Defense Department Briefs

The ballyhooed Global Command and Control System has still not quite taken over for its
predecessor, the World-Wide Military Command and Control System. But Pentagon officials
say the new system could be used for Operation Joint Endeavor as soon as March.


"We've got 99 percent [of the system testing] done," a Defense Information
Systems Agency official said at a recent Pentagon briefing. One critical test remains:
synchronizing the 16 databases that will feed GCCS around the world.


The standard data element hunt by DISA's Joint Interoperability Engineering
Organization shows no signs of stopping. From 8,000 approved elements announced last fall,
the list has grown to 10,000. Now DISA has uploaded the element library to its home page
on the World Wide Web. To see if your favorite data breed made the cut, click on DOD Data
Administration from DISA's home page at http://www.disa.mil.
 


The Army's Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command has tapped Hughes Training
in Arlington, Va., for the engineering and manufacturing development phase of its Battle
Lab Reconfigurable Simulator Initiative. Under a three-year $53 million contract, Hughes
will deliver reconfigurable systems for simulating everything from dismounted infantry to
intelligence operations in support of Force XXI experimentation and analysis.


Before you mortgage the officers club, find out what it will cost to move your
organization into the Defense Message System by hopping over to the Navy's DMS home page
at http://www.spawar.navy.mil:80/~DMS/
and downloading the DMS POM 98 Models. This document has worksheets for calculating your
probable DMS investment needs based on number of users and your computer and network
infrastructure. Questions? Call Pamela Pantall at 703-602-4775.


Speaking of DMS, the legal department at No Such Agency is said to be in a tizzie over
how the Defense Department should label products that pass the security segment of DISA's
DMS conformance testing. Should such products be "Fortezza Certified" or merely
"Fortezza Compliant"?


NSA worries that too strong an endorsement will expose it to liability for security
breaches by DMS users. The noncommittal "Fortezza Enabled" is consequently
gaining favor. How about "Fortezzaesque"?


inside gcn

  • When cybersecurity capabilities are paid for, but untapped

Reader Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above