Download
1 / 23
230 likes | 474 Views
3.
E N D
1. Rick Meador
Joint Interoperability Test Command
Meadorr@fhu.disa.mil 520-538-5099
2. This example is from an imagery test we did at Fort Huachuca. The picture (top right) you see is what an intel analyst viewed on his system after retrieving two files from a library: one file is the image itself and another is associated annotations in this case a target marker. As you can see, the analyst can read both the image and the annotations clearly even though they were developed and stored by a completely different system.
The problem is, here (bottom left picture) are the files that were actually stored.
Note, the operator has no clue that he has a problem.
This example is from an imagery test we did at Fort Huachuca. The picture (top right) you see is what an intel analyst viewed on his system after retrieving two files from a library: one file is the image itself and another is associated annotations in this case a target marker. As you can see, the analyst can read both the image and the annotations clearly even though they were developed and stored by a completely different system.
The problem is, here (bottom left picture) are the files that were actually stored.
Note, the operator has no clue that he has a problem.
3. 3 As the U.S. writer Josh Billings said, It is better to know nothing than to know what ain't so. (Josh Billings (1818 - 1885) US writer, in "Quotations of Wit and Wisdom," ed. & John W. Garder et al., 1975)
Other sources of similar quotations:
- It ain't so much what people don't know that hurts as what they know that ain't so.
Artemus Ward (1834 - 1867) US humorist
In "Pearls of Wisdom," ed. J. Agel and W. Glanze, 1987.
- It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.
Will Rogers (1879 - 1935) US actor, lecturer, humorist
In "Quotable Business," ed. Louis E. Boone, 1992.
My uncertainty about who first said this and what he actually said illustrates an issue we must deal with as we manage information on the net. How do you know what information to trust to make decisions? For a moment, lets assume that weve kept all the malicious activity off of the net. But when two trusted sources post information to the net, how does the user know whether the second information replaces the first, augments it, or is completely independent of it?
As the U.S. writer Josh Billings said, It is better to know nothing than to know what ain't so. (Josh Billings (1818 - 1885) US writer, in "Quotations of Wit and Wisdom," ed. & John W. Garder et al., 1975)
Other sources of similar quotations:
- It ain't so much what people don't know that hurts as what they know that ain't so.
Artemus Ward (1834 - 1867) US humorist
In "Pearls of Wisdom," ed. J. Agel and W. Glanze, 1987.
- It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.
Will Rogers (1879 - 1935) US actor, lecturer, humorist
In "Quotable Business," ed. Louis E. Boone, 1992.
My uncertainty about who first said this and what he actually said illustrates an issue we must deal with as we manage information on the net. How do you know what information to trust to make decisions? For a moment, lets assume that weve kept all the malicious activity off of the net. But when two trusted sources post information to the net, how does the user know whether the second information replaces the first, augments it, or is completely independent of it?
4. The picture which you are about to see is taken from an interoperability test JITC conducted with the services and agencies in support of the Missile Defense Agency. This portion of the test involved two enemy missiles coming from approximately the same launch point but targeting two different friendly assets. Various missile defense systems detect these missiles and begin to report on them. Thus, what you should see is something that resembles the McDonalds arches.
Instead, heres what we found.
This example highlights a critical aspect within DOD definition of interoperability: it requires more than passing data or even information interoperability must allow participants to operate effectively together.
In these cases, systems are indeed exchanging information but they arent operating together effectively.
Note that the operators will know there are problems since missiles dont fly in zig-zags. But whether they can sort through the confusion in time to successfully defend is a question wed rather not answer in actual operations. The picture which you are about to see is taken from an interoperability test JITC conducted with the services and agencies in support of the Missile Defense Agency. This portion of the test involved two enemy missiles coming from approximately the same launch point but targeting two different friendly assets. Various missile defense systems detect these missiles and begin to report on them. Thus, what you should see is something that resembles the McDonalds arches.
Instead, heres what we found.
This example highlights a critical aspect within DOD definition of interoperability: it requires more than passing data or even information interoperability must allow participants to operate effectively together.
In these cases, systems are indeed exchanging information but they arent operating together effectively.
Note that the operators will know there are problems since missiles dont fly in zig-zags. But whether they can sort through the confusion in time to successfully defend is a question wed rather not answer in actual operations.
5. 5 This definition sets the bar very high for interoperability. Again, it isnt enough to simply communicate (exchange data and information); those communications must support effective and efficient operations before we can say weve achieved interoperability.This definition sets the bar very high for interoperability. Again, it isnt enough to simply communicate (exchange data and information); those communications must support effective and efficient operations before we can say weve achieved interoperability.
6. This last example comes from Millennium Challenge, and compares one view of the battlespace with another. Specifically, this slide narrows in on one particular air platform. The blue line shows the position of this platform as reported on the Link 16 RF network; the red line shows the position as reported on the serial Link 16 network (the network feeding GCCS and command and control centers).
Of course, in order to support precise battle management, they should consistently show the same position for this and every other track. But there are two obvious problems we identified: the blue track suffers from data delays (ranging from 0 to 8.5 minutes) and incompleteness.
Now I say the problems are obvious, but only because we had the test procedures, equipment, and personnel in place to collect and compare the two information sources. Operationally, the decision makers sitting in the command center would not realize that the information on which they were basing their decisions (ATO missions, targeting, etc) was up to 10 minutes late.
Again, systems have not achieved interoperability because the data is not consistently timely and accurate; but the command center suspects nothing since the information is being exchanged and the resulting pictures are clear.
These are just three of many examples (another simple but common one is false busy signals for telephone calls) which show that demonstrations and observations are simply not enough to prove interoperability. Disciplined and detailed testing is critically needed; thats the role of JITC.
Notes:
This movie has been time compressed (each position jump from source 1 represents a 12 second time interval).
Area covered is approximately 100x70 sq. km.
There were many platforms being tracked; we focused in on this one for illustrative purpose.
This last example comes from Millennium Challenge, and compares one view of the battlespace with another. Specifically, this slide narrows in on one particular air platform. The blue line shows the position of this platform as reported on the Link 16 RF network; the red line shows the position as reported on the serial Link 16 network (the network feeding GCCS and command and control centers).
Of course, in order to support precise battle management, they should consistently show the same position for this and every other track. But there are two obvious problems we identified: the blue track suffers from data delays (ranging from 0 to 8.5 minutes) and incompleteness.
Now I say the problems are obvious, but only because we had the test procedures, equipment, and personnel in place to collect and compare the two information sources. Operationally, the decision makers sitting in the command center would not realize that the information on which they were basing their decisions (ATO missions, targeting, etc) was up to 10 minutes late.
Again, systems have not achieved interoperability because the data is not consistently timely and accurate; but the command center suspects nothing since the information is being exchanged and the resulting pictures are clear.
These are just three of many examples (another simple but common one is false busy signals for telephone calls) which show that demonstrations and observations are simply not enough to prove interoperability. Disciplined and detailed testing is critically needed; thats the role of JITC.
Notes:
This movie has been time compressed (each position jump from source 1 represents a 12 second time interval).
Area covered is approximately 100x70 sq. km.
There were many platforms being tracked; we focused in on this one for illustrative purpose.
7. 7 Nobody argues that there must be a balance between fielding capabilities quickly and taking the time necessary to insure those capabilities are of sufficient quality to help rather than to hurt. The debate is where to strike that balance.
Even die-hard testers recognize that you cant completely test any system or capability. But I hope the previous examples will convince you that some level of disciplined testing is necessary. We cannot field critical capabilities by simply getting a warm, fuzzy feeling during a demonstration.
Please note that my push for disciplined testing does not imply that we should only field systems that have been proven to meet 100% of their requirements. But we must have proven some of their critical interfaces and have an idea of what works, what doesnt work, and what we just dont know.Nobody argues that there must be a balance between fielding capabilities quickly and taking the time necessary to insure those capabilities are of sufficient quality to help rather than to hurt. The debate is where to strike that balance.
Even die-hard testers recognize that you cant completely test any system or capability. But I hope the previous examples will convince you that some level of disciplined testing is necessary. We cannot field critical capabilities by simply getting a warm, fuzzy feeling during a demonstration.
Please note that my push for disciplined testing does not imply that we should only field systems that have been proven to meet 100% of their requirements. But we must have proven some of their critical interfaces and have an idea of what works, what doesnt work, and what we just dont know.
8. 8 NR-KPP View of Interoperability Here are the pillars of the NR-KPP and my view of how it relates to the way we were doing business.Here are the pillars of the NR-KPP and my view of how it relates to the way we were doing business.
9. 9 Potential NR-KPP Impacts: General
10. 10 Potential NR-KPP Impacts: Testing
11. 11 Element Definition and Testing
12. 12 Conclusions
14. 14
15. 15 JITCs Unique Roles Sole certifier for joint interoperability in DOD. Doesnt mean were the only tester isnt possible. But through collaboration with users, testers, and developers, we get the necessary information and determine whether the system deserves certification in other words, that the system meets the joint warfighters needs.
Only non-service Operational Test Agency (4 other OTAs in DOD: ATEC, AFOTEC, COMOPTEVFOR, and MCOTEA). Report on operational suitability and effectiveness (beyond interoperability) for systems developed by DISA, DFAS, and other DOD Agencies. We also have MOAs with AFOTEC and MCOTEA in place and pending with ATEC and COMOPTEVFOR. These MOAs help insure efficient and effective interoperability evaluations through shared test data, facilities, and expertise.
Only non-service member of the Major Range and Test Facility Base (20 others in DOD all service owned). Allows us to work with industry, seeing their new products and helping them build in joint interoperability.
Combination of these unique roles and the expertise we build up leads other agencies to select us to serve as their executive agent for testing. For example, as executive agent for NIMA, JITC tests imagery systems and maintains a registry of all that conform to transmission format standards. Commercial systems that want to be considered for DOD purchase can thus come through JITC and prove they meet the applicable standards. This is one of the best ways to insure systems are born joint: make industry develop components that conform to interoperability standards before they ever enter the DOD inventory.
Finally, we go well beyond the traditional test role and provide direct interoperability advice and troubleshooting to warfighters in the field. Sole certifier for joint interoperability in DOD. Doesnt mean were the only tester isnt possible. But through collaboration with users, testers, and developers, we get the necessary information and determine whether the system deserves certification in other words, that the system meets the joint warfighters needs.
Only non-service Operational Test Agency (4 other OTAs in DOD: ATEC, AFOTEC, COMOPTEVFOR, and MCOTEA). Report on operational suitability and effectiveness (beyond interoperability) for systems developed by DISA, DFAS, and other DOD Agencies. We also have MOAs with AFOTEC and MCOTEA in place and pending with ATEC and COMOPTEVFOR. These MOAs help insure efficient and effective interoperability evaluations through shared test data, facilities, and expertise.
Only non-service member of the Major Range and Test Facility Base (20 others in DOD all service owned). Allows us to work with industry, seeing their new products and helping them build in joint interoperability.
Combination of these unique roles and the expertise we build up leads other agencies to select us to serve as their executive agent for testing. For example, as executive agent for NIMA, JITC tests imagery systems and maintains a registry of all that conform to transmission format standards. Commercial systems that want to be considered for DOD purchase can thus come through JITC and prove they meet the applicable standards. This is one of the best ways to insure systems are born joint: make industry develop components that conform to interoperability standards before they ever enter the DOD inventory.
Finally, we go well beyond the traditional test role and provide direct interoperability advice and troubleshooting to warfighters in the field.
16. 16 Joint Interoperability Directives & Instructions This is the primary guidance we use to conduct our interoperability evaluations and certifications. We are not going to go over them in detail. We just want you to be aware of what they are and to know that policy does change from time to time.
DOD 4630.5 and DODI 4630.8 state that all IT and NSS systems must be certified for interoperability before fielding.
CJCSI 6212.01B describes the certification processes and specifies that JITC must test and certify interoperability. This language is also in the DOD 5000 series, the policy for major acquisitions.
CJCSI 3170.01C, which was recently signed on 24 June 2003, mandates interoperability KPP for Capability Development Documents (CDDs) and Capability Production Documents (CPDs).
NSS: National Security System
IT: Information Technology
This is the primary guidance we use to conduct our interoperability evaluations and certifications. We are not going to go over them in detail. We just want you to be aware of what they are and to know that policy does change from time to time.
DOD 4630.5 and DODI 4630.8 state that all IT and NSS systems must be certified for interoperability before fielding.
CJCSI 6212.01B describes the certification processes and specifies that JITC must test and certify interoperability. This language is also in the DOD 5000 series, the policy for major acquisitions.
CJCSI 3170.01C, which was recently signed on 24 June 2003, mandates interoperability KPP for Capability Development Documents (CDDs) and Capability Production Documents (CPDs).
17. 17 JITCs Interoperability Perspective Our belief is that interoperability is not just making two pieces of equipment or a string work. There are many other items that impact joint interoperability. JITC believes that the People who operate the equipment and the Procedures that guide the People are just as important as the fielded Equipment. All three aspects must be considered in order to achieve joint interoperability.
Issues include training, proper resources, proper support, the doctrine issues which filter into them, and the procedures for making these things work. This is a very complex puzzle. It is not just a simple effort of taking a piece of hardware or software from the shelf and plugging it in and making it work. Achieving joint interoperability goes far beyond the equipment efforts of acquisitions.
Our belief is that interoperability is not just making two pieces of equipment or a string work. There are many other items that impact joint interoperability. JITC believes that the People who operate the equipment and the Procedures that guide the People are just as important as the fielded Equipment. All three aspects must be considered in order to achieve joint interoperability.
Issues include training, proper resources, proper support, the doctrine issues which filter into them, and the procedures for making these things work. This is a very complex puzzle. It is not just a simple effort of taking a piece of hardware or software from the shelf and plugging it in and making it work. Achieving joint interoperability goes far beyond the equipment efforts of acquisitions.
18. 18 Certification and the System Life-Cycle The interoperability certification process encompasses a building block approach with each segment providing feedback to the next. Verification of standards performance, controlled laboratory tests, DT events, OT&E events, expanded field tests, and finally verification during exercises are events that can be included in the interoperability certification process.
Our goal is to conduct interoperability certification as part of Service testing, not as a stand-alone event. To do this, however, requires early involvement with Service testers and PMs.
JITC in conjunction with DISA IN has put two database tools on-line that tie the certification of requirements to certification through testing.
These automated tools and the integration of garrison testing and field observations will provide the basis of an improved process that reconciles requirements generation to interoperability testing.The interoperability certification process encompasses a building block approach with each segment providing feedback to the next. Verification of standards performance, controlled laboratory tests, DT events, OT&E events, expanded field tests, and finally verification during exercises are events that can be included in the interoperability certification process.
Our goal is to conduct interoperability certification as part of Service testing, not as a stand-alone event. To do this, however, requires early involvement with Service testers and PMs.
JITC in conjunction with DISA IN has put two database tools on-line that tie the certification of requirements to certification through testing.
These automated tools and the integration of garrison testing and field observations will provide the basis of an improved process that reconciles requirements generation to interoperability testing.
19. 19 JITCs Areas of Expertise This slide depicts the breadth of what we do. It is not, however, all-inclusive. In all but one or two instances, we have physical testbed space dedicated to these areas.
This slide depicts the breadth of what we do. It is not, however, all-inclusive. In all but one or two instances, we have physical testbed space dedicated to these areas.
20. 20 Not only do we employ our own extensive test facilities to advance interoperability, but we also collaborate with other experts and their facilities via a distributed test network. For example, approximately once a month well run a joint test for systems operating over the joint data network using tactical information links (like TADIL J). We connect to service and agency systems like PATRIOT and AWACS at labs across the country (or even world), stimulate them from our central facility to make them think theyre seeing friendly and hostile tracks, and collect detailed data on the information they exchange. After the tests, JITC, JFCOM, and the services and agencies meet to evaluate how effectively the systems and forces interoperated to accomplish the mission.
We do a significant portion of our testing today in a distributed fashion. But we are working hard to expand and improve the fidelity of the distributed testing. For instance, DOD tasked DISA and JITC with the Joint Distributed Engineering Plant. (click mouse)
The JDEP vision is to provide the infrastructure, process, and expertise to replicate joint environments which developers, testers, and engineers can use to work through interoperability issues throughout a systems lifecycle. Just as no single operational entity constitutes a joint task force, neither can any single engineering or test agency replicate a realistic joint environment. However, JDEP is founded on the notion that, through collaboration of existing engineering and testing facilities we can develop highly realistic joint environments to work through technical and procedural interoperability issues.
The JDEP exists today and has been actively supporting the SIAP System Engineer and the Theater Air and Missile Defense communities. DOD has funded JDEP to continue to expand into multiple functional areas over the next 4 years.Not only do we employ our own extensive test facilities to advance interoperability, but we also collaborate with other experts and their facilities via a distributed test network. For example, approximately once a month well run a joint test for systems operating over the joint data network using tactical information links (like TADIL J). We connect to service and agency systems like PATRIOT and AWACS at labs across the country (or even world), stimulate them from our central facility to make them think theyre seeing friendly and hostile tracks, and collect detailed data on the information they exchange. After the tests, JITC, JFCOM, and the services and agencies meet to evaluate how effectively the systems and forces interoperated to accomplish the mission.
We do a significant portion of our testing today in a distributed fashion. But we are working hard to expand and improve the fidelity of the distributed testing. For instance, DOD tasked DISA and JITC with the Joint Distributed Engineering Plant. (click mouse)
The JDEP vision is to provide the infrastructure, process, and expertise to replicate joint environments which developers, testers, and engineers can use to work through interoperability issues throughout a systems lifecycle. Just as no single operational entity constitutes a joint task force, neither can any single engineering or test agency replicate a realistic joint environment. However, JDEP is founded on the notion that, through collaboration of existing engineering and testing facilities we can develop highly realistic joint environments to work through technical and procedural interoperability issues.
The JDEP exists today and has been actively supporting the SIAP System Engineer and the Theater Air and Missile Defense communities. DOD has funded JDEP to continue to expand into multiple functional areas over the next 4 years.
21. 21 Demos and Exercises Distributed Interoperability
Communications Exercise (DICE)
Joint interoperability
Voice Switches
Data Systems
Messaging Systems
Transmission Systems
Video Teleconference
Operational units in doctrinally deployed joint network
Comms training in a JTF environment
In addition to testing in a laboratory environment, we also test in field environments.
JWID (which is supported by our test division at Indian Head, MD) is the Joint Chiefs of Staff annual event that enables the US combatant commands and international community to investigate C4 solutions that focus on relevant and timely objectives for enhancing coalition interoperability
Listed are the 6 primary objectives of JWID 2003. This year, there are 60 Coalition Interoperability Trials to address these objectives for both technical interoperability and warfighter utility.
The host combatant commander is PACOM (will switch to NORTHCOM for 04 and 05). Other key participants include EUCOM, STRATCOM, TRANSCOM, DISA, NIMA, NSA, DIA and each of the services. Allied participation includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Spain, and NATO.
DICE (supported by a test division at Fort Huachuca, AZ) is a major joint communications exercise where Combatant Commanders, Services, and Agencies nominate systems to be tested for interoperability in a joint environment. JITC, under JFCOM sponsorship, replicates a Joint Task Force communications environment in order to mitigate operational risk by thoroughly testing new communications systems and software releases in a realistic joint tactical network. Most of the systems tested during DICE are candidates for joint certification, although less formal interoperability assessments for emerging systems are conducted as well.
JITCs approach to testing during DICE includes a combination of DOD testbeds, DISN Standardized Tactical Entry Points, and operational units from each of the armed services distributed throughout the U.S., afloat, and abroad.
This year, like last, DICE is playing a key role by providing critical support to deployed and deploying units.
In addition to testing in a laboratory environment, we also test in field environments.
JWID (which is supported by our test division at Indian Head, MD) is the Joint Chiefs of Staff annual event that enables the US combatant commands and international community to investigate C4 solutions that focus on relevant and timely objectives for enhancing coalition interoperability
Listed are the 6 primary objectives of JWID 2003. This year, there are 60 Coalition Interoperability Trials to address these objectives for both technical interoperability and warfighter utility.
The host combatant commander is PACOM (will switch to NORTHCOM for 04 and 05). Other key participants include EUCOM, STRATCOM, TRANSCOM, DISA, NIMA, NSA, DIA and each of the services. Allied participation includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Spain, and NATO.
DICE (supported by a test division at Fort Huachuca, AZ) is a major joint communications exercise where Combatant Commanders, Services, and Agencies nominate systems to be tested for interoperability in a joint environment. JITC, under JFCOM sponsorship, replicates a Joint Task Force communications environment in order to mitigate operational risk by thoroughly testing new communications systems and software releases in a realistic joint tactical network. Most of the systems tested during DICE are candidates for joint certification, although less formal interoperability assessments for emerging systems are conducted as well.
JITCs approach to testing during DICE includes a combination of DOD testbeds, DISN Standardized Tactical Entry Points, and operational units from each of the armed services distributed throughout the U.S., afloat, and abroad.
This year, like last, DICE is playing a key role by providing critical support to deployed and deploying units.
22. 22 Both JWID and DICE are designed specifically for evaluating interoperability. But JITC also plays an interoperability support role in a number (6-10 per year) of other exercises sponsored by Combatant Commanders. Here you see a sampling of these exercises. Our support is task-organized and unique to each customers particular needs. Subject matter experts provide interoperability assistance to the commanders staff, component headquarters and tactical communications units throughout the planning and execution phases of each exercise.
But even more important than our exercise support, JITC provides interoperability assistance directly to warfighters in contingencies. This outer ring shows the operations JITC has supported over the years. We continuously run a Hotline to respond to interoperability issues warfighters are experiencing. In addition, we have LNOs assigned to every combatant commander 6 of which are actually collocated with the warfighter: 2 at JFCOM, and 1 each at PACOM, CENTCOM, NORTHCOM and NATO HQ. The combination of our LNOs and Hotline accessibility help us to anticipate interoperability obstacles and respond to actual problems.
Our responses range from working through the issue on the phone, to replicating the issue in our facilities, to deploying interoperability experts to theater. The most recent examples are Operations ENDURING and IRAQI FREEDOM. We have responded to 349 hotline calls since 9-11-01, 146 of which are OEF/OIF specific. JITC first deployed a team on 9-17-01, and have had people on-site in theater and at CENTCOM headquarters until the present. In fact, an Army command we supported awarded the Bronze Star to one of our communication NCOs for his efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
JITC OEF/OIF support ranged from Tactical Data Links supporting COP to satellite communications and from network management to the Defense Red Switch Network. Our support also bridges both the technical and operational aspects of interoperability: approximately 40% of the problems we solve are equipment-based, while the other 60% are to due procedural and/or training issues.
Both JWID and DICE are designed specifically for evaluating interoperability. But JITC also plays an interoperability support role in a number (6-10 per year) of other exercises sponsored by Combatant Commanders. Here you see a sampling of these exercises. Our support is task-organized and unique to each customers particular needs. Subject matter experts provide interoperability assistance to the commanders staff, component headquarters and tactical communications units throughout the planning and execution phases of each exercise.
But even more important than our exercise support, JITC provides interoperability assistance directly to warfighters in contingencies. This outer ring shows the operations JITC has supported over the years. We continuously run a Hotline to respond to interoperability issues warfighters are experiencing. In addition, we have LNOs assigned to every combatant commander 6 of which are actually collocated with the warfighter: 2 at JFCOM, and 1 each at PACOM, CENTCOM, NORTHCOM and NATO HQ. The combination of our LNOs and Hotline accessibility help us to anticipate interoperability obstacles and respond to actual problems.
Our responses range from working through the issue on the phone, to replicating the issue in our facilities, to deploying interoperability experts to theater. The most recent examples are Operations ENDURING and IRAQI FREEDOM. We have responded to 349 hotline calls since 9-11-01, 146 of which are OEF/OIF specific. JITC first deployed a team on 9-17-01, and have had people on-site in theater and at CENTCOM headquarters until the present. In fact, an Army command we supported awarded the Bronze Star to one of our communication NCOs for his efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
JITC OEF/OIF support ranged from Tactical Data Links supporting COP to satellite communications and from network management to the Defense Red Switch Network. Our support also bridges both the technical and operational aspects of interoperability: approximately 40% of the problems we solve are equipment-based, while the other 60% are to due procedural and/or training issues.
23. 23 Conclusions The examples of command & control and intelligence that I presented at the beginning of the brief illustrate well the vital importance of interoperability. They also reaffirm that, as technology and doctrine evolve, well continue to experience new interoperability problems.
But while we wont ever achieve interoperability once and for all, we will continue to make accomplishments - even transformational accomplishments - as DOD implements a top-down, COCOM-centric approach. Key to the success of this approach will be extensive partnering and resource sharing, especially among systems engineers and testing organizations.
JITC is already partnering with the COCOMs, services and agencies, industry, and coalition organizations; and were looking to strengthen and expand such partnerships. We offer our vast distributed test infrastructure, broad functional expertise, established operational experience, and our dedication to increasing combat effectiveness through interoperability. The examples of command & control and intelligence that I presented at the beginning of the brief illustrate well the vital importance of interoperability. They also reaffirm that, as technology and doctrine evolve, well continue to experience new interoperability problems.
But while we wont ever achieve interoperability once and for all, we will continue to make accomplishments - even transformational accomplishments - as DOD implements a top-down, COCOM-centric approach. Key to the success of this approach will be extensive partnering and resource sharing, especially among systems engineers and testing organizations.
JITC is already partnering with the COCOMs, services and agencies, industry, and coalition organizations; and were looking to strengthen and expand such partnerships. We offer our vast distributed test infrastructure, broad functional expertise, established operational experience, and our dedication to increasing combat effectiveness through interoperability.
24. The perspective we take in our testing is more than just making sure one piece of equipment works with another. The broad JITC focus includes the People, Procedures, as well as the Equipment. We cannot deploy our warfighters with C4I equipment of uncertain capabilities. The JITC goal is to ensure that the battlefields of tomorrow do not become the testing ground for C4I systems. The perspective we take in our testing is more than just making sure one piece of equipment works with another. The broad JITC focus includes the People, Procedures, as well as the Equipment. We cannot deploy our warfighters with C4I equipment of uncertain capabilities. The JITC goal is to ensure that the battlefields of tomorrow do not become the testing ground for C4I systems.
