Soldiers want to be plugged in, 24/7. They want video-teleconferencing, as well as streaming, high-def full-motion video.
Conveniences of the information age that troops in combat used to regard as luxuries are now viewed as necessities.
Even for an Army that labels itself a “network-enabled force,” the demand for communications services sometimes can get out of hand.
“People are innovating, but they are creating more demand for bandwidth, for information sharing,” says Army Col. Patrick Rayermann, chief of the space and missile defense division at Army headquarters.
“Those of us in the business of getting that information have to figure out how to meet the demand,” Rayermann says at a recent satellite industry conference in Washington, D.C.
The thirst for information is so great that it has been hard for the Army to keep up, he asserts. “We are not getting them everything that they perceive they need.”
The Army appreciates that soldiers are so techno-savvy, but every time they come up with new “killer app” idea, all of a sudden, people want more information, Rayermann says.
Among the applications that most drains the Army’s available bandwidth is video-teleconferencing. Officers have become addicted to it.
Video is the next best thing to face-to-face contact, Rayermann says. “Commanders like to look at their subordinates in the eye … It gives them a reinforcement that they’re in agreement.”
To accommodate the requests for VTC, the Army has acquired additional capacity from commercial satellite communications providers, he says. “We’ve been able to provide the technology, even if the video is a little bit jerky.”
Another IT dilemma for the Army is how to provide more reliable communications to dismounted soldiers who are constantly moving around.
“The soldier on the front line probably does not need the throughput that a commander does or the brigade,” Rayermann says. “The Army does not envision every soldier to be satellite-enabled.”
The future Army will feature a mix of lower data rate and higher data rate terminals and services, he explains. But he acknowledges that the Army must come to grips with the notion that soldiers live in a wired world, and expect it to stay that way, even when they are deployed.
“Young kids grow up always connected. If they are not connected when they are part of the military, they are not sure they want to join,” Rayermann says.
Information technology is just not that simple to deliver in war zones, he says. “We may never be able to meet the demand that some of those entities have.”
As billions of dollars continue to be poured into IT systems, the Army also is struggling with how best to manage complex networks and how to secure services at reasonable prices.
Contractors have been trying to convince the Army that it should outsource its communications services.
The way the military buys services is not efficient, says Ed Laase, director of communication services at Boeing Service Company. “If you had to buy your cell phone that way, you wouldn’t even use it,” he says at the conference.
“The military needs to be able to buy the service — full motion video, VTC,” rather than have to do its own “system integration,” he says.
Rayermann is not persuaded that outsourcing is the way to go.
“I’m not sure turning over everything to industry makes sense in some cases,” he says. It is desirable for the Army to retain some knowledge internally, so it can be an educated and informed customer, says Rayermann. “When equipment breaks down, you need a knowledgeable customer.”
There is also a “culture of control” in the Army that compels commanders to want to know whom they can hold accountable when something doesn’t work, he says. “The staff cannot say ‘we contracted it out and we don’t know who’s in charge.’”
Regardless, the Army always will depend on contractors. “If I want a transportable cellular network, it may make sense to have an internal team to do the integration. But we’ll also have industry support,” Rayermann says. As an Army customer, “I want a team that understands technology, cost parameters and systems integration.”
It’s not a simple calculation whether to outsource, he says. As systems get more complex, “some things we’ll contract out, and others we’ll lease.”
Rayermann has been a long-time critic of the way the Pentagon acquires commercial satellite communications. “The Defense Department’s approach for leasing commercial SATCOM is inefficient and expensive,” he wrote in 2004 in the Army War College journal, Parameters.
The Pentagon is not taking advantage of the lower rates that sat-com providers offer because it does not sign up for long-term leases. That drives up the cost of sat-com and ultimately prevents units from acquiring additional communications services.
“The method the Defense Department follows today for obtaining commercial satellite communications is ad hoc,” Rayermann states.
“With the exception of the U.S. Navy and its Challenge Athena program, the services and the Department of Defense do not plan for and do not program funds to obtain commercial sat-com. Instead, the current practice is to effectively delegate to the level of the military unit needing sat-com support the responsibility to plan, arrange, and fund for the lease of the commercial sat-com that unit requires.”
As a result, “military requirements are presented to the commercial sat-com industry on a piecemeal, catch-as-catch-can basis.”
Consequently, he writes, military commanders “continue to treat commercial sat-com as a luxury to be used only when they cannot obtain access to military sat-com systems and only if they can afford it.”
lease email your comments to SErwin@ndia.org