Table Of Content}^
[H.A.S.C. No. 108-46]
Y 4.AR 5/2 A:
2003-2004/46
Department of Defense Informati
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INFORMA-
TION SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE: ARE WE
ON THE RIGHT PATH TO ACHIEVING
NET-CENTRICITY AND ENSURING INTER-
OPERABILITY
HEARING
BEFORETHE
TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND
CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
OFTHE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 11, 2004
SUPERINTENDENTOFOOCUMEi^
DEPOSITORY
[DEC 1 6 2005
BOSTONPUBLICLIBRARY
fiOVERKa/IENTDOCUMENTSDEPT
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON :2005
ForsalebytheSuperintendentofDocuments,U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov Phone:tollfree(866)512-1800;DCarea(202)512-1800
Fax:(202)512-2250 Mail:StopSSOP,Washington,DC20402-0001
)M,
[H.A.S.C. No. 108-46]
Y 4.AR 5/2 A:
2003-2004/46
Department of Defense Informati
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INFORMA-
TION SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE: ARE WE
ON THE RIGHT PATH TO ACHIEVING
NET-CENTRICITY AND ENSURING INTER-
OPERABILITY
HEARING
BEFORETHE
TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND
CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 11, 2004
SUPERINTENDENTOrOOCUH^
DEPOSITORY
3
DEC 1 6 2005
BOSTONPUBLICLIBRARY
GOVERNMENTDOCUMENTSDEPT
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON :2005
ForsalebytheSuperintendentofDocuments,U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov Phone:tollfree(866)512-1800;DCarea(202)512-1800
Fax:(202)512-2250 Mail:StopSSOP,Washington,DC20402-0001
TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
SUBCOMMITTEE
JIMSAXTON,NewJersey, Chairman
JOEWILSON, South Carolina MARTYMEEHAN,Massachusetts
FRANKA. LoBIONDO,NewJersey JIMTURNER,Texas
JOHNKLINE,Minnesota ADAMSMITH,Washington
JEFFMILLER, Florida MIKEMcINTYRE,NorthCarolina
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland GIROD. RODRIGUEZ,Texas
MACTHORNBERRY,Texas BARONP. HILL,Indiana
JIMGIBBONS,Nevada SUSANA. DAVIS, California
ROBINHAYES, NorthCarolina JAMESR. LANGEVIN, RhodeIsland
JOANNDAVIS,Virginia RICKLARSEN,Washington
W. TODDAKIN,Missouri JIM COOPER,Tennessee
JOELHEFLEY,Colorado
ThomasHawley,ProfessionalStaffMember
JeanReed,ProfessionalStaffMember
UyenDinh,ProfessionalStaffMember
WilliamNatter,ProfessionalStaffMember
CurtisFlood,StaffAssistant
CONTENTS
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2004
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, February 11, 2004, Department ofDefense Information Systems
Architecture: Are we on the Right Path to Achieving Net-Centricity and
EnsuringInteroperabihty 1
Appendix:
Wednesday,February11,2004 43
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2004
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS ARCHITEC-
TURE: ARE WE ON THE RIGHT PATH TO ACHIEVING NET-CEN-
TRICITYAND ENSURING INTEROPERABILITY
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Meehan, Hon. Martin T., a Representative from Massachusetts, Ranking
Member, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and CapabiHties Subcommit-
tee 2
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative from New Jersey, Chairman, Terrorism,
UnconventionalThreatsandCapabilitiesSubcommittee 1
WITNESSES
Boutelle, Lt. Gen. Steven W., ChiefInformation Officer/G-6 for the Depart-
mentoftheArmy 7
Quagliotti, Maj. Gen. Marilyn, Vice Director, Defense Information Systems
Agency 9
Stenbit, Hon. John P., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and
InformationIntegration 3
Thomas, Brig. Gen. John R., Director Command, Control, Communications
and Computers, C4, and Deputy ChiefInformation Officer, United States
MarineCorps 14
Tillotson, DavidIII, Director, C4I, Surveillance andReconnaissanceArchitec-
tureandAssessment,DepartmentoftheAirForce 12
Zelibor, Rear Adm. Thomas E., Deputy for C4 Integration and Policy and
DeputyChiefInformationOfficerfortheDepartmentoftheNavy 11
APPENDIX
PreparedStatements:
W
Boutelle,Lt.Gen. Steven 76
Quaghotti,Maj. Gen.Marilyn 63
Saxton,Hon.Jim 47
Stenbit,Hon.JohnP 53
Thomas,Brig.Gen.JohnR 92
Tillotson,DavidHI 99
Zelibor,RearAdm.ThomasE 86
(III)
IV
Page
DocumentsSubmittedfortheRecord:
SupportoftheDOD Global InformationGrid(GIG)Architecture, submit-
tedbyMaj.Gen.Maril)^!Quagliotti Ill
QuestionsandAnswersSubmittedfortheRecord:
Mr.Bartlett 144
Mr.Meehan 141
Mr.Saxton 121
Mr.Thomberry 145
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMSAR-
CHITECTURE: ARE WE ON THE RIGHT PATH TO
ACHIEVING NET-CENTRICITY AND ENSURING INTER-
OPERABILITY
House of Representatives,
Committee onArmed Services,
Terrorism, UnconventionalThreatsand Capabilities
Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 11, 2004.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3 p.m. in room 2118,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton (chairman ofthe
subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE FROM NEW JERSEY, CHAIRMAN, TERRORISM, UNCON-
VENTIONALTHREATSANDCAPABILITIESSUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Saxton. Good afternoon, folks. Why don't you have a seat?
That is good.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Uncon-
ventional Threats and Capabilities meets this afternoon to learn
more about each ofthe services' information systems architecture,
how they interface with the Global Information Grid, also known
as the GIG, and how they interoperate with each other. The sub-
committee is interested t—o learn more about the GIG and each of
the services' architecture and how each of the services' architec-
ture will operate in a collaborative environment. We would like to
know how the Department ofDefense is working to reduce redun-
dant noninteroperable and stovepipe systems and to eliminate the
parochial interests to better support the Nation's warfighters.
As the Department transforms itself from an Industrial Age or-
ganization to an Information Age one, it needs to identify the criti-
cal elements ofnetwork-centric warfare, to assign roles and respon-
sibilities for promoting it, and to describe how it will organize to
implementtransformational capabilities.
The subcommittee will examine defense transformation this year,
and today's hearing begins that effort. We wholeheartedly support
the Department's goal to have a Joint Network Centric Distribu-
tion Force, capable of rapid decision, superiority, and mass effects
across the battle space.
However, there is much work to be done between now and
achieving that objective. Realizing these capabilities will require
great cultural changes in the people processes and military services
as well as strategy to control DOD information systems to include
managinginteroperability issues amongthe services.
(1)
DOD's first step in creating the GIG architecture is a good foun-
dation to build upon the GIG commercial-based technology that in-
tegrates legacy command control, communications computers, intel-
ligence surveillance, and reconnaissance systems and permits full
exploration of sensor weapon and platform capabilities for joint
fires. While the GIG potential capabilities would be an enormous
boost in supporting warfighters, I am concerned that warfighters
may not be able to tap into these capabilities ifindividual services'
architectures limit interoperability.
That is the focus oftoday's hearing: How are DOD and the mili-
tary services designing information architectures to build a fully
functioning network that every service man or woman may access
and exploit, and how will these architectures resolve the interoper-
ability issues that plague the services today.
There are several information systems issues that should be ad-
dressed during today's hearing. For example, how does the GIG ar-
chitecture allow for the various service architectures such as the
Air Force C-2 constellation, the Navy's Force Net, the Army's Fu-
ture Combat System, FCS, Warfighting Information Network-Tac-
tical, WIN-T, and the Marine Corps' expertise network to function
with the GIG? How will these service-specific architectures inter-
operate with each other to provide a seamless transfer of data in
communications?
I am concerned that the lowest level ofcompliance will be the re-
sult ofthese endeavors, rather than the maximum cooperation and
collaboration between the services, because of the competing de-
mands within each service. These and other fundamental issues
must be addressed as the U.S. military transforms to defeat con-
ventional and assymetric threats in the 21st century battle space.
We cannot ask our young men and women to put their lives on the
line if we do not provide them with superior means and tools to
perform their duty. This is a responsibility that the subcommittee
takes seriously, as do our witnesses I am sure. And we will con-
tinue our efforts to ensure proper oversight. Thankyou.
[The prepared statement ofMr. Saxton can be found in the Ap-
pendix on page 47.]
STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN T. MEEHAN, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS, RANKING MEMBER, TERROR-
ISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUB-
COMMITTEE
Mr. Saxton. And at this point, I would like to yield to the Rank-
ingMember, myfriend and partner, Mr. Meehan.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let mejoin you in wel-
coming today's witnesses. With "transformation" the watch word in
the Pentagon, and the Information Age well upon us, IT invest-
ment decisions will provide the foundation for all future military
capabilities. The disciplines of intelligence, command and control,
and targeting all require accurate and timely information, and
American industry is making information dominance a reality for
the United States military.
It won't be easy to ensure the availability ofinformation in a se-
cure fashion anytime and anywhere. Some challenges are techno-
logical and others are organizational. The coordination of the re-
quirements and budgeting process should be ofparamount concern.
In the past, joint weapons system, planning and budgeting has not
always succeeded. There is no denying it. Redundancies continued
andjoint programs have failed.
I understand the issuance of an IT portfolio management policy
is soon expected from the Department. I am told that this policy
will guide the investment decisions to ensure compatibility, inter-
operability, and the efficiency ofDOD IT systems. But let's be hon-
est, policies come and go. Without focused attention to execution,
even the best policy will fail. Perhaps our witnesses can provide us
with some additional insight with this regard.
And, Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for holding this hearing
and I look forward to hearing the testimony ofthose witnesses be-
fore us. Thankyou Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Thankyou Mr. Meehan. —
We have one panel ofwitnesses today. Our and we will proceed
with the panel, ofcourse. I want to welcome our witnesses, who are
the Honorable John P. Stenbit, Assistant secretary of Defense for
Networks and Information Integration and ChiefInformation Offi-
cer for the Department of Defense; Lieutenant General Steven W.
Boutelle, Chief Information Officer/G-6 for the Department ofthe
Army; Major General Marilyn Quagliotti, Vice Director, Defense In
formations Systems Agency; Rear Admiral Thom—as Zelibor, Deputy
for C4 Integration and Policy ofthe Department Deputy ChiefIn-
formation Officer for the Department of the Navy; Mr. David
Tillotson III, Director, C4I, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Archi-
tecture and Assessment Department of the Air Force; and Briga-
dier General John R. Thomas, Directo—r Command Control, Commu-
nications and Computers, C4, at the and Deputy Chief Informa-
tion Officer at the United States Marine Corps.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. I look forward to hearing your
testimony, as I am sure the other members ofthe subcommittee do.
At the outset, I would ask unanimous consent that all members'
and witnesses' written opening statements be included in the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
I would ask unanimous consent also that the articles, exhibits,
and extraneous and tabular material referred to be included in the
record. Also, without objection.
Secretary Stenbit, the flooris yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. STENBIT, ASSISTANT SEC-
RETARY OF DEFENSE FOR NETWORKS AND INFORMATION
INTEGRATIONAND CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER FOR THE
DEPARTMENTOFDEFENSE
Secretary Stenbit. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
indeed a pleasure to be here. I did take t—he liberty of bringing
along with—me one potential extra witness not with an opening
sta—tement Rear Admiral Nancy Brown who is a deputy J6 in the
CS but their role in the regulatory regime within the Department
I felt would be appropriate as we got into some ofthese questions
that you quite properly raised about how were we going to get from
here to there.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am really pleased to be here to con-
tinue what were in fact a set of very interesting discussions be-
tween ourselves and the committee last year with respect to both
fmoernmtalofantdhei—nfionrmyaolu.rIoapmeneixntgresmtealtyemgernatti—figeodaltso haenadrwyhoeurreenwdeorsaer-e
tryingto head.
And what we hope to do today is give you some confidence that
we have a path, not particularly certain to get to perfection, but
certainly one that is going to move us forward in this trans-
formation as rapidly and as efficiently as we possibly can.
You quite rightly described the transformation toward net-cen-
tricity and why it is important, so I am not going to dwell on that.
But I think today our real goal is to talk about the global informa-
tion grid architecture and tell you how we are using this architec-
ture to drive the three primarily departmental processes; one of
which is requirements definition; the second ofwhich, ofcourse, is
the budget; and the third ofwhich is the acquisition programs. We
have to succeed on all three fronts or we will not in fact get to the
vision thatwe have both expressed.
So I think the best way to talk about this is to talk about the
global information grid as the organizing construct for achieving
net-centric operations and warfare in the Department of Defense.
We define the GIG as a globally interconnected end-to-end set of
information capabilities, associated processes and personnel for col-
lecting, processing, storing, disseminating, and managing informa-
tion on demand to the warfighters, policymakers, and support per-
sonnel. It is important for us to recognize that this GIG is actually
a vision, an entity, and an architecture, and its application is dif-
ferent in those three definitions. I will see ifI can get there.
As a vision, the GIG establishes the conceptual framework for
the "to be" information environment ofthe DOD. It will provide in-
formation and communication services whereverthey are needed in
the DOD, be they warfighting or business in nature. And it will,
in fact, move us toward net-centric operations. As an entity, the
GIG comprises many systems that interoperate to provide the right
information at the right place when needed. Thus, ifyou would like
to think ofit, it is a private World Wide Web. It is not the World
Wide Web because we have significant requirements that are dif-
ferent from the normal Internet. We have security requirements.
We have information assurance requirements. We have mobility re-
quirements.
And actually, if we achieve our vision that virtually every ele-
ment ofthe Department becomes part ofthis network, we actually
need more addresses than are available in some sense in the gen-
eral World Wide Web, if in fact every JDAM is going to have an
IP address. So it is better to think of this as a private Internet
rather than the World Wide Web, but it has many of the same
issues. It is standards-driven. It is a collection of networks that
work together, as opposed to one managed across the entire enter-
prise at a time, and that it allows the same transformation within
the Department ofDefense that has been going on in the commer-
cial world both in the industries and government and others on a
global scale; and that is the transformation toward net-centric
world.
It is also an established and documented architecture that is the
Department's enterprise architecture that defines the enterprise-
