New Handbook explains "Network Enabled Capability"

[WE Branch Fanatic]

See here. (http://www.news.mod.uk/news_headline_story.asp?newsItem_id=3078)

[Divergent Phugoid!]

What a load of bollox!! Rant switch to safe...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Yeah that's what I thought. Management gooblededook, which tries of give an excuse for cuts.

[AllTrimDoubt]

I was taught that Service Writing should be concise and brief. Thus:

Go to work. Achieve the task. Kill as many of the bad guys as possible using weapons effectively. Look after the good guys.

BZ

Why are we subjected to all this pseudo-corporate-babble-crap-speak. I'm so pissed off at being over-arched, underpinned and outside the box.

Concur: utter bollox.

[soddim]

Am full of sympathy for the poor staff who made up those 24 pages of drivel.

[StopStart]

Consonant please Carol. And another. And a vowel. And a consonant...and finally another vowel.

SHETI

hmmmm

[Bunker Mentality]

The problem here, apart from all the Staff Bo!!ox, is the word 'Enabled'. As far as I understand it, it means that: 'you could have it have it when you need it, but not yet'. That means you wont be able to train with it, so you wont trust it, so you wont be able to use it properly - so it wont bl00dy work properly.

You need it long before you NEED it, so to speak.

[heights good]

Breath deeply!! count back from 10

10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1,

COMPLETE BO**OCKS!!!!

[BEagle]

It lost me as soon as I read that "We must ensure that we stay ahead of the curve.." :yuk: WTF does that mean?

And which numpty decided to adopt the acronym 'CND' for Computer Network Defence? Weren't they that gang of duffle-coated weird beards and dodgy vicars in sandals wandering about Berkshire in the 1960s?

Thank heavens I don't have to bother with such turgid bolleaux any more!

[AllTrimDoubt]

Perhaps we need a Roadmap to find the Integrated Maingate Project conceptual Breakout thingy?

[ORAC]

When asked how he explained how black boxes work to aircrew, a sage old engineer replied, "I just tell them it takes wiggly amps in and puts wiggly amps out. Everything in between works using FM or WMM".

[Cambridge Crash]

Three-decker shipss? They'll defeat the turrent

Rifled barrels? Never work.

Telegraph? No, too much information.

Cavalry, that's the way ahead.

Moncoque construction? No, stay with wood and fabric!

Submarines? Damn'd un British!

Effects Based Operations (the sharp end of NEC) is the way ahead to provide the timely and accurate delivery of State violence. Do you think that other organisations would eschew technology - especially information sharing?

CC

[FatBaldChief]

Read it and think it should be called Working And Network Knowledge

:8

[engineer(retard)]

try implementing it for real - security regulations based on office buildings and software based upon Windows (what safety case)

[Llademos]

Translating it into Jive makes it much more understandable ...

Many sucka's in Defence and da damn Armed Fo'ces gots'ta heard da damn term "Netwo'k Enabled Capability" (NEC) - but do we all dig it whut it means? De NEC Handscribblin', published on 2 February 2005, aims t'make sho' nuff dat everyone gots'ta some common dig itin' uh whut NEC is, whut it means, and where it be goin'. Aldough some complex and far-reachin' concept, NEC be essentially about enablin' sucka's wid de help uh robust processes, developin' technology and resilient netwo'ks t'betta' 'sploit info'mashun, resultin' in mo'e timely decisions, mo'e agile acshuns and mo'e precise effects. NEC is, dig dis: about da damn coherent integrashun uh senso's, decision-makers, weapon systems and sdownpo't capabilities t'betta' deliva' military effect; about gaderin', managin', sharin' and 'esploitin' info'mashun better, bod widin Defence and da damn Armed Fo'ces and across Government and wid our coalishun partners; crucial t'de future conduct uh military opuh'shuns, wid implicashuns fo' and applicashuns in mos' every area uh Defence activity; and, a co'nerstone uh de transfo'mashun which defence be undergoin' t'meet da damn security challenges uh de 21st Century. Slap mah fro! As Vice Chief uh de Defence Staff (VCDS) and 2nd Permanent Unda' Secretary fo' Defence (2nd PUS) say in deir fo'ewo'd t'De NEC Handscribblin': "NEC be not some pipe dream. 'S coo', bro. It be shapin' our current and future fo'ce structures and requirements... and it needs t'be implemented, coo'dinated and sdownpo'ted across all aspects uh Defence activity if it be to realise its full potential." De NEC Handscribblin' 'esplains whut Netwo'k Enabled Capability be all about and how it gots'ta develop ova' de next two decades. It be aimed at MOD and Armed Fo'ces sucka'nel, as sheeit as de Defence Industry and sucka's in oda' Government Departments. De scribblin'let also seeks t'stimulate active and constructive dought, discussion and engagement t'help roll and stea' de development uh NEC. Electronic copies uh de handscribblin' are available on bod de MOD Website. What it is, Mama!

[ORAC]

Engineer(retard),

We´re working on it at a bit higher level than that. e.g.
NITEworks (http://www.niteworks.net/)
JETTS (http://www.mod.uk/dpa/news/pn2004/oct04/battlelab.htm)
Acquisition for Network Enabled Capability (http://www.ams.mod.uk/ams/content/topics/pages/3116.htm)

[StopStart]

Certainly makes more sense in Jive but I note that even the world's most powerful translation computers cannot deal with tripe like "robust processes" and "resilient networks".

[jindabyne]

As a retired RAAF CAS once put it; 'NEC is simply an up-to- date tool of the ongoing Command & Control process; the plethora of yuckspeak used to describe it is tiresome'

[JessTheDog]

NEC in Action - 3 Commando Brigade during Operation TELIC

In their Post Operation TELIC Report, 3 Commando Brigade stressed the importance of being able to fuse the information from a number of sensors in order to achieve an effect and that no one sensor or system proved decisive.

On one occasion when 42 Commando came under fire from a battery of Type 59-1 130 mm towed guns, the firing point was located by the Weapon Locating Radar ARTHUR.

This information was passed to a RN Sea King Mark 7 Airborne Early Warning helicopter equipped with Searchwater Radar, which was able to track the gun battery’s hasty withdrawal from its firing position.

This information was then passed to an Army Phoenix Ground Control Station, which re-tasked an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). This located the gun battery and tracked it to a fall back position near Al Basrah.

Using the target data gathered by the UAV, coalition aircraft were able to attack the gun battery, whose destruction was confirmed afterwards by the UAV.



This is not strictly a true account of what went on and lacks a lot of detail. Suffice to say, it was more down to the undirected adaptability of some outstanding personnel of all 3 services than any planned network capability and the idea that this action is representative of a properly planned seamless network-enabled capability is absolute drivel; it is more accurate to say that the command chain above SO2 level lived for the most part in blissful ignorance of such matters.

[Llademos]

JTD - hear hear!

To translate -

We were shot at, but survived. We used our kit to find out who had shot at us, then we shot the crap out of them. They didn't survive.

;)

[engineer(retard)]

ORAC

I understand what you say but from the end users point of view the information has still to appear in the cockpit.

NITEWORKS investigates the effectiveness of existing and proposed systems, not the implementation and that is where there are serious problems to be addressed. Whilst not doubting the quality of work being done, it is a pipe dream unless real world issues are addressed.

JETTS may put the planning together but how does it get to the man in the field? At a tactical level it is BOWMAN using ComBAT to display his SA. ComBAT is based upon a security clamped down version of the Windows 2000 OS and distributed using Internet Protocols. This will not be allowed anywhere near an aircraft system without an air gap because of the implications to the safety case. It is likely that doing this will end up with a standalone screen instead of fused data with your other sensors and datalinks. Strike off the HMI tick on your MAR recommendations.

Alternatively, you write bespoke code for the aircraft - v expensive, long devleopment lead time and likely to be incompatible with the land system because their clearances are less stringent and are probably 3 or 4 iterations ahead by this time - you can always park your vehicle while you sort out the blue screen of death.

Security between the different systems also requires air gaps and physical separations that require an area larger than most airframes that have to accomodate the different security clearances required between national, NATO and clear traffic. Look at the distances in the red/black areas in an office, how do you accomodate this in a cockpit.

Regards

[ORAC]

The problems obviously have to be addressed. But to deal with this at four levels.

Frstly is data structure, so we are talking about the same things. e.g. can you drill down through a photo to get to a bridge and then to the structure.

Secondly, is data dictionaries, can you transfer the data. The problems in translating even within supposed set formats such as USMTF are immense.

Thirdly is the problem of data transfer between systems. We cannot even manage this at present within one service.

Fourthly is the problem is the problem of security. The US have a different concept (one I prefer) in dealing with this. But it is, perhaps the major difficulty.

Lastly, there are the major problems such as timing at latency.

The point of architectures such as DoDAF and MODAF are to address such problems and resolve them for future systems. I understand system engineering is geeky and doesn't impress pilots. But Watson-Watt probably didn't either at the time.....

[tucumseh]

Now that they've worked out WHAT NEC is, perhaps they'll rescind the decision to cancel the 20+ year old Def Stan which tells them HOW to do it.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

It's not DEF STAN you need to worry about, it's DEAF AND DUMB GEOFF!

[Pontius Navigator]

B*gg*r, p*gs*d it.

I had an email this morning signed off by a Lt Col as a trailer for the JSP. (everyone can have a copy and should read it).

Unfortunately I hit the DELETE key and have only just realised I should have run it through the Bull Word program. Mind you that would probably have b*ll*cks my non-nec computer.

Reminds me when Brian McLaren, then Group Captain previously Sgt AEOp, sent out a letter on Base System Architcture. Al Lockwood (Gulf War 2 briefer) took one look and pinged it to OC EES for a one page decode. He pinged it to OC CIS Eng who filed it and eventually passed it back. Staish never got his precise.

And this is supposedly about COMMUNICATIONS. With writing like that we'll parse the enemy to death having created despondency and confusion in their intel weenies.

[BEagle]

The worry is not just that someone actually pretends to understand this bollocks - but that they believe It Is The New Way..... And will tell you so with all the glazed-eyed fanaticism of an American TV hot gospeller.

[tucumseh]

I know people think this NEC is all b******s, and the way it’s presented certainly is, but the following is true:

1. It’s nothing new.

2. It’s mainly the Army that’s getting excited (or downcast as the cost emerges) because they think BOWMAN delivers it.

3. It doesn’t. It facilitates part of it.

4. The process for implementing, managing and sustaining it is so well established that the Def Stan hasn’t been updated for 15 years.

5. The Army’s management plan for their lead NEC implementation programme (not BOWMAN!) took 2 days to write in 2001, received 2* approval and has been contracted. Admittedly, it probably doesn’t cover all systems, only 180-odd tri-service legacy, emerging and future at last count, but difficult things like understanding dynamic data flows have been under contract since the late 90s. (Up the Jocks Harry, you’re a genius).

6. Too many senior staffs are making a mountain out of a molehill. They should stop re-inventing the wheel, get a proper job and leave it to those who have been doing it for decades. And spend the savings on what the Services need.

[engineer(retard)]

It should not be so hard.....it's only 0's and 1's

[BEagle]

So it's a sort of Purple Internet with a bit of radio thrown in then?

[Talk Split]

Bo**ocks to Network Enabled Capability.

CAN I HAVE A NEW HELICOPTER PLEASE?

[Jimlad]

While I fully buy into NEC and Effects Based Targetting (yes I did believe the bumpf on TBAC!) I am still curious as to this management speak malarkey.

I think it boils down to two options:

a) There is a small clique of people who actually believe in and understand every word that is said in this sort of cr*p. If they exist though, has anyone ever met one of this chosen race?

b) Its all a big joke, but everyone is too scared to admit to anyone else that they don't get it.

My money is on B!

[JessTheDog]

a) There is a small clique of people who actually believe in and understand every word that is said in this sort of cr*p. If they exist though, has anyone ever met one of this chosen race?

b) Its all a big joke, but everyone is too scared to admit to anyone else that they don't get it.

NEC works in a limited form at present but no-one really comprehends the immense task of integrating different sensors using different software programmes and data handling systems affixed to different platforms belonging to different units and services potentially operation in a multinational coalition. Then you have to make it work backwards to weapons systems! YOu have to have the training, doctrine and SOPs in place to support NEC and ensure that tactics are developed to make best use of NEC. Finally, you have to make sure that the operator actually gets what he/she wants from the kit!

There really is an expensive mountain to climb and I think it will only be part-scaled.:uhoh:

[tucumseh]

Jess The Dog said -

NEC works in a limited form at present but no-one really comprehends the immense task of integrating different sensors using different software programmes and data handling systems affixed to different platforms belonging to different units and services potentially operation in a multinational coalition.

There really is an expensive mountain to climb and I think it will only be part-scaled.



Good post, however I do think some comprehend the task of how to go about implementing NEC. In a sense, NEC is mandated anyway (by PUS) but is one of the first areas to suffer when money is tight.

The basic process is very simple, but lack of funding at a time when it was really needed means there is so much to catch up on. DLO have no money to go back and update legacy systems. Ironically, it is in DLO, not DPA, where you will find many who do understand NEC as they use the management process on a daily basis. Similarly, emerging systems, where the funding and contracts are in place, cannot easily be changed. It is politically unacceptable to halt such projects. And, many of the future systems are cut to the bone already.

Individual projects / IPTLs co-operate but on the understanding they incur no cost. So, the output is not NEC, but a cunning plan. In fact, most of the prioritisation has taken place, but naturally this is from the lead project’s viewpoint. Almost everyone disagrees, wants to be first, but won’t pay. The will is lacking and there is no top cover, except vague statements from Mr Hoon which are meaningless to DPA/DLO without a funded, endorsed requirement.

So, while the process is simple the task is enormously complex and costly. It can be likened to a roof of different, but interlocking slates who each agree their place to ensure no leaks. Trouble is, there are only 3 or 4 slates in place, out of hundreds, and the Gods of DPA and DEC are continually p***ing on the roof, with the Treasury passing out the drinks. Oh, and you're all inside.

Honest, I won’t mention NEC again. By a year, I'm not current anyway, so I'm sure someone will tell me Geoff's cracked it; or, more likely, the contracts I mention have been cancelled.

[FJJP]

In this country we do not have a good record in developing IT. We are good at generating concepts and providing high level paperwork written in the latest corporate speak.

However, we have the nett inability to put concept into practice. QED - Inland Revenue, CSA, NHS, Benefits Agency, Defence IT; all costing £Billions and eventually replaced/scrapped without actually ever having worked properly.

What makes you think this will be any different - unless, of course, you wrest it out of the hands of high priced help and allow those who know what they're talking about make it happen.

But this wont happen, because there's no personal glory/tea/medals to be had by being logical and handing your pet project to those who know what they're doing…

[engineer(retard)]

To ensure systems coherency, a big bang approach would have to be taken. This would need an eye watering budget and is why the UK is going for NEC instead of NCW. In comprison to the US we are trying to put sticking plasters between our disparate systems.

[flipster]

NEC is expensive but it doesn't do the following:

a. Provide funds for bombs, shells and guns.
b. Provide delivery systems - aircraft, ships and tanks to carry them.
c. Provide trained pink bodies to fly, sail, drive them.

d. But most of all, it does not provide honouable, responsible leaders who can motivate those pink bodies to beat our enemies in mortal combat.

NEC just provides 'management geeks' who have little in common with those they purport to lead.

I hope our leaders do not lose sight of what the Armed Forces actually do.

[engineer(retard)]

Flip

This is how NEC will help you in the Mortal Combat problem

http://ps2.ign.com/objects/552/552223.html?ui=cb_up_04

[flipster]

Ah, now I see it - it is all so clear at last .......um..........not! But I CAN relate to the Playboy game!

[16 blades]

Correct me if I am wrong, but do we not already have this capability in the form of JTIDS? It's implemented, relatively cheap, works well and is a NATO standard tool. Surely the nature of it's platform means it can be easily adapted to suit any user's needs, just by changing the software that is run on it?

I have read through this thread, and I don't pretend to understand 75% of what has been said, so could someone PLEASE explain to a dim-witted Driver (Airframes) exactly what the f**k all this nonesense is about? All I see are meaningless TLAs and a plethora of w@nk-words.

What are we trying to do here? Set up a 'Purple Internet' as someone described it? I also read that all of these systems would communicate using TCP/IP (the logical choice, really). If so, the network and the data carried on it would surely be platform-independant, as per the internet, solving one of the 'big problems' outlined earlier.

So we are looking for a system of interconnected computers that can all communicate, thus telling their human operators what is going on, and maybe alllowing remote targeting instructions to be sent to weapons systems - is this not what JTIDS already does, or could do with some additional software??

Alternatively, we could save ourselves a s**tload of time and money, just by buying some decent f**king radios that work, so we can all talk to each other. Would that not achieve the same thing?

..or am I completely missing the point?

16B

[tucumseh]

16 Blades

No. you’re not missing the point. As I’ve said before, we already have it and it’s mandated. To be cynical, I suspect the dreaded *** buzzphrase has been dreamt up to deflect from the MoD’s appalling record on Systems Integration. In most respects, they are one and the same thing.


You say, “….JTIDS? It's implemented, relatively cheap, works well and is a NATO standard tool”. True, but ask how we got there. On “my” aircraft, the Low Volume JTIDS Terminal was delivered to store by another Directorate. They walked away without the box ever having been near my integration rigs (how many times are they mentioned in the JSP??), never mind the aircraft. It had to be fitted in the aircraft. Integrated with the GPS (which I had bought) and with the intercom (which had to be extensively modified to accept the extra voice channels). The warning tone convention had to be re-thought and modified. The feeder had to be selected and the routing worked out. Antennae (upper and lower) had to be selected and a place found on the airframe to fit them. (Not easy when there are already IFF, V/UHF, 3 x UHF, Homing etc within 4 feet, all causing mutual interference). Then, extensive testing, both ground (functional, EMC and TEMPEST) and flight. Last, but by no means least, the simulator required major design changes. None of this was done or paid for by the JTIDS project, but the record shows they delivered to time, cost and performance. Theirs was the easy bit. A relatively simple and cheap black box but what made it work was systems integration. If you say JTIDS works, I'll take it as a compliment, but I certainly never got any credit for it because I never bought it. And that explains why most MoD staff don't want to get involved in integration. Buying something gets more kudos than buying something and making it work.



Also….. “Alternatively, we could save ourselves a s**tload of time and money, just by buying some decent f**king radios that work, so we can all talk to each other. Would that not achieve the same thing?”


I’ve seldom come across an airborne radio which doesn’t meet its specification ON THE BENCH. The radio is simple but what makes it work (to the user) is systems integration. You can have the best radio/intercom/antennae in the world, but if your £10 microphone is mismatched it’s worthless. Or if the GPS update tone is beeping in your ear it’ll annoy you. Or if some idiot puts a warning tone on a switched input. The successful projects are those where the black box is contracted by the platform office, because they will automatically make full systems integration a major milestone payment. To an aircraft office, success is acceptance into service. To an equipment office it is (too often) the box working in the factory. The latter avoids user input and, I suspect, is the source of most complaints about procurers.


So why is this backsliding / abrogation allowed I hear you ask? Not for me to say, except that don’t bother asking senior management in the MoD. They can’t spell “integration”, so dumb down to “NEC”. They have a 20 year plan so none of them will be held to account.


Oh, and if you want to get serious follow this link…..

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/maaszg710.pdf

Ignore 95% of the report because it’s waffle, but concentrate on para 19b. Lack of systems integration. The IFF may have failed (although where’s the evidence) but did they get a failure warning? Wonder what the complete version says?

When you look at it this way, NEC is actually a component of systems integration. So if nobody wants to do integration, even fewer will learn about NEC!

[engineer(retard)]

Tcu

Agree with most of what you say. I have sat on both sides, equipment and platform and have some sympathies with both parties.

Systems integration is always a difficult problem but to move towards NEC is far more difficult because you are trying to achieve a systems of systems integration. The equipment IPT now not only has to look inwards towards the platform but also outwards to where his system boundaries meet with other systems. eg BOWMAN - Falcon - Skynet - DDNS all have translation issues that have to be managed. Throw in JTIDS and Land/Maritime recognised pictures into the picture, fusion and latency of data also become massive issues.

TCP/IP was mentioned, this does lead to commonality but you do not get guaranteed quality of service. Think internet, is it always there when you want, do allof your e-mails get through. Unfortunatley, not all systems are running TCP/IP, not all are cleared for the same security level of traffic.

There will be many tears before bedtime before NEC even starts to join systems together.

[Pontius Navigator]

Engineer(Retard),

I am not carping as your post is actually readable and understandable even though it is acronym rich. The danger comes when the person writing is not as well versed with the TLA and jargon writing to someone who is completely in the dark.

To read some drivel I get where you keep having to go back to para one to refresh what BSA or NEC or any of the other CR*P means totally destroys the intent - COMMUNICATIONS.

As I said, nothing wrong with your post, the problem lies higher up the food chain.

[16 blades]

Tucumseh,

Thaks for explaining some of the difficulties involved - these things are not always (rarely, in fact) visible to end-users like myself. However, I would like to echo part of PN's post above - few of us outside the world of procurement / engineering / IPTs etc understand a word that is being said. To simplify - THERE IS NO POINT IN 'ENABLING' MASS COMMUNICATION IF NOBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS BEING SAID.

Please cut out the corporate speak and w@nk-words. We, the end-users of your many efforts, really need to know 3 things:

1) Exactly what the f**k this is.
2) Exactly what it does.
3) How to use it to enhance our operational capability.

What this appears to be, at present, IMHO, is the usual obfuscation, with unfamiliar language, of a philosophy we have already followed for the last 20 years and have, at least in part, implemented. It is being presented, however, as something 'brand new' for which we need to make sacrifices in other areas of defence spending.

In other words, a pile of tech-speak bulls**t being used to hide a poor exuse for cuts to the budget. A well-known hallmark of this Govt.

16B

[JessTheDog]

1) Exactly what the f**k this is.
The Yanks have NCW or "Network Centric Warfare". The Brits have NEC or "Not Enough Cash".

2) Exactly what it does.
Platforms have sensors such as radars and system information such as weapons load, fuel, GPS position, heading and speed etc. You could tell this over a radio but it would take some time. So a terminal within the platform changes the information into a standard format and encrypts it and transmits it. The transmissions are received and decrypted by other platforms. The information can be represented, for example, by a graphic plan display like a God's-eye-view of the battlespace. All done automatically - in theory!

3) How to use it to enhance our operational capability. You can get situational awareness without even needing your own sensor. There are other capabilities offered, depending on your role. Some senior officers can get carried away and occasionally forget that the network needs a sensor somewhere for anything other than own-platform information!

What can go wrong? Lots! For a single link, there are diffferent terminals and different implementations of the data-carrying message sets. These have to talk to each other and there needs to be some way of bringing together the information on different links. Also, some of the links need elaborate pre-planning and data load before use. Operator error can cause serious network and information instabilities.

There is a long way to go and I remain sceptical that the full claims of NEC will be met.

[engineer(retard)]

Jess

Good call

PN thanks, I'll switch off autoburble.

The next step to NEC after the dogs explanation is that we have many legacy comms systems, JOCCS, RNCSS, RAFCCIS etc all doing their own thing.

NEC intends to join these together. So in theory you can send the data message from your sensor to anywhere on the joined up networks. Bit like join the dots, but no big picture yet.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Bit of shame that there won't be any troops, vehicles, aircraft or ships to do anything with all this information.

[mbga9pgf]

16 Blades, NEC is very likely to use similar protocols as tcp/ip, but modified for the mil net. In fact, most of this stuff should be Commercial off the shelf in my view. Research into commercial electrical technology and software outstrips mil research many times, and in many ways is far more powerful than the crap we get given(apart from nuke hardening, which is a waste of time nowadays). The problem I forsee with these networks will be commonality of standards; at the moment I wouldnt be surprised if the targets the army navy and Air Force have set in achieving NEC are completely different. We instead need to think what do we want to achieve together.

Another problem I forsee; BWOS and their ilk will probably not allow us to modify software source unless they say ok, which = $$$$$ for them. Which means our technology will continue to suck.

Finally, a big question we should be asking should be this; is our research and development leaning towards US or European data standards? What I am getting at is we have to go one way or the other, we cant afford both. So Buff, Team America or Eurotrash?

[tucumseh]

16 Blades

Sorry, I didn't think I wrote in technobabble but when you say.......

"What this appears to be, at present, IMHO, is the usual obfuscation, with unfamiliar language, of a philosophy we have already followed for the last 20 years and have, at least in part, implemented. It is being presented, however, as something 'brand new' for which we need to make sacrifices in other areas of defence spending".


YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.


In its most basic form it is often described as the "sensor to shooter link". Ships and aircraft already do this of course, and the wider infantry will get there in 2009 or so (it's already contracted). Anything beyond that very simple implementation depends on funding (and bandwidth). But, too little effort goes into getting the basics right. From my viewpoint, the people who lead this "initiative" understand what to do with the information, but haven't a clue how to acquire it.


What little money there is at the moment is being wasted. Having demonstrated HOW to do it over many years, clearly there are some who know how. I've tried reading that new JSP, and it's mindboggling how such crud can be issued when all they have to do is offer a link on the MoD website to the Def Stan and one to a typical management plan so others can use a common template; preferably that already approved at 2 Star years ago, which is itself a simple extract from the Def Stan. Does the author of the JSP realise such approvals and source documentation exists? Does it not speak volumes that an approved and contracted NEC management plan is a simple and minor extract from a Def Stan last amended in 1990?

Here's an idea. Get the guy who wrote the Def Stan to take over NEC. He'd go through it like a dose of salts. He retired in '92 but he'd do what he always did - hand pick an experienced team, make them better, and let them crack on.

[16 blades]

Tucumseh,

Sorry old boy, didn't mean to imply you were perpetuating the muddy waters. I am quite technically-minded, but my tiny Herc-driver brain tends to implode when confronted with nonesense on this level!

Thank you for enlightening me on this issue!

16B