ARTICLE

October 2004

Memo to War Planners: No Post-It Notes or Stubby Pencils Allowed

by Sandra I. Erwin

Even though the U.S. Air Force operates the most technologically advanced war planning hubs in the world, much of the critical information that commanders use to make decisions is recorded on primitive printouts, acetate charts and post-it notes.

Hundreds of target planners, intelligence analysts, weather forecasters and other specialists at an air operations center run more than 50 different communications and computer systems, many of which cannot exchange information digitally.

This mishmash of sorts has irritated Air Force chief of staff Gen. John Jumper for years, his aides noted. Although the service has seen enormous advances in its ability to quickly plan and execute air wars, Jumper complained that command centers still have too many “stovepipes,” resulting in computer systems that cannot share information.

When Jumper walks into an air operations center, he sees people printing things out of one system and typing them into another, and that frustrates him, noted Lt. Col. Larry Hall, director of the Air Force Experimentation Office. These manual data handoffs cause delays, which, even if they are only minutes, could make the difference between hitting or missing a target.

“That is not the way you want information flow to happen,” Hall said.

Incompatible computer systems not only affect operations within each command center, but also hamper information sharing among theater commanders around the world. At a time when U.S. forces are deployed in many parts of the globe, the Air Force wants all regional commanders to have access to a real-time, common picture of whatever contingency may be erupting.

To bring order and discipline into the air operations centers’ information systems, the Air Force plans to hire a contractor to serve as a lead systems integrator (LSI) in charge of standardizing the technology, so that every command center will have a common baseline. This responsibility always has been in the hands of military agencies, not contractors, but the Air Force believes that the private sector is better equipped to manage such a technically complex project.

The air operations centers today don’t look alike, noted Maj. Gen. Gregory Power, Air Force director of integration. “We have uncoordinated systems.”

To better understand how air operations centers should be managed, officers should treat the AOC no differently than any other weapon system, he noted. “Jumper wanted us to treat our AOC just like we treat our airplanes,” said Power. Although the Air Force follows strict guidelines for aircraft modifications, the air operations centers take a looser approach, which prompted the LSI decision. “You wouldn’t think of going to an F-16 and adding hardware or software or upgrading the computers,” said Powers.

It has been common practice for commanders, however, to purchase new systems for individual command centers from various contractors, in what are known as “drive-by fieldings,” which the chief wants to end, Power explained.

Current plans to hire a systems integrator to manage AOC upgrades mark the first attempt to standardize the centers so that they all operate the same software systems.

The most sophisticated AOC in the Air Force is located at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. The service, meanwhile, created an experimental command center, called CAOC-X, at Langley Air Force Base, Va., to test new technologies that potentially could become part of the common baseline. “It’s an attempt to get our arms around configuration control more than anything else,” said Power.

The Air Force Electronic Systems Center, at Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass., will be in charge of the competition to select the lead systems integrator. A contract could be awarded in early to mid-2005. Several industry giants are expected to bid for the project, including Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, BAE Systems and Accenture.

Although the Air Force has not disclosed any details on the potential value of the contract, industry sources speculate it could be several hundred million dollars, depending on the scope of the upgrades.

Stan Sloane, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems and Solutions, said he expects the program to be “challenging,” because the configuration of each AOC is unique and it is not yet clear how far the Air Force will push standardization.

The Air Force and the LSI will have to assess how much commercial technology realistically can be applied to the air operations centers, Sloane said. “You never get 100 percent commercial” solutions for military applications, he said. Commercial systems, for example, were not designed for sensitive, top-secret command-and-control operations.

A program official at the Air Force Electronic Systems Center said that the majority of the capabilities within the AOC are being satisfied with commercially available equipment, including routers, servers, storage devices and workstations. The software applications are likely to be a mix of off-the-shelf and customized software, said the official, who did not want to be identified. “The intent will be to make maximum use of commercially available equipment and consolidation of associated software licenses.”

The desire to connect the AOCs around the world, meanwhile, indicates a sense of urgency in the Air Force to solidify its role in U.S. joint military operations.

“U.S. forces operate in a global environment simultaneously; events in one part of the world affect operations in other parts of the world,” said the Electronic Systems Center official. “Networking AOCs will allow them to share information and assets across theaters to synchronize all activity for the most efficient use of all resources to the joint commanders, and to establish backup and supporting relationships 24/7.”

By networking the AOCs, the Air Force will be able to react quickly to flash points and elicit support from other theater commanders, the official said. “Since AOCs are in the unique position of blending command and control with intelligence, intelligence can become a key link in the kill chain—find, fix and kill targets in real-time.” The intent is to ensure that if one theater detects a threat that’s moving into another theater, that information can be shared in real time.

In the near term, the focus of the LSI will be to figure out ways to better share information across the centers, decouple applications from databases and develop standard terminology for data transfers, said the official. “In this role, the LSI will assume responsibilities currently being accomplished by government personnel.”

The first increment of the AOC upgrade will be known as block 10.2, and is expected to be completed by 2007. Subsequent versions could follow in 2009 and 2010, depending on the funding available.

No matter what technologies are selected for the command centers, the most important goal should be to move information faster to the shooters aboard airplanes, said Air Force Lt. Col. Gary J. Backes, who participated in the Iraq war planning at the air-operations hub in Al-Udeid, Qatar.

With an abundance of air conditioning, comfortable seats, bandwidth and electricity, the AOC is a “great environment” for war planners, Backes said. “But it does us no good to come up with great answers if we can’t get them to the war fighters.”

The emphasis today is on tying the AOC systems with the sensors aboard aircraft and link the information in real time, he said. “Even with today’s technology, rarely is one sensor good enough,” he said. “We need to tie the information together quickly and display it to the decision makers.”

Another consequence of additional automation in the AOC could be cutbacks in the number of operators. During a recent war game, Air Force planners tested a number of technologies that helped reduce the war-planning staff.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, who directed the 2004 Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment, said that “machine to machine” exchanges of information allowed the air commander to eliminate 18 people from the targeting operations cell.

“We’ve improved the ability to pass targeting data into the machine that builds the air tasking order,” Carlson told reporters.

Eighteen is only a small percentage of the entire population of an air operations center, which can range from hundreds to more than a thousand. But Carlson stressed that personnel cutbacks are not a primary goal. As a matter of fact, the staffing has increased in recent years, as the Air Force has expanded the role of the AOC to be an “air and space operations center.” Five years ago, in the AOC, he said, “we didn’t have space and information operations. As we bring more capabilities, we add more people.”

Eric Gons contributed to this report.

Back To Top