thedrifter
05-02-06, 12:32 PM
May 02, 2006
JFCOM bringing disparate systems together in Iraq
By Gopal Ratnam
Special to the Times
The U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) has stepped in numerous times to fix disparate weapons and communication systems in Iraq that curtail the ability of different military services to work with each other, the command’s top official said.
JFCOM has dealt with seven different “blue-force trackers” — systems that identify friendly forces — hundreds of unique databases that track improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that are developed for one military service but can’t help other services, said Air Force Gen. Lance Smith, head of JFCOM, Norfolk, Va.
Citing blue-force tracking systems as the “most significant example” of an equipment that did not meet the U.S. military’s demand for jointness — the different services’ ability to work together — Smith said, “We ended up with seven different blue-force tracking systems” in Iraq.
The Marine Corps commander, for example, knew where his troops were but the Army commander “right next to him only had visibility into the Army units.” JFCOM had to step in and seek the U.S. defense industry’s help in “putting together a joint translator so [data] from the seven could be fed into everyone’s common picture,” Smith told reporters May 1 at the Pentagon.
Similarly, the military services have developed different UAVs for use in Iraq but often a system deployed by the Army, for example, can’t communicate with Marine Corps or Air Force units, he said.
Smith, who took over the command in November, said the effort and money spent to fix such “stove-piped systems” could be avoided if “systems were born joint.”
The command, which was created out of the Atlantic Command in 1999, is the only one of the nine combatant commands that has both a geographic and functional responsibility. It has been designated as the lead command for developing and ensuring joint warfighting capabilities in the U.S. military.
Though JFCOM is responsible for ensuring joint capabilities, it has limited authority to buy weapons as well as command-and-control systems, Smith said. Under U.S. law, the individual military services have responsibility for developing weapons.
Often, when new weapons under development are categorized as joint, it’s not clear who is authorized to designate them as such, he said. “Right now, I don’t know who’s authorized to put a J in front of an acquisition system. It’s not me.”
Recently, a Pentagon-commissioned study on weapons acquisition — the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment panel — and the Quadrennial Defense Review recommended that combatant commanders who are responsible for executing military actions should have more say in what weapons are bought and how they are developed.
Smith said he is talking with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to understand how JFCOM can play a role in defining requirements for future weapons.
Right now there is “no great advocate for joint programs, so they can compete within services for funding at the right level,” he said. “I’m in the process of evaluating authorities that Joint Forces Command would need to set standards and enforce them.”
Ellie
JFCOM bringing disparate systems together in Iraq
By Gopal Ratnam
Special to the Times
The U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) has stepped in numerous times to fix disparate weapons and communication systems in Iraq that curtail the ability of different military services to work with each other, the command’s top official said.
JFCOM has dealt with seven different “blue-force trackers” — systems that identify friendly forces — hundreds of unique databases that track improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that are developed for one military service but can’t help other services, said Air Force Gen. Lance Smith, head of JFCOM, Norfolk, Va.
Citing blue-force tracking systems as the “most significant example” of an equipment that did not meet the U.S. military’s demand for jointness — the different services’ ability to work together — Smith said, “We ended up with seven different blue-force tracking systems” in Iraq.
The Marine Corps commander, for example, knew where his troops were but the Army commander “right next to him only had visibility into the Army units.” JFCOM had to step in and seek the U.S. defense industry’s help in “putting together a joint translator so [data] from the seven could be fed into everyone’s common picture,” Smith told reporters May 1 at the Pentagon.
Similarly, the military services have developed different UAVs for use in Iraq but often a system deployed by the Army, for example, can’t communicate with Marine Corps or Air Force units, he said.
Smith, who took over the command in November, said the effort and money spent to fix such “stove-piped systems” could be avoided if “systems were born joint.”
The command, which was created out of the Atlantic Command in 1999, is the only one of the nine combatant commands that has both a geographic and functional responsibility. It has been designated as the lead command for developing and ensuring joint warfighting capabilities in the U.S. military.
Though JFCOM is responsible for ensuring joint capabilities, it has limited authority to buy weapons as well as command-and-control systems, Smith said. Under U.S. law, the individual military services have responsibility for developing weapons.
Often, when new weapons under development are categorized as joint, it’s not clear who is authorized to designate them as such, he said. “Right now, I don’t know who’s authorized to put a J in front of an acquisition system. It’s not me.”
Recently, a Pentagon-commissioned study on weapons acquisition — the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment panel — and the Quadrennial Defense Review recommended that combatant commanders who are responsible for executing military actions should have more say in what weapons are bought and how they are developed.
Smith said he is talking with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to understand how JFCOM can play a role in defining requirements for future weapons.
Right now there is “no great advocate for joint programs, so they can compete within services for funding at the right level,” he said. “I’m in the process of evaluating authorities that Joint Forces Command would need to set standards and enforce them.”
Ellie