A FORCING FUNCTION FOR INTEGRATION A look at the systems, participants
and firsts from more than a dozen NIEs. T
he Army rolled out its new network moderniza- tion strategy with a flourish. On a Monday in May 2011, no fewer than 12 stars assembled for a news conference with the Pentagon press corps. Led by
Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, then the vice chief of staff of the Army, the generals made the case for a new paradigm called the Net- work Integration Evaluation (NIE), described by Chiarelli as “a revolutionary new approach.”
Because of wartime necessity and the culture of the acquisition system, the Army had been developing and delivering indi- vidual components of the tactical communications network on different timelines, even though they ultimately had to func- tion as a system of systems. Tat wouldn’t work for the different parts of a tank, and it certainly didn’t make sense for commu- nication systems.
Te new plan was this: Twice a year, the Army would hold a large-scale event to test and evaluate all of its digital tactical communication systems—programs of record, theater-provided equipment and emerging products from industry—at the same time and place. Te settings were Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, which offered expansive and challenging terrain. It would devote an operational brigade combat team (BCT)—the 2nd BCT, 1st Armored Division (2/1 AD)—to trying out the equipment in realistic scenarios against an opposing force. Te Soldiers’ feedback from exercise to exercise would inform procurement and fielding decisions. Te burden of technical system integration would be handled at the event and thus lifted from the deployed force.
Te NIE fulfilled its mission as a forcing function for integra- tion, becoming a central point for establishing and validating a new network baseline that provided mission command on- the-move and digital connectivity down to the Soldier level. Te Army then fielded that network to 14 BCTs and eight divi- sion headquarters through July 2017, as an integrated series of “capability sets,” beginning with Capability Set 13, delivered to two brigades of the 10th Mountain Division in 2012. After
using the equipment in Afghanistan, one 10th Mountain Sol- dier described it as a “digital guardian angel.”
As the NIEs continued, both the network and the process matured. Te Army made strides in expeditionary mission command, tactical radios, handheld devices, vehicle rout- ers, satellite terminals, operational energy solutions, mission command applications and other technologies. Te network remains imperfect—the Army is still working to simplify tacti- cal communication systems so they are easier for Soldiers to use in all operational environments, and to protect those sys- tems from cyber vulnerabilities—but the NIE has provided an operational laboratory to address these challenges head-on.
Recognizing industry frustrations with programmatic test con- straints, the Army separated the NIE into two complementary events: the NIE, focused on executing formal testing in an inte- grated environment; and the Army Warfighting Assessment, later named the Joint Warfighting Assessment (JWA), focused on evaluating experimental concepts and capabilities with joint and multinational participation. Additionally, when readiness demands required the assignment of 2/1 AD to other missions, the Army began rotating in new formations to the NIE events, bringing new operational perspectives to the technologies.
Although no longer “new” or “revolutionary,” today’s NIEs and JWAs continue to provide the Army’s only venue to con- duct
integrated capability evaluations and assessments with
operational units, as well as to execute joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational training, testing and integration to enable interoperability and compatibility among Army partners. As the Army expands rapid prototyping and experimentation efforts, the NIEs and JWAs will continue to provide the Army with operational Soldier feedback on leap- ahead technologies early in the life cycle to inform procurement strategies.
—MS. NANCY JONES-BONBREST
16
Army AL&T Magazine
July-September 2017
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162
