consolidation. Unfortunately, even organizations willing to share information often find legal and technological roadblocks in their way.

Rear Adm. (S) Stephen Metruck, USCG, chief of staff, Eleventh Coast Guard District, told the Thursday breakfast audience at West 2011 in San Diego that the Coast Guard is striving to head off threats before they near the homeland. “Goal defense” is not an effective way of stopping adversaries, he explained.

The Coast Guard is working to develop new methods of detecting and identifying threats before the marauders launch their plans into action. Operation Focused Lens, for example, looks at places from where attacks may come. The goal is to detect anomalous activity before a smuggling or terrorist boat is launched. Marina operators would be engaged through an outreach program to report suspicious signs such as boaters practicing illegal activities.

Combining data may be harder. Adm. Metruck allowed that many firewalls prevent government agencies from linking their databases, even within the Department of Homeland Security. In some cases, the only solution is to place people from different agencies side-by-side so that they can share views on their computer displays.

The U.S. Navy has killed some programs and accelerated others as it restructures its budget priorities. Robert O. Work, undersecretary of the Navy, gave the West 2011 Wednesday luncheon audience a bluntly candid assessment of which systems worked, which didn’t and were canceled, and which are on probation.

One of the key systems killed was the Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. While it had a troubled history, it was going well recently, but the Navy—acting on a recommendation from the commandant—killed the program because it was going to eat up too much of the Corps’ budget in the future. Work reported that it would have consumed 50 percent of all Marine Corps procurement funds—100 percent of Marine Corps historical vehicle expenditures—between 2018 and 2025.

Work was much harsher in his explanation of why the Navy canceled the ALQ-99 jamming pod for the EA-18G Growler aircraft. “The Growler is a good aircraft, but the ALQ-99 is a piece of crap—the polite thing to say is that it’s reaching the end of its service life,” Work declared to an attentive audience. “Instead, we’ll have something better for the Growler.”

The F-35B short takeoff vertical landing aircraft program is having problems, and it has been put off two years so that its problems can be fixed. Work expressed confidence in that decision, saying, “We are absolutely convinced that we will fix the problems in the F-35B.”

But Work waxed eloquent about the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, which is proceeding with two vastly different production designs. Calling it “one of the most misunderstood ships in the Navy,” he nonetheless praised both its capabilities and its program structure. Having two companies concurrently producing LCS ships at the current schedule has saved the taxpayer $2.9 billion, Work stated. Three missions that used to require different classes of ships have been combined into one, and he is confident it will work well. And, if one particular LCS design proves to be faulty or insufficient, the Navy can redirect its acquisitions to the other shipbuilder.

The U.S. Navy is re-tailoring its force as it realizes efficiencies driven by budgetary needs, according to the undersecretary of the Navy. Robert O. Work enthusiastically told the audience at Wednesday’s West 2011 luncheon that the new budget direction is giving the Navy opportunities to build the type of force that it needs for the coming decades.

“Our shipbuilding program is more stable than it has been in a decade,” Work declared.

Work described how many budget savings have been re-allocated to other programs, which is providing long-term savings through accelerated development. Some of the programs that were cut were doing well, but they fell into the category of “exquisite capabilities”—highly desirable, but not absolutely necessary. The savings were redirected toward programs that were essential to the Navy’s future.

“We accelerated things that we knew we needed,” he related.

The Navy will “buy smarter,” acquiring exactly the same as it bought last year, but for $8.5 billion less, he continued. However, he admits that what keeps him up at night is the continuing resolution under which the Navy is operating now. The Navy is capped at 2010 levels and cannot begin new programs. “We’ve got to get that fixed,” Work charged, “or it will force the Department of the Navy to make stupid and irrevocable decisions.”

The dynamic modernization of China’s economy and society may owe more to momentum than careful planning. Dr. Xinjun Zhang, associate professor of public international law, Tsinghua University, Beijing, offered that he believes that China does not have a vision guiding the massive changes that define China today.

Zhang offered that China’s current policies have emerged from Deng Xiaoping’s approaches, which he implied were a bit too pragmatic. Speaking at a policy panel that included former U.S. Pacific Command head Adm. Timothy J. Keating, USN (Ret), and moderated by former Good Morning America host David Hartman, Zhang said a lack of vision has plagued much of Chinese policy.

This extended to the lack of progress on reunifying Taiwan with the mainland. While not claiming to be a Maoist, Zhang did praise People’s Republic of China founder Mao Zedong for his vision. Zhang even said that if Mao were to return, he would come up with a solution for reunification.

Zhang warned against pressuring China on human rights and other internal policies. China has “a very complicated government,” he said, as it tries to run a diverse country rife with different ethnic groups and languages. Maintaining stability is important both to China and to the rest of the world.

“I cannot imagine the consequence to the globe without a stable ruling government in China,” Zhang declared.

China and the United States are plagued by a “strategic mistrust” that hinders relations between the two. That statement was made by Adm. Timothy J. Keating, USN (Ret.), former commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, in a panel discussion with Dr. Xinjun Zhang, associate professor of public international law, Tsinghua University, Beijing, that was moderated by former Good Morning America host David Hartman.

To the audience, that strategic mistrust was evident in the exchange of comments between Zhang and Adm. Keating throughout the panel. Both expressed their country’s points of view in direct opposition to each other’s. Despite an amicable atmosphere, the two men expressed diametrically opposed views even when they shared the same policy goals.

Adm. Keating called for greater understanding through transparency and communication, while Zhang said that China feels threatened by U.S. surveillance ships and aircraft at the edge of its territory.

Perhaps issues with North Korea personified the differences best. Both men agreed that their countries’ policies aimed at having a non-nuclear Korean peninsula, and both agreed that removing nuclear weapons development from North Korea was essential. However, Adm. Keating emphasized the urgency of quick action before North Korea developed an effective nuclear arsenal, while Zhang called for patience to maintain stability while all sides worked toward the same goal.