Linda Newton is the deputy chief of staff for C4I, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

U.S. forces may be on the verge of a new era of connectivity, information sharing and individual empowerment—if immediate needs are addressed, both programmatically and technologically. That was the message delivered by Linda Newton, deputy chief of staff for C4I, U.S. Pacific Fleet. Newton outlined two scenarios—near future and distant future—in which effective networking and new information technologies empower individuals regardless of location.

Within five years, wireless devices may give warfighters the upper hand in the Global War on Terrorism. Biometric personal digital assistants would share situational awareness, and weapons would be network-centric enabled. Supply inventories in mobile forces would be inventoried constantly and resupplied on time to a force’s exact location.

In 12 years, an individual network officer in a remote site on a faraway continent may receive an automatic network alarm that would allow that person to understand the network crisis immediately and remedy it from that site using a voice operated system.

These scenarios will require several advances, including a seamless network—a requirement stated by nearly every panelist and speaker at TechNet Asia-Pacific 2008—along with proactive network security, advanced network management and a single common operational picture for all forces, Newton said. The toughest problem may be unity of command, she added.

J-6s from across the Pacific include (l-r) Capt. Sandra Buckles, USN, U.S. Forces Japan; Capt. Judie Heineman, USN, Joint Task Force 519; Col. Frederick W. Mooney, USAF, U.S. Forces Korea; Col. Kristine M. Clifton, USAF, U.S. Alaskan Command; and panel moderator Brig. Gen. Ronald Bouchard, USA, U.S. Pacific Command.

The people responsible for network centricity among their forces have a common item on their wish lists: a new network that addresses current shortcomings and accommodates new capabilities. Little details such as network management, language, security and seams are major impediments to maintaining network centricity, say J-6s from the Asia-Pacific region.

Brig. Gen. Ronald Bouchard, USA, the Pacific Command’s J-6, said he needs a scalable network common operational picture with a view from the strategic to the tactical. He wants to leverage technology such as digital sensors and security tools for network management and protection, and he wants better forensics. And, he wants to be able to share information across different platforms and networks.

The problem facing U.S. Forces Korea is the seams between the various networks serving the command’s services, said Brig. Gen. Ronald Bouchard, USA, the Pacific Command’s J-6. His goal is a consolidated network for SIPRNET, NIPRNET and coalition communications.

Any new network will need detailed and effective bandwidth monitoring and management systems, declared Capt. Judie Heineman, USN, the J-6 for Joint Task Force 519. She wants “a visualization piece that allows us to see what is happening in our networks,” she offered.

Capt. Sandra Buckles, USN, the J-6 for U.S. Forces Japan, described many successes in sharing data with Japan. However, a key hindrance is the lack of an automated language translation tool. Saying that it is unfair to expect Japanese forces to have to speak English in their own country, she offered her group to be industry’s testbed for an effective language tool.

Rear Adm. Manson K. Brown, USCG, is the commander of the 14th Coast Guard District.

The U.S. Coast Guard’s fight against minor maritime law violations may be a precursor to terrorism activities, according to one of its district commanders. Rear Adm. Manson K. Brown, USCG, commander, 14th Coast Guard District, described how fishing violations in U.S. exclusive economic zones may be laying the groundwork for terrorist actions in the same manner that piracy and terrorism have become linked.

Solving the problem of illegal fishing in the 14th Coast Guard District—which spans vast areas of the Pacific near many small island nations—may also position the Coast Guard to deal with emerging terrorist threats in the region. Tight federal budgets preclude the possibility of the Coast Guard adding large numbers of ships and crews, the admiral said. Instead, the Coast Guard must rely on technologies to fill the gap.

And, just as with conventional military operations, international collaboration is another key to success. Fish poachers can flee into waters of another sovereign island nation and grab fish there, which effectively defeats U.S. efforts to curb illegal fishing that threatens to deplete stocks. Adm. Brown described how the U.S. Coast Guard has a cooperative agreement with the Cook Islands that allows that country’s officials to use U.S. vessels as platforms for chasing poachers in their own waters. The admiral is pursuing similar agreements with other small island nations, and this collaboration can serve to help combat terrorism if it emerges in the region.

Participating in the Senior Enlisted Panel are (l-r) CMSgt. Todd Salzman, USAF, command chief master sergeant, 13th Air Force; FLTCM. (SW/AW) Tom Howard, USN, fleet master chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet; panel moderator CMSgt. James A. Roy, USAF, senior enlisted leader, U.S. Pacific Command; CSM. Joseph Zettlemoyer, USA, command sergeant major, U.S. Army, Pacific; MCPO. Leilani L. Cale-Jones, USCG, command master chief, U.S. Coast Guard District 14; and Sgt. Maj. James Roberts, USMC, sergeant major, Headquarters and Service Battalion, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific.

Military recruitment and retention rates are steadily being met, but cracks are beginning to appear in the personnel infrastructure. A panel of senior enlisted leaders both lauded the quality and motivation of their enlisted personnel and warned against the possibility of losing large numbers of them in the near future.

CMSgt. James A. Roy, USAF, senior enlisted leader in the U.S. Pacific Command, said that the military has not seen a problem in recruiting or retention—yet. “We are seeing signs,” he warned, of potential personnel problems. The key is for the services to take care of families because they are stretched “to where we are seeing breakaways, especially in noncommissioned officers.”

The military faces the loss of personnel with high-demand, low-density skills, said CSM. Joseph Zettlemoyer, USA, command sergeant major, U.S. Army, Pacific. If those people leave, the Army will be in “a constant state of re-training,” he predicted. The Army is in competition with the commercial sector for those skilled personnel.

One solution to help keep those particular personnel is to award bonuses for re-enlistment. FLTCM. (SW/AW) Tom Howard, USN, fleet master chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, noted that bonuses are keyed to high demand in the commercial job market. Even though those bonuses are less than civilian pay, personnel are re-enlisting—even asking for consecutive tours of duty in Iraq, he added.

What are the top complaints among enlisted service personnel? For the Army, it’s “Why won’t the Army let me wear a Bluetooth?” said CSM. Zettlemoyer. For the U.S. Coast Guard, it’s “Why can’t I get on Facebook?” said MCPO. Leilani L. Cale-Jones, USCG, the command master chief for U.S. Coast Guard District 14. For the Marines, it’s “Why can’t I live out of the barracks?” said Sgt. Maj. James Roberts, USMC, sergeant major, Headquarters and Service Battalion, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific.

Maj. Gen. Mike Hostage III, vice commander, Pacific Air Forces

The U.S. Pacific Air Forces are rolling out new technologies and capabilities to government and industry partners while seeking to consolidate for efficiencies. But, its vice commander bemoans continuing cultural and technological hurdles to effective network centricity.

Among the new capabilities are voice over secure Internet protocol (VoSIP), which is in four bases and will be installed in all nine bases over the next 12 months. Airmen also are receiving secure mobile personal digital assistants with Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) security for sending secure e-mail. And, network operations and CERT functions are consolidated into single Air Force network operations.

But Maj. Gen. Mike Hostage III, USAF, vice commander, Pacific Air Forces, wants effective systems delivered on time. “A perfect course of action late to the fight isn’t as good as a 90-percent solution delivered on time,” he said. And, these systems should serve military needs, not those of industry.

The Army can provide ballistic missile defense capabilities to the Pacific Air Forces’ air operations center. This helps improved missile threat defense. But, this data must be displayed on a separate monitor. Gen. Hostage wants that data to be consolidated with Air Force data so it can appear on a common monitor.

And, industry needs to build solutions based on Air Force needs, not its own capabilities. Gen. Hostage told industry, “Show us what you’ve got, look at our problem set, then help draw the links between the two.”

Panelists listening to panel moderator (r) Vice Adm. Nancy Brown, USN, J-6, the Joint Staff, discuss support to the warfighter are (l-r) Col. Scott Blankenship, USMC, G-6, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific; Col. Bruce T. Crawford, USA, commander, 516th Signal Brigade; and Linda Newton, deputy chief of staff for C4I, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

All the advances in network centricity are creating greater problems that threaten to undo the advantages wrought by network-centric operations, noted several panelists discussing support to the warfighter. Vice Adm. Nancy Brown, USN, J-6, the Joint Staff, put it bluntly: “We say we fight joint, but our network is absolutely not joint.”

Adm. Brown noted that the global network is a group of networks with seams, and the warfighter is left to overcome those seams. This forces the warfighter to be a systems integrator, which is not the goal of network centricity, she said.

For the next version of the Global Information Grid (GIG), known as GIG 2.0, she called for a new way of designing systems—putting the warfighter at the center instead of the Pentagon, which is at the center of current designs.

Col. Bruce T. Crawford, USA, commander of the 516th Signal Brigade, agreed that GIG 2.0 has significant strategic importance. He noted that the Army’s modular transformation left the network “in a legacy state.” It wasn’t changed to fit the new force configuration.

Linda Newton, deputy chief of staff for C4I, U.S. Pacific Fleet, said that building a flexible and agile C2 structure will be the biggest challenge—we don’t have that yet, she charged.

When asked about the troubled Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) program, Adm. Brown said that the program is worth fighting for because it will bring vital capacity and protection to satellite communications. Not having TSAT might be costly in time and lives, she added.

Being joint is not sufficient for military operations in the 21st century, say leaders of the U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific. Col. Scott Blankenship, USMC, the G-6 for U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific, said that the complex environment of the 21st century requires new cooperative security concepts.

Central to these is to stay engaged with traditional partners while engaging with potential new partners. The Marines have worked with nontraditional partners such as Cambodia and Mongolia, and they are extending their efforts to other nations as well. Cultural, as well as technological, barriers must be overcome.

But even interoperability with existing allies can be difficult, the colonel allowed. In many cases, the common denominator for communications among partner nations is the host nation’s cell/lease line phone system along with unclassified e-mail.

And while the Marines are looking beyond jointness, it remains an elusive goal. Col. Blankenship said that the Goldwater-Nichols Act was not a panacea, as services still drive requirements and hold the funding.

Speakers at the J-3 Panel include (l-r) Brian Woo, State Department adviser to U.S. Pacific Air Forces; Jeff Hensel, State Department Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance; Mike Dorris, counterterrorism specialist, FBI; Maj. Gen. Mike Hostage III, USAF, vice commander, Pacific Air Forces; and panel moderator Rear Adm. Charles W. Martoglio, USN, J-3, U.S. Pacific Command.

Civil government and the military must work together if the United States is to achieve its strategic aims in the Pacific, said a panel of civil government and military experts. And, meeting those strategic goals increasingly is a matter of “soft power challenges” that involve the military in decidedly non-military actions.

Make no mistake about it: the Free World is in a war to the death. That was the opening statement by J-3 Panel moderator Rear Adm. Charles W. Martoglio, USN, the J-3 of the U.S. Pacific Command. “We are in a fight to the knife. At the end, there will be one group of people standing. They had better be the United States, Europe and the other countries that cherish freedom,” the admiral declared.

Defeating those enemies will require combating terrorism outside of war zones, stated FBI counterterrorism expert Mike Dorris. He stated that soft power challenges are the purview of our military leadership, and the American people are looking to the Defense Department to lead in this area.

“With all due respect, humanitarian response is not a Defense Department core competency,” said Jeff Hensel of the U.S. State Department Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. Hensel argued that interagency activities improve military humanitarian responses, and even nongovernmental organizations can provide invaluable assistance in countries not accessible to U.S. forces.

But industry often does not pursue solutions that would help the military, stated Maj. Gen. Mike Hostage III, USAF, vice commander of Pacific Air Forces. The typical business model is to develop a proprietary solution that can be sold to profit the company. The military needs a common data standard that all can subscribe to, along with a common architecture. That desire does not fit the typical business model, he pointed out. Someone must develop a business model that will work with the common rules of the road.

While other commanders speak of esoteric needs, the head of the U.S. Army, Pacific cites both technological and cultural expertise as the key to mission success. Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, USA, commander, U.S. Army, Pacific, is calling for specific new technologies to help his force meet its dynamic mission requirements.

The biggest technological problem facing the Army is interoperability with coalition allies and partners. Current CENTRIXS systems provide bilateral linkage, but they cannot connect a complete coalition. The Army needs the multilateral Objective CENTRIXS in place before a crisis emerges, he stated.
High on Gen. Mixon’s technology wish list: an always-on network that can expand seamlessly; cost-effective wireless; a smart network that can mitigate workstation or information assurance problems automatically; and cross domain solutions with multilevel security.

Gen. Mixon joined the other commanders in describing network security as a key force vulnerability. And, he acknowledged the need for non-technological expertise in the force.

“We must be technologically advanced and culturally astute to be combat ready,” he declared.

Lt. Gen. Douglas M. Fraser, USAF, deputy commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, calls for a new approach to understanding networks.

The biggest challenge in securing and operating networks efficiently may be to understand them—which currently is not taking place, said Lt. Gen. Douglas M. Fraser, USAF, deputy commander, U.S. Pacific Command. Leading off the first full day of TechNet Asia-Pacific 2008, Gen. Fraser offered observations about network operations and security that tended to be more philosophical than technical.

People just don’t understand the network, and they must take a larger view of networks, he said. Users need an intuitive understanding of the network, and industry must help by providing intuitive interfaces that help humans truly understand just what is happening in a network.

Security in particular requires a change in culture. Warning that non-kinetic attacks can have kinetic-like effects, Gen. Fraser called for a new approach to cyberspace security. Cyberthreats are growing, and just over the past year the Pacific Command lost thousands of human hours in capabilities and spend thousands of dollars to counter a network intrusion. Instead of security, the focus should be on assurance—in this case, risk management.

“Anyone who connects with the network must be a cyberwarrior,” he posited.

The U.S. military also has tended to operate its networks instead of fighting with them, he charged. Accordingly, the command is pushing its J-6 to look at the networks as a weapon system.