search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
UNDERSTANDING ARMY ACQUISITION


priority—especially when the program took funding cuts during budget cycles.


PATH FORWARD In late 2017, Gen. Mark A. Milley, chief of staff of the Army, iden- tified problems with achieving interoperability and developed an execution order in which he said, “Our current tactical network does not meet our warfighting needs … It is not expeditionary, interoperable, and cannot survive contested environments against the current near peer threats.”


Recognizing the importance of data standards in achieving interoperabil- ity, the chief required that the Army network be based on open-source standards that are inherently interop- erable. He required that TRADOC coordinate with the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology (ASA(ALT)) and the Army’s chief information officer to


“refine an integrated set of common operating environment standards requirements based on designated open-source standards methodolo- gies.” Te execution order went on to require implementation of policies and standards that would make the Army’s primary tactical operations network one that allows our coali- tion mission partners to operate on the same network.


Implementing rigorous system-of-systems lessons learned from FCS will be key for the Army to succeed in achieving interoperability.


In support of the execution order, leadership stakeholders from across the Army signed the Army Mission Command Network Implementation Plan, Volumes 1 and 2. Together, they describe how the Army will modernize the mission command network, including all the warfighting functions, from now forward. Te intent of these plans is to pivot the Army to a faster moderniza- tion path. Foundational to achieving this pivot are integrated operational requirements and integrated, standards-based archi- tectures that allow “plug and play” of new capabilities.


Tese integrated operational (warfighting) requirements are defined along four lines of effort. (See Figure 1, Page 29.) All four efforts are standards-based, culminating in the delivery of a robust, cloud-enabled common operating environment at all eche- lons prepared to support transition to joint all-domain operations.


Also, based on the chief ’s execution order and to accomplish the second line of effort, TRADOC received approval in 2018 for the initial capabilities document for the common operating envi- ronment information systems as well as subsequent requirements definition packages. Tese requirements documents, for the first time, were designed to provide an overarching system-of-systems view of the mission command network and systems. Tey provide a holistic set of requirements for the common operating environ- ment and break down those requirements into the subordinate definition packages that give each computing component of the common operating environment its portion of Army’s warfight- ing capability. Currently, TRADOC is writing capability drop documents— documents that prioritize incremental delivery of capabilities within 18 to 24 months—the first of which has been approved.


To support the chief ’s modernization vision for mission command network and systems, ASA(ALT) established the Office of the Chief Systems Engi- neer (OCSE) in March 2019. OCSE’s responsibilities include performing Army-level system-of-systems engineer- ing by maintaining a standards-based Army integrated modernization archi- tecture and communicating the Army data standards to subordinate program managers.


OCSE is also the ASA(ALT) staff lead for overarching governance and


management of IT data standards for the common operating environment, including configuration management and promul- gating the interoperability standards baseline across the six computing environments and, in coordination with the Army, joint and coalition stakeholders.


Te six computing environments contain approximately 118 legacy systems, with 775 unique point-to-point data exchange interfaces. (See Figure 2.) Te goal of OCSE and the common operating environment is to reduce the number of legacy system data exchanges by relying on common infrastructures devel- oped by the computing environments. Tis will allow systems to become applications and services that efficiently leverage the stan- dardized data provided by the infrastructure to achieve warfighter capabilities. (See Figure 3, Page 32.)


https://asc.ar my.mil 31


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  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176