I’ve been thinking about the Unified Network since the last Technical Exchange Meeting held in Savanah, Georgia. The framework or concept is not new, and that point has been emphasized repeatedly. The update LTG Morrison gave was encouraging in so much of the barriers to realizing the framework is being dealt with. The number one barrier was and continues to be an internal cultural divide. The Unified Network is simple in concept but complex to execute. The scale of the US Army is very hard to comprehend and that is the major contributor to the cultural differences. A tactical unit may think the thousands of end user devices, servers and network devices in division space is a large network, but a strategic network provider manages the same amount on a portion of a small post, camp or station. What the Unified Network does is standardize the functions, responsibilities and capabilities and reduce the learning curve on the US Army network forces. The Unified Network is truly a framework, but as usual industry and the acquisition community can’t survive on concepts, so the framework is quickly mapped to existing programs to make sure the funding lines don’t go away.

Functional Layout

Fundamentally the Unified Network has three overarching functions that are executed by either individuals or units. For simplicity’s sake, I’ll refer to them as Planning, Operations, and Governance. Planning is the realm of the S6/G6. It is what the Operations realm uses to Engineer, Install, Operate, and Defend the network. The Planning realm is primarily focused on what information needs to be available and where and in what quantity for data and connectivity. It coordinates and synchronizes capabilities across the entire battlespace and supports the two DoD vertically integrated enterprises – Logistics and Intelligence while enabling horizontally coordinated Command and Control execution. It uses the Governance realm policies and resources to bind the planning problems.

The use of fundamental constraints of Spectrum allocations and the restraints of resources and strategic objectives provide the right and left boundaries of the planning efforts. The Operations realm is concerned with the technical implementation of the plan. It develops technical annexes and synchronization matrixes to install, operate, and defend the network. For organic assets within the units, the S6 is responsible for Network Operations while as the Unified Network starts to scale dedicated units are required to execute Network Operations up to US Army Network Command and its higher headquarters US Army Cyber Command. The technical configuration and the processes to maintain those configurations are the responsibility of the Operations realm. The final realm is the Governance realm. It is focused on resources, policy, and compliance. The CIO is the principal in the area and the only one with the force of public law behind those responsibilities. By law, the CIO has to validate all IT spending and make sure there are policies and rules concerning the procurement of equipment, services, and personnel. The lower-level staff are responsible for executing the policies and making sure any procurements comply with promulgated requirements. This is also where the information security policies are found, and the traditional information security practices are focused. The Risk Management Framework is the latest incarnation of security governance.

Other Factors

The other construct is a division of technical and functional areas. The Signal Regiment has long divided the technical areas into tactical and strategic areas with the operational level coming into play because of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of moving the Department of Defense into a Joint force. Again, the areas all have the same subcomponents: Information Systems, Information Security, Compute, Networking, and Storage. Coordination and synchronization of capabilities is critical across all elements of the technical areas. For now, the tools fielded in the last 30 years at both the Enterprise and Tactical levels have focused on monitoring the network for performance and security. Though the need to understand what and who is on the network forced some configuration and creation of several configuration management databases at the unit and theater levels. The advent of Army Cyber has consolidated a subset of data at the Army level but it does not contain everything the various units require to plan, execute, and defend the unified network.

Challenges

The challenge is still centralized planning and decentralized execution. At the Department of Defense and Department of Army levels there are key services that are required down at the individual level. That is an enterprise by definition. Identity management and key resource allocation (i.e. identity management, reachability information like IP addresses and naming services, spectrum allocation, and Satellite access). These serve as constraints for all subordinate commands and units. The need for unity of effort, coordinated planning and a single entity that is held responsible to the mission commander for mission accomplishment through well-defined service levels dictates a unified approach to the network. A single organization can’t have the resources or focus to support hundreds of deployed units engaged in multiple different missions. Therefore the force design must account for the ability of mission unit being supported by either organic or attached network functional elements that can plan, operate and govern within the United Network Framework.
When the Unified Network concept was rolled out in 2021, LTG Morrison specifically said it was not a program. As in all things within the defense department the old idiom “A requirement without funding is a pipedream while a material solution without a requirement is a bill payer” still holds true today. We are seeing a greater use of “Unified Network” in material solutions. There is danger in ignoring the true framework for the Unified Network which is more focused on leader development, training, policy, and doctrine. The cultural impediments to a truly Unified Network from individual Soldier back into the Industrial Base and National Command Authority lays in the non-material capabilities and its something the US army can’t afford to lose sight of.