Network Centric Warfare +UCB's
BEagle,
Not at all, sorry to dissapoint.
I took issue with all those who were spouting nonsense about cuts in defence expenditure when it was being increased. I was especially disgruntled with those of a Tory ilk who KNOW that if they were in power they would be cutting ALL forms of Public sector expenditute to fund tax cuts.
I do not think we need the current number of fast jet units and surface warships, but I DO NOT defend this white paper or what is being done to the capability of the UK armed forces. The SH debacle is what finally did it for me, the one area where an increase could be reasonably expected is now to be cut.
So BEagle and Archimedes, do not expect me to come dashing to the rescue when the cuts in capability are attacked, I think we spend just about the right amount on defence, not sure we have adeqauately covered the costs of Iraq, and damm sure we have constant procurement cock ups that NOONE is responsible for either in uniform or in Whitehall in suits.
Not at all, sorry to dissapoint.
I took issue with all those who were spouting nonsense about cuts in defence expenditure when it was being increased. I was especially disgruntled with those of a Tory ilk who KNOW that if they were in power they would be cutting ALL forms of Public sector expenditute to fund tax cuts.
I do not think we need the current number of fast jet units and surface warships, but I DO NOT defend this white paper or what is being done to the capability of the UK armed forces. The SH debacle is what finally did it for me, the one area where an increase could be reasonably expected is now to be cut.
So BEagle and Archimedes, do not expect me to come dashing to the rescue when the cuts in capability are attacked, I think we spend just about the right amount on defence, not sure we have adeqauately covered the costs of Iraq, and damm sure we have constant procurement cock ups that NOONE is responsible for either in uniform or in Whitehall in suits.
Pr00ne,
Just for clarity, I was being critical of dear old Buff ('no cuts at all, guv'nor, just clever realignment and use of clever tecnology...')rather than your point of view.
Just for clarity, I was being critical of dear old Buff ('no cuts at all, guv'nor, just clever realignment and use of clever tecnology...')rather than your point of view.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked in one of the 'ivory towers' myself, I've also heard much nonsense spouted about NEC - mainly by the likes of those whose sole employment seems to be to produce papers, 'discussion pieces' and 'lessons identified' (clearly we don't actually learn anything any more.)
However, the idea of enabling each of the platforms to feed a 'ring-main' networked system is sound; the problem we have is that we have too many single-service, stovepiped single-point-of-failure legacy systems, most of which are totally hamstrung by over-restrictive security protocols and/or totally inadequate procurement and support contracts. We are further hampered by a lack of bandwidth, exacerbated by the desire of HQs at every level to see every single piece of imagery/WSV/powerpoint brief produced by their subordinate units.
Things will not improve until we have a complete 'system of systems' by which information can be exchanged rapidly and effectively, or - even better - we all migrate to one system in the same way the US forces work. Perhaps now we actually have an IT trade things might get better, faster!
SBG
However, the idea of enabling each of the platforms to feed a 'ring-main' networked system is sound; the problem we have is that we have too many single-service, stovepiped single-point-of-failure legacy systems, most of which are totally hamstrung by over-restrictive security protocols and/or totally inadequate procurement and support contracts. We are further hampered by a lack of bandwidth, exacerbated by the desire of HQs at every level to see every single piece of imagery/WSV/powerpoint brief produced by their subordinate units.
Things will not improve until we have a complete 'system of systems' by which information can be exchanged rapidly and effectively, or - even better - we all migrate to one system in the same way the US forces work. Perhaps now we actually have an IT trade things might get better, faster!
SBG
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, you f*ckwit, I just want to fly cool jets and go bomb people.
As to NEC, that's rich, from an organisation whose 'phone network does not, er... network.
Ah - but Gainesy, remember the days pre-DFTN when weird and wonderfully named places would announce their presence as some dear old bat in a manual PBX plugged into the patchboard...."Rothwell Haigh?.....Central" - and the occasional screech of "ARE YOU WORKING??" if you paused for thought in the middle of a call!
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure do.
I once managed to get a "Service Call" routed halfway round the world via all sorts of weird places, about a dozen PBXs, from Akronelli to UK, only for the old bag at Bawtry to refuse to connect to my mother's place six miles up the road.
On Christmas Eve.
But at least it worked. Then.
I once managed to get a "Service Call" routed halfway round the world via all sorts of weird places, about a dozen PBXs, from Akronelli to UK, only for the old bag at Bawtry to refuse to connect to my mother's place six miles up the road.
On Christmas Eve.
But at least it worked. Then.
I was once told that the way to get a call to Germany past all the old bats in those weird exchanges was to dial (in those days) 86100, then when the MoD operator answered, say "Rhine Army thankyou". There would then be a few clicks and clunks, followed by "Rhine Army". You then said "Oh, Wildenrath RAF please" and waited for a bit longer until Wildenrath answered. Then ask for the extension. It worked top banana!
So one Happy Hour-fuelled evening one of our wheels was moaning about not being able to speak to Deci. So I tried the old Rhine Army dodge and eventually got through to a voice which yelled "PRONTO!!!". "Err, officer Inglese pleezy", quoth I. "NO COMPRENDO" responded Luigi Fellatio at the other end. Suddenly had a brainwave and remembered that the lovely little Air Trafficker recently posted in had once been an au pair (and also had a nice p..r!). "Fiona, could you parliamo Italiano with this mate please?" Much Italian, gesticulations and shouting before finally she turned round with a beaming voice and said "I've got him!" Fetched the sqn wheel....."Hello......ahh, yes, err, sorry sir..." he stammered.
It seems that the ever helpful Luigi, aided by the lovely Fiona, had succeeded in getting the Decci UK station master out of bed - we'd forgotten that it was 2230 and that Italy was an hour ahead!
So back to the pub we went!
So one Happy Hour-fuelled evening one of our wheels was moaning about not being able to speak to Deci. So I tried the old Rhine Army dodge and eventually got through to a voice which yelled "PRONTO!!!". "Err, officer Inglese pleezy", quoth I. "NO COMPRENDO" responded Luigi Fellatio at the other end. Suddenly had a brainwave and remembered that the lovely little Air Trafficker recently posted in had once been an au pair (and also had a nice p..r!). "Fiona, could you parliamo Italiano with this mate please?" Much Italian, gesticulations and shouting before finally she turned round with a beaming voice and said "I've got him!" Fetched the sqn wheel....."Hello......ahh, yes, err, sorry sir..." he stammered.
It seems that the ever helpful Luigi, aided by the lovely Fiona, had succeeded in getting the Decci UK station master out of bed - we'd forgotten that it was 2230 and that Italy was an hour ahead!
So back to the pub we went!
Hello littleme
I’m too late, but I hope your interview went well and the often hilarious cynicisms helped.
The MoD website tells you what NEC is, or at least what they aspire to. An aspiration does not become policy or practice without subject knowledge, personal commitment (from Whitehall) or funding.
I see NEC as an output. The input, in addition to these 3 components, must also include system of systems integration. This facilitates NEC. (Being a little simplistic here but you get the idea).
Now the cynics would say that the Army, who lead on BOWMAN (which is merely a largely unintegrated and outdated bearer of information), lacks a background in SoS integration. Except of course in aircraft, which cannot fly without it. That is why RN, RAF and AAC types will tell you NEC is just a new name for what they’ve been capable of for decades (but within narrower boundaries).
The Army’s problem (shared with RAF Regt, RM and various other foot soldiers) is that they have a plethora of legacy kit (systems) which, while occasionally fit for purpose as stand-alone systems, have never been integrated with each other. Expensive retrospective work (modifications etc) is required to (a) bring these systems up to scratch and (b) integrate them with each other. This should be almost finished if NEC is to co-incide even broadly with the BOWMAN timescale. Is it? It had better be, as the cuts have already been announced to offset the cost!
One must have a management process to sustain NEC. That is, having established a new baseline, how do you maintain/raise it when new systems come along? Given the air side cracked this long ago, it is clear who the MoD should be looking to for leadership. This management is the difficult bit, despite what technophobes tell you.
This is not to say the air (or sea) areas have got it right all the time, because you must always have the knowledge, commitment and funding; not things the MoD is known for or enjoys. The natural outcome of not having these is often discussed in this forum, although perhaps the contributors don’t always draw the link to (lack of) integration, configuration control etc.
I’m not quite as cynical as others, but I’m not optimistic that the MoD (or their bosses, the Treasury!) understands that you don’t just go out and buy NEC off the shelf. However, the MoD has a perfectly good Defence Standard which describes in infinite detail how to arrange and manage the process. It just doesn’t mention the term NEC (as it was last updated in 1990, which is as good an indication as any that the MoD lacks expertise). For this reason, I doubt if more than a handful could link the two. They also have a set of robust rules to ensure the output of this process is maintained and sustained. Again, I doubt…….. So, we can look forward to a bout of wheel re-invention, which inevitably causes delay.
I’m too late, but I hope your interview went well and the often hilarious cynicisms helped.
The MoD website tells you what NEC is, or at least what they aspire to. An aspiration does not become policy or practice without subject knowledge, personal commitment (from Whitehall) or funding.
I see NEC as an output. The input, in addition to these 3 components, must also include system of systems integration. This facilitates NEC. (Being a little simplistic here but you get the idea).
Now the cynics would say that the Army, who lead on BOWMAN (which is merely a largely unintegrated and outdated bearer of information), lacks a background in SoS integration. Except of course in aircraft, which cannot fly without it. That is why RN, RAF and AAC types will tell you NEC is just a new name for what they’ve been capable of for decades (but within narrower boundaries).
The Army’s problem (shared with RAF Regt, RM and various other foot soldiers) is that they have a plethora of legacy kit (systems) which, while occasionally fit for purpose as stand-alone systems, have never been integrated with each other. Expensive retrospective work (modifications etc) is required to (a) bring these systems up to scratch and (b) integrate them with each other. This should be almost finished if NEC is to co-incide even broadly with the BOWMAN timescale. Is it? It had better be, as the cuts have already been announced to offset the cost!
One must have a management process to sustain NEC. That is, having established a new baseline, how do you maintain/raise it when new systems come along? Given the air side cracked this long ago, it is clear who the MoD should be looking to for leadership. This management is the difficult bit, despite what technophobes tell you.
This is not to say the air (or sea) areas have got it right all the time, because you must always have the knowledge, commitment and funding; not things the MoD is known for or enjoys. The natural outcome of not having these is often discussed in this forum, although perhaps the contributors don’t always draw the link to (lack of) integration, configuration control etc.
I’m not quite as cynical as others, but I’m not optimistic that the MoD (or their bosses, the Treasury!) understands that you don’t just go out and buy NEC off the shelf. However, the MoD has a perfectly good Defence Standard which describes in infinite detail how to arrange and manage the process. It just doesn’t mention the term NEC (as it was last updated in 1990, which is as good an indication as any that the MoD lacks expertise). For this reason, I doubt if more than a handful could link the two. They also have a set of robust rules to ensure the output of this process is maintained and sustained. Again, I doubt…….. So, we can look forward to a bout of wheel re-invention, which inevitably causes delay.
