Contributor: Richard de Silva
Posted: 05/31/2012 12:00:00 AM EDT | 2 
On the back of recent reports that the US Army has begun to ship Google Android operated touchscreen devices to more of its troops in Afghanistan, progress on this experimental step has been of high interest to militaries worldwide, particularly as the roll out is also being used as a litmus for the same programme to soon be delivered to government officials and other key agencies.
At a recent forum on the subject of modernising tactical communications, Major General Alan R. Lynn, Commanding General of the US Army Signal Center of Excellence, addressed a room of international delegates on the recent evolution.
The aim for the Signal Corps is to ensure that the infantry communication network applies itself is “an extension of the soldier” and whatever is fielded should allow the warfighter to train wherever they are, be it on home soil or downrange.
Lynn outlined the Signals Transformation Project, emphasising the importance of constantly questioning the utility of what is being fielded.
“Every three years we look at ourselves and ask did we get it right?” said Lynn.
“We’re now addressing all of the issues identified in the Signal Tactical Functional Area Assessment.”
The mission has been made all the more complex by a reduction of the signals soldier teams from nine to four, but with a concurrent demand for greater capability, and no actual increase in budget.
The answer to this riddle has been the futuristic-sounding Micro-Cyber (‘μCyber’), which naturally aims to shrink the technology at hand and hinges on taking a flexible approach.
This SWAP-C (Small Weight and Power - Cost) programme is designed to do exactly as it sounds, changing out the old for the new. The priority aim across the board is the concerted effort to lessen the load that communications equipment adds to the soldier in the battlefield – one of the continuously difficult ambitions of militaries worldwide, particularly in an age when troops are expected to act as everything from a human broadcasting tower to an artillery piece on legs.
In one example, Lynn said, “we asked whether there is now a need for voice or a need for data? As soldiers need more data, we need to provide more than the traditional voice systems.
“Senior commanders didn’t used to understand communications. The extent of it was ‘fix that’. Now, after another decade of warfighting, three and four star generals have begun to ‘get’ it.”
He highlighted here that where the old, “limited” voice kits would cost $46,000 a piece, swapping these out for commercial off-the-shelf tablet computers represents a cost-saving that any level of command can appreciate.
Usually, it is a 5-7 year process to take an idea for new Army equipment from proposal to theatre. However, due to the general lifespan of relevance for today’s technology being roughly 6 years, soldiers can find themselves taking delivery of kit that proves obsolete within a matter of months.
Michael McCarthy, Director of the Brigade Modernisation Command, has been leading the process of rolling out smart devices to US soldiers worldwide while tackling this very pitfall.
According to him, it has been a struggle to repeal what he calls the “Bubba Law”.
“Bubba is my cousin’s friend’s sister’s cousin’s friend… basically, there’s a culture of simply following a rule that someone made up and no one wants to change in case something goes wrong,” he said.
McCarthy knew that he would be taking commanders out of their comfort zone when he proposed that they reject the usual 7 year wait and fundamentally change how soldiers share information, training and knowledge in both garrison and operations… all in just 4 months.
Fortunately, McCarthy has been able to draw on the benefits of smart technology use currently being implemented across the other US services.
The Air Force is procuring 18,000 iPads for its pilots to engage in virtual cockpit training, helping to orient new aviators and keep the skills of seasoned officers fine-tuned.
The Navy meanwhile has been seduced by the prospect of collating physical on-board manuals and guidebooks to just a few tablet computers per vessel. The reason being is that documentation adds several tons of weight to every ship, and in turn adds significantly to already rising fuel costs.
“We’ve got to keep thinking that way and looking at second and third effects,” says McCarthy.
With the change in technology also comes a change in the way soldiers are trained. Where the technology picks up or simplifies some of the hard graft that the traditional user used to be troubled with, being trained in some of these skills has since become redundant, thereby allowing commanders to pare down courses to meet the essentials.
“As we’re buying boxes more often,” said Lynn, “and the equipment changes rapidly over the years, training is becoming more and more theory-based.”
The 13 defined skillsets of the traditional signals officer is now down to 7, including the hot button issue – cyber defence.
Overall, it’s an “agile” approach that updates the capability in an incremental basis. If there is no warfight, or there is budget that is not immediately being funnelled to operations, funding can instead be diverted to buying further units of the modern kit, such as smartphones.
Such a tactic should prevent the technology as a whole from becoming outdated. Eventually, when smart technology or handheld devices become a thing of the past (probably sooner than we think), the Army will already have one foot forward in the right direction.
“This could be the base we use for all our future systems,” continued Lynn.
‘Ruggedising’ the equipment is also easier, with gorilla glass and shock cases being easy to obtain, plus a newfound disregard for the general wellbeing of the hardware.
“The whole premise of this is that it’s affordable technology,” declared McCarthy.
“When you break it, you just get another one.”
He relates a recent incident of the tablets undergoing field testing, during which a 32,000 lb MRAP armoured vehicle accidentally rolled over one of the devices, turning it to dust. The soldiers involved had been worried they would be in trouble for destroying it, but as was pointed out to them, this is exactly why the equipment is undergoing field testing, and there’s little cost in replacing them.
How small a cost? According to the contractors, the company supplying the hardware agreed to a deal that involves the devices themselves costing a mere $1 cent a piece.
Learning from commercial success
Just as benefits the commercial smart phone user, another vital part of networking the dismounted squad has been in the provision of apps to further simplify and accelerate tasks.
The Signal Corps has long been developing its very own ‘App Store’, with 84 military-specific applications completed to date, 75 of which have been published.
The Brigade Combat Team app, offering training, terminology and other information, currently tops the charts among the personnel using smart devices, but Lynn also pointed out that it has helped keep troops refreshed, entertained and sociable, with an app offering bugle call audio files one of the other most popular downloads.
Development of these apps is neither idly done nor limited to military developers. Industry is encouraged to assist in ensuring the software soldiers are familiarising themselves with in the comfort of the barracks is also identical to what they would need to know or use in the battlefield.
Lynn provided another example: “If we ask industry to develop an app, the second part of the conversation goes ‘If you’re giving me a training app, make that the Graphical User Interface’.
“We look to give industry a base line of requirements, and anything above that is great. Our message is that if you think you can improve on what we have or provide us something useful, show us what you’ve got.”
Keeping things secure
Smart devices in theatre are physically connected across their own wave forms, but it is of course an ongoing focus to ensure the security of the network wherever possible.
The US National Security Agency is involved in the software encryption of Micro-Cyber, and has been one of the most active agencies taking on responsibilities for long-term cyber security across military and government infrastructure.
McCarthy raises the point of the need for the technology superseding the immediate availability of the technology as a security concern today.
“Currently, soldiers are buying cell phones out of their own pocket and using them on local networks, which you’d rather not want in theatre,” he said.
“At the same time, we can’t put a soldier at risk by giving them a system that’s vulnerable.”
That being said, he also stressed that there is now the need for the Army to not act in a strictly risk-averse fashion but instead access “appropriate risk” in order to see that the door to advancement does not swing shut.
Lieutenant Colonel Mark Miles, Operations Officer of the Army’s Chief Information Officer, is responsible for the management of data sharing, and explains to us how less really can be more where IT security is concerned.
“We have extra networking capability that we could consolidate,” explained Miles.
“We have right now many different networks and it’s large on our operational environment only because we have a lot of redundant capability.
“So it’s an environment of multiple user devices and multiple networks, which is inherently less secure because there’s more you need to manage. You have a larger digital footprint.
“In the future, where there’s going to be a larger data requirement, the network – which will be consolidated – will therefore be more secure only because there will be less of a perimeter.”
Even further into the future
Asked how much information is provided on each of the handheld devices, Lynn confirmed that virtualisation was already in the works.
“GPS, base maps, and so on, are physically added to the device,” he said, “but additional and more detailed information should be part of a cloud. The NIE (Network Integration Evaluation) is helping with this.”
Lt Col Miles outlined the initiative’s role in the broader picture.
“NIE is really looking at how we’re modernising IT capabilities in the future, trying to keep a better pace with available technology and modernising the entire network, from the operational and tactical forces to our generating forces prior to deployment,” he said.
“For the overall vision – the vision of one network and enterprise available, having data always available – it’s more than just about their data; it’s about their identity.
“It’s about how we’re changing the soldier interfacing with the network on the battlefield. We are hopefully in the future going to be giving them the same access to the network as they have back in the rear, and the very same data.
“So when the soldiers and the units and the leadership access this data back at a camp posting station prior to deployment, they get on the plane, they get off in a contingency environment, and they still have the same identity, the same email address, the same products they’re used to using, their staffs are already integrated using the network that they’re comfortable with… the data follows them.”
Being at an international conference, the issue was raised of plans to integrate joint force networks.
“We recognise that future conflict won’t be fought alone, so a coalition stack will be factored in,” said Lynn, referring to the Joint Information Environment.
Miles confirmed: “Every modernisation decision that we’re making is being based on current lessons from the battlefield. We know that there will be a coalition interface requirement and we’re taking account of that.
“When we’re designing a future data network, whether it be satellite or individual handheld user equipment, we are acknowledging that there will be a requirement to operate not only on a secure US network but across a secure coalition environment.”
For McCarthy, despite the abundance of benefits in the outlook from a joint relations perspective, or even a cost perspective, there’s also an added incentive that keep him dedicated to seeing this programme through:
“My personal goal is that if I can save one soldier’s life or prevent them from being injured because we’ve provided them with better access to info and training, then I feel it will be worth it.”
