31 décembre 2018 | International, C4ISR

The Army’s ‘triad of opportunity’

By:

Lt. Gen. Bruce Crawford is quick to remind his audience that the United States Army is one of the largest organizations in the world.

Crawford understands the scope because, as the service's top uniformed IT official, any way the Army wants to take advantage of the revolution taking place in information technology must go through his office.

Crawford became the service's chief information officer in August 2017 and since then has focused on the move to the cloud, hiring staff and protecting data.

“A lot of things that we're looking at are aspirational, but what I will tell you is institutionally we are fundamentally in a different place than we were just 12 months ago,” he said.

Crawford spoke recently with C4ISRNET Editor Mike Gruss.

C4ISRNET: Talk about the Army's enterprise network and the major muscle movements taking place.

LT. GEN. BRUCE CRAWFORD: For about the last 18 months, the Army's been focused on the tactical network. We really needed to take a step back from 17 years of continuous combat and say, “Have we properly networked the soldier?” Of course, the answer was “No.”

In terms of the enterprise, there are about three big pieces to it. One has to do with our data. It's not just about storing our data. How do we better protect our data? If you pay attention to a lot of the research, 90 percent of the data that exists in the world today has been generated just in the last 24 months. You combine that with investments in cloud. So today it's about $200 billion. By 2020-2021 it's supposed to go to about $500 billion.

One of the big focus areas has to be shifting from defending our networks to how do we protect our data.

C4ISRNET: What else?

CRAWFORD: I call it a triad of opportunity: you have got cloud, identity and access management and credentialing.

Once we put our data in a secure, accessible, elastic environment, then how are we going to make sure that we can authenticate who you are, but you can actually access that data? So, taking on the issue of identity, credentialing and access management is the second leg in that stool.

Last, but certainly not least, is the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning. The real value of that data is your ability to analyze that data, to predict what some of the challenges may be.

C4ISRNET: Do you expect to see two-factor authentication or biometrics being used on the battlefield?

CRAWFORD: That technology is here today. The vast majority of our Guard and Reserve forces don't get a government-issued Blackberry. When they come to work, they bring their device. So why shouldn't they be able to leverage their personal device and get access to information that has been put behind a two-party authentication firewall?

One of the efforts that we have ongoing is to do exactly that. We're looking at the next six months before we have that capability, at least able to test it and put it in the hands of soldiers.

C4ISRNET: Some of those technologies will rely on the cloud. How does the cloud help the Army make decisions faster?

CRAWFORD: Right now, the Army has 1,112 data centers. Our goal is to have about 296 centers by 2022. So, you've got to ask yourself, with cloud technology available, do we even need data centers?

Being able to aggregate that data, allowing the deployed soldiers to not have to take servers to the battlefield with them. Giving them the ability to be lighter and more mobile and being able to access that data from anywhere they are on the battlefield. It's pretty powerful in terms of increasing their mobility and the survivability of their data.

C4ISRNET: How does cybersecurity fit into the Army's modernization process?

CRAWFORD: You've heard about this concept of multidomain operations. It's not moving from this domain to this domain to this domain; it's organizing ourselves as an Army and posturing ourselves as an institution to be lethal in all these environments at once if we had to. So this idea of cybersecurity is critical to that. It has to be a part of our DNA as we move forward.

The vast majority of the intrusions and vulnerabilities are human error. Cybersecurity has to be a part of who we are. The position now is that every domain that you're operating in is a contested environment. That requires a culture change to remain lethal.

C4ISRNET: We hear a lot about Agile and Waterfall development. What's needed across the Army to make sure that it happens?

CRAWFORD: A shared understanding of the problem.

We recognized software optimization was a problem. The Army's expending a considerable amount of resources just on software sustainment over the [Future Year Defense Program]. Recognizing that it's an issue and then pulling together key stakeholders, not just the services, but organizations like the [National Security Agency] or organizations like FBI and CIA, which can innovate at a pace much faster than we can.

My No. 1 concern when it comes to software optimization has to do with the resiliency of the applications developed by industry. A lot of the applications, they work great in the lab. But when you put them on a network, especially our tactical network, and then you have to try and extend that to the disadvantaged user at the tip of the spear? A lot of the applications don't perform as well as they would in a sterile environment. Applications have got to be more resilient.

C4ISRNET: The storage of data is a challenge, but also the integration between networks or databases. What are the steps you're taking to make sure that soldiers can get all the information they need?

CRAWFORD: One of the efforts that excites me the most has to do with this idea of a common operating environment. You're going to take 19 disparate battle command systems and collapse them onto three specific environments — a handheld environment, a mounted environment and a command post environment — and each is going to have the same look and feel. Now think about the infrastructure. If you can collapse these systems — all with their own server farms, all with their own standards, all developed by different people, all from different organizations — if you can collapse those all onto a common operating environment, think of the things that you can divest of, but also think of the complexity.

We really need to remove the burden of integration from the backs of soldiers. There is a lot of value in that, to include increased mobility for the soldier.

C4ISRNET: What are some of the technologies that get you excited?

CRAWFORD: The U.S. Army is the third-largest organization of any kind in the world. You've got to ask yourself, “Do we have total asset visibility? Do we have the ability to know what's on our network?” Enterprise license agreements and the things of that nature.

Imagine the power of that, if you had 100-percent visibility — not just of your network from a cybersecurity perspective, but when it comes to a term that I am calling information technology accountability, or investment accountability. If you had 100-percent investment accountability, meaning you knew every time an IT dollar was spent, who spent it and was that done against one of your modernization priorities.

C4ISRNET: Those are a lot of the same problems that we see in the business world. You're not starting from scratch. You can use commercial products.

CRAWFORD: Absolutely. So, there are several things that we are looking to partner more closely with industry. It's the technologies that give us total asset visibility and reduce the number of tools, reduce the number of enterprise license agreements, help us with better visibility of cybersecurity.

Then there's another that I'm really interested in: it's talent. Do we have the talent, right now on board, to deliver the technologies that the Army's going to need in 2028 and the answer is no.

We're in a race for talent. We've got an effort called “Workforce 2028” that is looking at the 13,600 IT professionals ... We've looked and asked, “OK, what skill sets are really required, based on what we know now, in the next 5 to 10 years?” That's a tough one.

C4ISRNET: What do you hope to accomplish in the next 12 months?

CRAWFORD: I talked about a race for talent. That's really important that we posture ourselves to get the right people on the team.

C4ISRNET: How do you measure that, though?

CRAWFORD: Well, you've got to measure it in terms of knowing what skill sets you need, so there's some work that has to be done upfront and we're doing that work now. And you either began — you created a process to allow you to iterate and field the skill sets — or you didn't. It won't be that difficult to measure, but it's got to be an institutional approach. It's not just in the Pentagon. I want to be able to tell you a year from now that we have created a process or leveraged an existing process, because we've actually been granted some authorities by Congress and others over the last couple of years to better posture ourselves.

The other thing has to do with protecting our data. Over the next four years, I want to put 25 percent of 8,000 existing applications in a cloud hosting environment. And I've created a process that allows us to do that. It's in support of and synchronized with where the DoD, Mr. [Dana] Deasy is going with the JEDI effort. We live in times now where status quo can no longer be the norm.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/it-networks/2018/12/28/the-armys-triad-of-opportunity

Sur le même sujet

  • French Navy receives first new supply ship under program with Italy

    19 juillet 2023 | International, Naval

    French Navy receives first new supply ship under program with Italy

    The new vessels feature greater cargo and fuel-carrying capacity than their predecessors, with an eye on supplying France's aircraft carrier.

  • Boeing’s T-7 Red Hawk trainer enters production in the U.S. - Skies Mag

    26 février 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    Boeing’s T-7 Red Hawk trainer enters production in the U.S. - Skies Mag

    Static test airframe and first production aircraft set to enter joint flight-test campaign.

  • Has the US Navy thought this new frigate through? New report raises questions.

    10 juillet 2018 | International, Naval

    Has the US Navy thought this new frigate through? New report raises questions.

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is rapidly moving toward procuring the first hull in its new class of frigate in 2020, but a new report is raising questions about whether the Navy has done detailed analysis about what it needs out of the ship before barging ahead. The Navy may not have done an adequate job of analyzing gaps and capabilities shortfalls before it set itself on a fast-track to buying the so-called FFG(X) as an adaptation from a parent design, said influential Navy analyst Ron O'Rourke in a new Congressional Research Service report. In essence, the CRS report questions whether the Navy looked at what capabilities the service already has in the fleet, what capabilities it's missing and whether the FFG(X) is the optimal solution to address any identified shortfalls. O'Rourke suggests Congress push the Navy on “whether procuring a new class of FFGs is the best or most promising general approach for addressing the identified capability gaps and mission needs, and whether the Navy has performed a formal, rigorous analysis of this issue, as opposed to relying solely on subjective judgments of Navy or [Defense Department] leaders.” ““Subjective judgments, though helpful, can overlook counter-intuitive results regarding the best or most promising general approach,” the report reads. “Potential alternative general approaches for addressing identified capability gaps and mission needs in this instance include (to cite a few possibilities) modified LCSs, FFs, destroyers, aircraft, unmanned vehicles, or some combination of these platforms.” The Navy is looking to adapt its FFG(X) from an existing design such as Fincantieri's FREMM, one of the two existing littoral combat ships or the Coast Guard's national security cutter as a means of getting updated capabilities into a small surface combatant and into the fleet quickly. A better approach, O'Rourke suggests, would be to make a formal, rigorous analysis of alternatives to its current course. Failure to do so has led to a series of setbacks with the Navy's current small surface combatant program, the LCS. “The Navy did not perform a formal, rigorous analysis of this kind prior to announcing the start of the LCS program in November 2001, and this can be viewed as a root cause of much of the debate and controversy that attended the LCS program, and of the program's ultimate restructurings in February 2014 and December 2015,” O'Rourke writes. O'Rourke further suggests the Navy is relying too much on subjective opinions of Navy and Defense Department leaders, instead of a legitimate analysis. And indeed, the Navy has made rapid acquisition of the new ship the hallmark of the program. “Subjective judgments can be helpful, particularly in terms of capturing knowledge and experience that is not easily reduced to numbers, in taking advantage of the ‘wisdom of the crowd,‘ and in coming to conclusions and making decisions quickly,” O'Rourke argues. “On the other hand, a process that relies heavily on subjective judgments can be vulnerable to group-think, can overlook counter-intuitive results regarding capability gaps and mission needs, and, depending on the leaders involved, can emphasize those leaders' understanding of the Navy's needs.” Read the full report here. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/07/09/has-the-us-navy-thought-this-new-frigate-through-new-report-raises-questions/

Toutes les nouvelles