This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-858 
entitled 'Defense Acquisitions: The Global Information Grid and 
Challenges Facing Its Implementation' which was released on July 28, 
2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and 
Capabilities, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

July 2004: 

DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS: 

The Global Information Grid and Challenges Facing Its Implementation: 

GAO-04-858: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-04-858, a report to Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities, Committee on Armed Services, 
House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) is in the midst of transforming 
military capabilities. The transformation relies in part on the Global 
Information Grid (GIG), which is focused on building a new 
Internet-like network capability that DOD envisions will enable weapons 
and other systems and people to share information quickly, allowing 
warfighters to identify threats more effectively and to respond with 
greater precision and lethality. DOD plans to spend at least $21 
billion through 2010 to build a core GIG capability. GAO was asked (1) 
to describe the GIG, including the concept, key acquisitions, and 
implementation and (2) to identify significant challenges facing DOD in 
implementing the GIG. 

What GAO Found: 

The GIG is a huge and complex undertaking that is intended to integrate 
virtually all of DOD’s information systems, services, and applications 
into one seamless, reliable, and secure network. DOD’s overall concept 
is to enable data access for a variety of systems and users in the 
network no matter which military service owns a weapon system or where 
a user might be located around the world. DOD is looking to the GIG to 
form the basis of a network-centric or “netcentric” way of fighting 
wars and to create a decisive advantage over adversaries. DOD has taken 
the following two-pronged approach to building the GIG: 

(1) Invest in key acquisitions to build a core networking capability, 
including new communication satellites, next-generation interoperable 
radios, a new ground-based communication network with significantly 
expanded bandwidth, and services and applications to manage and protect 
the network and help users locate, post, and share information. 
(2) Integrate other existing and planned weapon systems, information 
technology systems, and logistics, personnel, and other 
business-related systems into the GIG. To integrate other systems, DOD 
officials who created the concept for the GIG have developed an initial 
blueprint or architecture for the GIG and policies to formalize the 
GIG, and they are attempting to influence key acquisition and budgeting 
decisions to align investments and systems with the GIG.

The most critical challenge ahead for DOD is making the GIG a reality. 
While DOD has taken steps to define its vision and objectives for the 
GIG on paper and in policy and is beginning to make a heavy investment 
in the GIG as well as systems that will be heavily dependent on the 
GIG, it is not fully known how DOD will meet these objectives. For 
example, it is not known which investments should take priority over 
others and how these decisions will be enforced. Moreover, it is not 
known how DOD will assess the overall progress of the GIG and determine 
whether the network as a whole is providing a worthwhile return on 
investment, particularly in terms of enhancing and even transforming 
military operations. According to DOD officials, the enhancements DOD 
is making to its planning and budgeting processes are meant to begin 
addressing these questions. Until DOD implements an investment and 
oversight strategy for the GIG as a whole, it is at risk of making 
investments that do not fit DOD’s vision for the future.

Highlights of Key Challenges Facing DOD’s Implementation of the GIG: 

* Deciding what capabilities are affordable, what capabilities are 
unaffordable or not in line with DOD’s vision for the GIG, and 
enforcing these decisions 
* Assuring management attention and oversight are provided to assess 
the overall progress and return on investment 
* Developing a trustworthy network so data owners will share data with 
a broader audience 
* Advancing technologies on schedule
* Developing the means to protect the network and its data

Source: GAO analysis.

[End of table]

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is not making recommendations in this report as this effort is 
focused on providing an initial overview of the GIG and challenges. Our 
future work will continue to assess how DOD is addressing challenges 
and the progress of key acquisitions. DOD- provided technical comments 
on this report are incorporated where appropriate.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-858.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Robert E. Levin at (202) 
512-4841 or levinr@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Results in Brief: 

Description of the GIG: 

Acquisitions: 

Implementation: 

DOD Challenges in Implementing the GIG: 

Management and Investment Challenges: 

Operational Challenges: 

Technical Challenges: 

Conclusions: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Policies, Standards, and Guidance to Implement the Global 
Information Grid: 

Tables: 

Table 1: How DOD Envisions GIG Will Help Transform Military Operations: 

Table 2: DOD Acquisitions Related to the GIG: 

Table 3: Overview of Six Major Acquisitions Related to the Core GIG 
Network and Information Capability: 

Table 4: Key Challenges: 

Table 5: Selected Global Information Grid Policies, Standards and 
Guidance (2000 to 2004): 

Figure: 

Figure 1: A General Depiction of DOD's Characterization of the GIG: 

Abbreviations: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

GIG: Global Information Grid: 

GIG-BE: Global Information Grid Bandwidth Expansion: 

IPv6: Internet Protocol Version 6: 

JTRS: Joint Tactical Radio System: 

NCES: Network Centric Enterprise Services: 

TSAT: Transformational Satellite: 

WIN-T: Warfighter Information Network-Tactical: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

July 28, 2004: 

The Honorable Jim Saxton: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Martin T. Meehan: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

To achieve long-term dominance over evolving, sophisticated threats, 
the Department of Defense (DOD) is seeking to make transformational 
improvements to military capabilities. The transformation involves 
achieving information and decision superiority over adversaries, 
striking with precision, deploying and sustaining military power 
rapidly, and dominating the "battlespace" on land, at sea, in the air, 
and in space. DOD has said that a successful transformation hinges 
largely on disparate weapon systems sharing information seamlessly, 
regardless of which military service owns the system and preempting the 
need to retrofit weapon systems to solve compatibility issues with 
other systems in the field. Beyond the need to build new weapon systems 
according to a predetermined architecture, DOD says the transformation 
encompasses new doctrine and institutional changes for DOD and its 
partners.

One of DOD's key initiatives to respond to this transformation is the 
Global Information Grid (GIG). The GIG represents a collection of 
programs and initiatives aimed at building a secure network and set of 
information capabilities modeled after the Internet. The GIG is 
expected to facilitate DOD's transformation by allowing warfighters, 
policy makers, and support personnel to engage in rapid decision 
making. By having the ability to access and exchange information 
quickly, reliably, and securely through linked systems and military 
components, DOD believes that commanders would identify threats more 
effectively, make informed decisions, and respond with greater 
precision and lethality.

DOD began investing in the GIG in the late 1990s and plans to begin 
fielding a core capability by about 2010. It plans to spend at least 
$21 billion to develop the GIG through fiscal year 2010. Full 
implementation of the GIG would occur in the 2020 time frame. Given the 
GIG's overall investment and importance to DOD, as well as a lack of 
clarity about what the GIG entails, you requested that we review DOD's 
strategy for developing and deploying the GIG. As agreed with your 
office, our work initially focused on (1) describing the GIG, including 
the overall concept, key acquisitions, and implementation strategies 
and (2) identifying challenges facing DOD's implementation of the GIG. 
Subsequent efforts will further explore the challenges we have 
identified and the progress of key acquisitions.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

To gain a better understanding of the overall concept, key 
acquisitions, and implementation strategy, we reviewed relevant DOD 
plans, policies, guidance, and other documents pertaining to the GIG. 
We also reviewed briefings prepared for high-ranking DOD officials and 
other organizations within the department to obtain more up-to-date 
information on the status of GIG activities and costs of key 
components. Funding and cost information was obtained from budget 
exhibits and other accounting reports compiled by the DOD. We did not 
conduct a comprehensive review of the financial reports or records. 
Also, we did not evaluate the content and quality of the GIG 
architecture and standards. In addition, we interviewed key officials 
responsible for the GIG in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Networks Information and Integration (DOD's Chief 
Information Officer); the Defense Information Systems Agency; Office of 
the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); Office of Program 
Analysis and Evaluation; Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; and Office of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff. We held interviews with officials representing the Offices of 
the Chief Information Officer for the Air Force, Army, Navy, and U.S. 
Marine Corps.

To identify the challenges associated with GIG implementation, we 
examined studies, reports, and guides on the GIG; DOD's effort to 
transition toward more network-based military operations; and DOD's 
efforts to enhance its capability to acquire joint systems that were 
completed by DOD, the Defense Science Board, and other research 
entities, such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 
We examined reports and guides completed by the Congressional Research 
Service, Congressional Budget Office, and GAO on managing technology 
projects, architectures, and information technology investments. We 
held interviews with previously identified DOD officials to discuss key 
challenges associated with the development and implementation of the 
GIG.

We performed our work from November 2003 to June 2004 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief: 

The GIG is a huge and complex undertaking that is intended to integrate 
virtually all of DOD's information systems, services, applications, and 
data into one seamless, reliable, and secure network. A primary 
difference between the GIG initiative and previous efforts is that it 
focuses on promoting interoperability by building an Internet-like 
network for DOD-related operations based on common standards and 
protocols rather than on trying to establish interoperability after 
individual systems and platforms have been fielded. DOD envisions that 
this type of network would not just ensure systems can easily and 
quickly exchange data, but also would change how military operations 
are planned and executed since much more information would be 
dynamically available to users.

DOD's plans for realizing the GIG involve building a new core network 
and information capability and successfully integrating the majority of 
its weapon systems, command, control, and communications systems, and 
business systems with the new network. The effort to build the GIG will 
require DOD to make a substantial investment in a new set of core 
enterprise programs and initiatives in order to develop and deploy new 
satellites capable of quickly transmitting and routing larger volumes 
of data, increased bandwidth capacity on the ground, new types of 
communications systems to be embedded on weapon systems, and new 
computer applications and services to enable information to be 
transferred globally. To integrate systems into the GIG, DOD has 
developed an initial blueprint or architecture for the GIG, developed 
new policies, guidance, and standards to guide implementation, 
undertaken proactive efforts to "market" the GIG and its potential 
benefits among various elements of DOD, and is attempting to influence 
key acquisition and budgeting decisions to align with the GIG. 
Depending on the extent DOD decides to rely on the GIG to facilitate 
military operations, the initiative could affect the way weapon systems 
and information technology systems are selected and built as well as 
how DOD military and civilian personnel collect, analyze, and share 
data.

The most critical challenge ahead for DOD is making the GIG a reality. 
While DOD has taken steps to define its vision and objectives for the 
GIG on paper and in policy and is beginning to make a substantial 
investment in the GIG as well as in systems that will be heavily 
dependent on the GIG, it is not fully known how DOD will meet these 
objectives. For example, it is not known which investments should take 
priority over others and how these decisions will be enforced. 
Moreover, it is not known how DOD will assess the overall progress of 
the GIG and determine whether the network as a whole is providing a 
worthwhile return on investment, particularly in terms of enhancing and 
even transforming military operations. Until DOD implements an 
investment and oversight strategy for the GIG as a whole, it is at risk 
of making investments that do not fit its vision for the future. In 
addition, DOD faces risks inherent with the nature and scope of the 
effort it is undertaking, for example, risks related to protecting data 
within the thousands of systems that will be integrated into the 
network. Furthermore, the technical challenges to develop new 
networking and network management capabilities to support mobile, 
integrated communications are considerable. DOD recognizes these 
challenges, and many of the actions it is taking to implement the GIG 
are meant to address them. However, it is too early to assess how 
successful DOD will be in addressing the challenges and overcoming 
long-standing organizational impediments.

Description of the GIG: 

For the past two decades, DOD has been seeking solutions to improve 
interoperability and information sharing across its business and 
warfighting operations. Too often weapon and information technology 
systems have been acquired by the military services and defense 
agencies without regard for their ability to work in a joint 
operational environment.[Footnote 1] As a result, extra layers of 
redundancy and common systems have been put in place to support 
military operations, but without the ability to easily and quickly 
exchange data.

DOD defines the GIG as a "globally interconnected, end-to-end set of 
information capabilities, associated processes, and personnel for 
collecting, processing, storing, disseminating, and managing 
information." The GIG is meant to improve interoperability among DOD's 
many information systems and weapon systems. More important, the GIG is 
to facilitate DOD's effort to transform to a more network-based, or 
"netcentric," way of fighting wars and achieving information 
superiority over adversaries, much the same way as the Internet has 
transformed industry and society on a global scale. Netcentric 
operations and warfare, according to DOD, are the combination of 
tactics, techniques, and procedures that a networked force can employ 
to create a decisive warfighting advantage. The GIG's role is to create 
an environment in which users can access data on demand at any location 
without having to rely on (and wait for) organizations in charge of 
data collection to process and disseminate the information. Data could 
emanate from a variety of sources, including weapon systems belonging 
to other military services, space-based intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance satellites, and DOD logistics, financial, and other 
systems that carry out business operations. Ultimately, DOD expects 
that most of these systems will become part of the GIG.[Footnote 2]

With greater data access and a more robust communications 
infrastructure, DOD expects the GIG to enable more timely execution of 
military operations, collaborative mission planning and execution, 
common views of the battlespace, and more timely assessments of the 
condition of equipment and the levels of supplies. For example, 
according to DOD officials, greater information sharing could 
dramatically increase capabilities to rapidly identify and strike time-
critical targets, such as mobile surface-to-air missile sites. In the 
past, such targets have proved to be elusive because the enemy is able 
to move them to safety in a shorter time frame than it takes U.S. 
military forces to detect, assess, and attack the targets. By having 
greater command of a battle situation, DOD expects that lethality and 
survivability of equipment and personnel would be increased. Armor 
protection could be scaled down in favor of more agility. In addition, 
the GIG would reduce the substantial resources and logistics needed to 
bring command, control, and communications systems to the war-fighting 
environment. Table 1 illustrates how DOD envisions the GIG will help 
transform military operations.

Table 1: How DOD Envisions GIG Will Help Transform Military Operations: 

Current: Customized, platform-centric information technology; 
Future: Network-centric, commercial off-the-shelf software, Web-based. 

Current: Circuit- based transmission of data; 
Future: Internet protocol-based transmission of data. 

Current: Bandwidth limitations; 
Future: Bandwidth on demand. 

Current: Limited operational picture; 
Future: Situational awareness. 

Current: Fixed and remote command and control; 
Future: Mobile, deployable, in- transit command and control. 

Current: Broadcast (push) information to users; 
Future: Post information on network and facilitate "smart" pull by 
users. 

Current: Collect, process, exploit, disseminate; 
Future: Collect, post, process, use. 

Current: Individual; 
Future: Collaborative. 

Current: Stovepipe decision making; 
Future: Communities of interest. 

Current: Multiple data calls, data duplication; 
Future: Handle information only once. 

Current: Private data; 
Future: Shared data. 

Current: Perimeter, one-time security; 
Future: Persistent, continuous information assurance. 

Current: Single points of failure; 
Future: Diverse routing. 

Current: Separate infrastructures; 
Future: Enterprise services. 

Current: Interoperability by standard applications; 
Future: Interoperability designed from start ("born joint").

Sources: DOD (data); GAO (presentation).

[End of table]

The GIG is to be much like the Internet, but with less dependence on 
ground-based and fixed systems and equipment to transmit and route data 
and more dependence on space-based and mobile, ad hoc systems to carry 
out these functions. Figure 1 shows the various layers of the GIG's 
overall concept. At the core are communications satellites, next-
generation radios, and an installations-based network with 
significantly expanded bandwidth. These will provide the basic 
infrastructure through which data will be routed and shared. In 
addition, the GIG would employ a variety of information technology 
services and applications to manage the flow of information and ensure 
the network is reliable and secure. Various information technology 
tools would be available to help users determine what information is 
available, where to find it, and how best to use it. DOD envisions that 
communities of interest would be developed, linking users with common 
interests who would collaborate on analyzing and sharing information. 
Ultimately, most of DOD's sensors, weapon systems, business systems, 
and systems belonging to decision makers, military units, and allies 
would be tied into the GIG network--serving as both users and providers 
of data.

Figure 1: A General Depiction of DOD's Characterization of the GIG: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Acquisitions: 

DOD has taken a two-pronged approach to build the GIG: (1) invest in a 
set of core enterprise programs and initiatives to build a core network 
and information capability and (2) bring other existing and planned 
weapon systems, command, control, and communications systems, 
information technology systems, and logistics, personnel, and other 
business-related systems into the GIG network. The core network 
acquisitions are to be developed incrementally over time, with the aim 
of fielding the first increment of the GIG by 2010. The GIG is 
primarily being developed under the leadership and direction of DOD's 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and 
Information Integration in coordination with other components in the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff. The Defense 
Information Systems Agency, military services, combatant commands, and 
other defense agencies also play roles in implementing the GIG. In 
addition, DOD's Strategic Command has responsibilities for eventually 
operating the GIG. Table 2 shows the key acquisitions for the GIG's 
core network and examples of additional acquisitions that must be 
integrated with the GIG.

Table 2: DOD Acquisitions Related to the GIG: 

Key acquisitions to build GIG's core network and information 
capability: 
Communications satellites; 
Interoperable radio systems; 
Expanded bandwidth on the ground; 
Information technology applications to support the network; 

Examples of acquisitions that must be integrated with the GIG: 
Weapon systems; 
Sensors; 
Command, control, and communications systems; 
Logistics, personnel, and other business-related systems.

Sources: DOD (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

Core GIG Network Acquisitions: 

According to DOD, the key acquisitions underway to build the GIG 
network capability include 1) Transformational Satellite[Footnote 3] 
(TSAT), a new constellation of communications satellites to transmit 
and route larger volumes of data; 2) Joint Tactical Radio System 
(JTRS), a new family of interoperable radio systems; 3) Global 
Information Grid-Bandwidth Expansion (GIG-BE), which includes state of 
the art optical network technologies and upgraded routers and switches 
to increase bandwidth for greater voice, data, and video transmissions 
as well as improvements in network services at about 90 DOD 
installations; 4) Network Centric Enterprise Services (NCES), a common 
set of services and applications to manage the network and help users 
locate and share information; 5) Cryptography Transformation 
Initiative,[Footnote 4] tools to protect sensitive information 
transmitted across the network and protect the network from attack; and 
6) Horizontal Fusion, which is a portfolio of initiatives focused on 
developing and demonstrating data applications and tools for 
information sharing and netcentric operations.

Table 3 reviews each of the key acquisitions for the GIG's core 
capability, including the purpose, the financial investment between 
fiscal years 2004 and 2009, the military service or defense agency 
responsible for managing the acquisition, and the current status. Some 
of these acquisitions will require funding, including sustainment 
costs, beyond 2009 but amounts are not yet known.

Table 3: Overview of Six Major Acquisitions Related to the Core GIG 
Network and Information Capability: 

Program or initiative: TSAT; 
Purpose: To develop satellites to serve as the cornerstone of a new DOD 
communications infrastructure and provide high bandwidth connectivity 
to the warfighter. Some of the technologies that TSAT plans to use are 
laser cross-links, space-based data processing and Internet routing 
systems, and highly agile multibeam/ phased array antennas; 
Investment (fiscal years 2004 to 2009): $8.5 billion; 
Manager: Air Force; 
Status: Product development began in early fiscal year 2004; first 
satellite scheduled to launch in 2011.

Program or initiative: JTRS; 
Purpose: To develop family of software- defined radios to interoperate 
with different types of existing radios and significantly increase 
voice, data, and video communications capabilities; 
Investment (fiscal years 2004 to 2009): $5.8 billion; 
Manager: Joint service program responsible for the software 
communications architecture and waveforms; military service-led 
programs responsible for developing radios; 
Status: Army is leading the development of a cluster of radios for 
ground vehicles and helicopters. This cluster began in 2002; the first 
radios are to be fielded in fiscal year 2007.

Program or initiative: GIG-BE; 
Purpose: To provide additional bandwidth and information access at key 
military installations within the United States and overseas via a 
combination of acquiring bandwidth from commercial providers as well as 
extending fiber optic networks to bases and installations that are 
located away from commercial networks; 
Investment (fiscal years 2004 to 2009): $373 million; 
Manager: Defense Information Systems Agency; 
Status: Procurement phase began in 2003. Initially, 10 sites to be 
completed this year and the remaining sites in 2005.

Program or initiative: NCES; 
Purpose: To enable network users to identify, access, send, store, and 
protect information. Also to enable DOD to monitor and manage network 
performance and problems. Is expected to require development of new 
capabilities and tools for tagging data so it is useful, providing 
users with capability to identify relevant information based on content 
and allowing users to freely exchange and collaborate on information; 
Investment (fiscal years 2004 to 2009): $371 million; 
Manager: Defense Information Systems Agency; 
Status: In concept phase; product development to begin in fiscal year 
2004; initial set of core services to be provided beginning in fiscal 
year 2005.

Program or initiative: Crypto Transformation Initiative; 
Purpose: To enable DOD to protect the network and sensitive 
information. To provide information assurance and encryption support, 
including cryptography equipment (e.g., Internet protocol encryptors), 
firewalls, intrusion detection systems, etc; 
Investment (fiscal years 2004 to 2009): $4.8 billion; 
Manager: National Security Agency, Defense Information Systems Agency, 
and the military services; 
Status: The National Security Agency is developing information 
assurance component of GIG architecture; other ongoing efforts to 
develop enhanced encryption capabilities.

Program or initiative: Horizontal Fusion; 
Purpose: A portfolio of initiatives, drawn from existing programs, 
intended to demonstrate netcentric capabilities and address operational 
and technical challenges. Initiative underway, for example, to Web-
enable current data sources, tools, and applications; 
Investment (fiscal years 2004 to 2009): $1.3 billion; 
Manager: Office of the Secretary of Defense for Networks and 
Information Integration; 
Status: Ongoing program. Initial set of initiatives funded in fiscal 
year 2003. Annual demonstrations known as "Quantum Leap" conducted on 
initiatives. 

Sources: DOD (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

In developing the GIG's core capability, DOD intends to build upon and 
enhance ongoing terrestrial and space-based networks and systems, such 
as the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite communication system 
and the Defense Information Systems Network. The new programs underway 
are intended to improve communications and networking capabilities 
significantly. For example, according to DOD officials, current 
telecommunication lines are not robust enough to handle the volume of 
information needed to facilitate optimal, strategic decision making. 
The GIG-BE is designed to remove current bandwidth constraints. The 
GIG-BE is to use advanced fiber-optic backbone and switching technology 
to upgrade telecommunications lines and provide initially up to 10 
gigabytes per second of bandwidth at selected defense installations 
around the world. Also, unlike DOD's legacy radio systems that cannot 
interoperate with one another, JTRS is software-based, meaning that the 
radios are essentially computers that can be programmed to imitate 
other types of radios and thus be readily configured to operate in 
different networks and waveforms[Footnote 5] based on common standards. 
JTRS is expected to act as a gateway for users with different hardware 
radios--a capability that speeds the transition to universal 
interoperability for DOD military operations. Also, unlike current 
communication satellites, TSAT is to be equipped with laser-optical 
payloads for high-capacity links to other air and space platforms. By 
using laser-optics, TSAT is intended to operate above the 
radiofrequency spectrum and provide relief to current military 
bandwidth constraints. NCES is to make use of commercial products and 
tools to manage messaging, storage, search, and other capabilities 
across platforms, but also require new and possibly customized services 
to ensure the sharing of information based on mission demands and 
priorities. Tools to allow users to "smartly" pull and fuse information 
will require investing in new data content and management techniques. 
Enhanced security (information assurance)[Footnote 6] capabilities 
will need to be developed, including encryption mechanisms and devices, 
intrusion detection systems, and secure network management.

Other Acquisitions That Must Be Integrated with the GIG Core Network: 

Most ongoing and planned weapon systems; command, control and 
communications systems; and business systems will need to be integrated 
with the GIG network, because they will be the primary providers and 
receivers of data needed to support future military operations.

* DOD plans to integrate most weapon systems into the GIG. In fact, 
some "transformational" weapon systems now under development require a 
more advanced communications infrastructure to perform as intended and 
to support voice, data, videoconferencing, and imagery transmissions. 
Without an integrated network that ties together different systems and 
enables information to flow freely across the battlefield, the high-
paced warfare that DOD envisioned is likely to be constrained, 
according to DOD. For example, the Army is developing the Future Combat 
Systems, a new generation of manned and unmanned ground vehicles, air 
vehicles, and munitions that are to be lighter and more mobile yet 
lethal and survivable. Rather than rely on heavy armor to withstand an 
enemy attack, the Future Combat Systems will depend on superior 
information to see and kill the enemy before being detected. According 
to DOD, the ability to make this leap depends on (1) a network to 
collect, process, and deliver vast amounts of information, such as 
imagery and data, and (2) the performance of the individual systems 
themselves. Not only must systems within the Future Combat Systems 
interoperate effectively, they also must interoperate with the GIG. The 
GIG must perform at a level that enables the Future Combat Systems to 
quickly collect, process, and deliver data. DOD is also developing a 
new constellation of satellites--known as Space-Based Radar--to provide 
a near continuous, all-weather global capability of collecting 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance[Footnote 7] 
information. Space-Based Radar is expected to be a critical data 
provider to transformational systems, such as those within the Future 
Combat Systems. Like the Future Combat Systems, the satellites will 
require a more robust communications infrastructure to send massive 
amounts of imagery data in a timely fashion. According to DOD, if TSAT, 
a key GIG component, is not ready in time or cannot provide the 
capability originally planned, DOD may need to build additional 
capability into Space-Based Radar satellites and ground stations to 
reduce the dependency on the communications infrastructure to transmit 
data.[Footnote 8]

* DOD intends to integrate virtually all command, control, and 
communications, systems into the GIG. At the same time, DOD intends to 
develop and modify these systems to provide military commanders and 
forces with near-real time descriptions of the location and disposition 
of U.S. military forces and adversaries operating on the ground and in 
the air and to provide the ability to communicate across all elements 
involved in military operations. Each of the military services has 
major architectural initiatives underway (the Air Force's C2 
Constellation and ConstellationNet, the Army's LandWarNet, and the 
Navy's ForceNet) to transform their command, control, and 
communications systems and information infrastructures into the GIG. 
For example, the Army's Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) 
program (part of LandWarNet) is intended to be the integrating 
communications network that links Future Combat Systems units with 
higher Army echelons and with the GIG. In addition, DOD considers 
numerous other systems to be important in achieving the GIG, including 
the Mobile User Objective System (satellite communications), Global 
Command and Control System/Joint Command and Control, Deployed Joint 
Command and Control, and Teleports (information transport system). DOD 
has further identified the need to eventually link the GIG to 
coalition, allied, and non-DOD users and systems.

* DOD also intends to integrate its business systems into the GIG. 
These include acquisition and procurement systems, financial management 
systems, personnel and health systems, logistics systems, and strategic 
planning and budgeting systems. Many of these play an important role in 
supporting military operations. For example, logistics systems are used 
to plan, control, and carry out the efficient and effective movement 
and maintenance of forces.

Implementation: 

The GIG's success is dependent on DOD's ability to successfully 
integrate the majority of its weapon systems, command, control, and 
communications systems, and business systems with the new core network. 
To make this happen, DOD has developed a blueprint or architecture for 
the GIG; developed new policies, guidance, and standards to guide 
implementation decisions; undertaken proactive efforts to "market" the 
GIG and its potential benefits; and is attempting to influence key 
budgeting and acquisition decision-making processes to align with the 
GIG concept.

Architecture and Policies: 

To help guide decision-making, DOD has developed an initial 
architecture for the GIG, which, according to DOD, presents the current 
information technology environment and desired (target) technology 
environment; describes how the commands, services, and defense agencies 
will operate in a netcentric environment, based on selected strategic, 
operational, and tactical scenarios; and identifies the actions and 
information requirements for conducting operations in a netcentric 
environment, how systems will need to function to access information, 
and emerging standards for the development and acquisition of systems. 
DOD also has developed a reference model so program managers of various 
architectures and systems can ensure GIG compliance.[Footnote 9] 
According to DOD, the reference model's key purpose is to provide users 
with an understanding of the GIG through common definitions and terms 
of reference, standards, and templates for developing more detailed 
architectures. Future versions of the GIG architecture are to include 
more complete views of DOD's operational environment and existing 
enterprise requirements. Furthermore, DOD is modifying its Joint 
Technical Architecture,[Footnote 10] which sets standard technologies 
and protocols to better ensure interoperability and to complement the 
GIG architecture.

DOD is also in the process of issuing new policies, standards, and 
guidance to formalize the architecture. Specifically, DOD has created 
policy that requires all departmental architectures to be GIG 
compliant. DOD also has developed specific policies, standards, and 
guidance to implement the GIG and help ensure that the military 
services acquire systems that integrate with the GIG. Several policies 
establish the GIG as a cornerstone for enabling DOD to achieve 
information superiority, formally define the objectives and key 
elements of the GIG, and assign roles and responsibilities for the GIG 
on an enterprise basis. Others assign responsibility and define waiver 
procedures for specific aspects of the GIG, such as ground-based 
telecommunications networks and NCES. For example, DOD formalized a 
waiver process to assess network and telecommunications systems (such 
as local area networks) that are not GIG-compliant. In addition, DOD 
has set standards to address data connectivity. To provide a common 
format for the transmission of information across the GIG, DOD recently 
mandated that GIG systems must be Internet Protocol Version 6[Footnote 
11] capable, as well as Internet Protocol Version 4 (the Internet 
currently is based on version 4.),[Footnote 12] or obtain a waiver. 
Furthermore, DOD developed a netcentric data strategy, standardizing 
the way data will be described and used in systems that make up the 
GIG. Appendix I provides more details on these policies, standards, and 
guidance.

Influencing Acquisition and Budgeting Decisions: 

DOD officials who developed the GIG concept also expect to influence 
decisions by participating in DOD's key decision-making processes. Over 
the past couple years, DOD has revised its three primary decision-
making processes for determining and delivering military capabilities-
-requirements setting, acquisition, and budgeting--to focus 
acquisitions and investment decisions on meeting joint mission needs, 
particularly with regard to interoperability. In revising these 
processes, DOD has emphasized compliance with the GIG architecture. DOD 
officials have taken further action intended to strengthen these 
decisions by developing tools and criteria for actively participating 
in the decision-making process--by assisting military services in 
preparing for major acquisition reviews (as part of integrated product 
teams) and/or by providing input to decision-making boards. The 
revisions DOD has made to its requirements setting, acquisition, and 
budgeting process are all fairly recent. Therefore, it is too early to 
assess whether they will be successful in achieving their goals.

For example, DOD revised its requirements-setting process to shift the 
focus to a more capabilities-based approach for determining joint war-
fighting needs rather than a threat-based approach focused on 
individual systems and platforms. Under the threat-based approach, the 
services were primarily responsible for defining requirements, 
selecting alternatives, and developing systems, which frequently 
resulted in the fielding of stovepiped systems and duplicating 
capabilities. DOD's rationale for shifting to capabilities-based 
requirements is a recognition that there is greater uncertainty in 
future military conflicts without a clearly defined adversary and it 
will need to respond across a broader range of military operations. The 
new Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, established 
in October 2003, is organized around key functional concepts and areas-
-command and control, force application, battlespace awareness, focused 
logistics, and force protection--aimed at improving joint warfighting 
capabilities. In addition, a sixth area has been established--
netcentric operations--to enable planning across functional areas and 
support integration of netcentric capabilities. The Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration 
and Joint Staff officials believe the joint concept will provide a more 
coherent framework for identifying capabilities gaps, comparing 
alternatives, aligning requirements to the GIG, and reduce the 
potential for stovepiped, duplicative capabilities.

DOD officials also indicated that the department has begun revising its 
planning and budgeting process in an effort to instill more 
collaboration among different components of the department in 
investment decisions. For example, DOD is asking the military services 
to plan budgets around guidance that takes a joint perspective. Data 
collection and management processes are intended to be merged into a 
portfolio management approach that enables program reviews and budget 
reviews to occur in a more integrated manner rather than sequentially. 
To complement this process, DOD is planning to develop an investment 
portfolio management structure to better manage its information 
technology resources where decisions about what information technology 
investments to make, modify, or terminate, are based on the GIG 
architecture and other objectives, such as mission area goals. Other 
recent policies have focused on establishing more effective investment 
processes for information technology systems that need to integrate 
with the GIG.

DOD has developed several mechanisms to complement the decision making 
that occurs within the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development 
System, planning and budgeting, and acquisition processes. For example, 
in November 2003, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Networks and Information Integration, in consultation with the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition Technology and Logistics, and U.S. Joint Forces Command, 
established a new Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter[Footnote 13] and 
review process to focus greater attention on systems interoperability 
for joint operations as well as the information-sharing requirements of 
the GIG. The Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter is built around 
compliance with the GIG architecture, and the reference model will be 
used to assess system information needs, information assurance, and the 
technical exchange of information. The Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration has also 
developed a netcentric checklist to guide the Joint Capabilities 
Integration and Development System and acquisition reviews. The 
checklist is based on the GIG architecture and will be used to assess 
whether key standards and protocols are being considered and built into 
particular capabilities and systems being acquired. In addition, the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Network and 
Information Integration has established a systems engineering and 
evaluation capability to support the reviews. A team of systems 
engineers will provide end-to-end technical support to the office and 
funding has been requested to create a facility to test key GIG-related 
systems and components. DOD will be conducting specific netcentric 
reviews of major acquisition programs to assess whether they are 
transitioning to integrate with the future network. About 129 
information technology, weapon systems, and business systems have been 
selected to participate in the initial round of assessments. These 
reviews are scheduled to be completed later this year.

DOD Challenges in Implementing the GIG: 

The most critical challenge ahead for DOD is making the GIG a reality. 
While DOD has taken steps to define its vision and objectives for the 
GIG on paper and in policy, it is not fully known how DOD will meet 
these objectives, particularly with respect to setting investment 
priorities, providing management attention and oversight, transforming 
operations, and advancing technologies. At the same time, DOD is 
beginning to make a heavy investment in the GIG as well as systems that 
will be heavily dependent on the GIG, such as the Army's Future Combat 
Systems, and DOD is asking its components and the military services to 
accept its vision and plan toward it. In addition, DOD faces risks 
inherent with the nature and scope of the effort it is undertaking, for 
example, risks related to protecting data within the thousands of 
systems that will be integrated into the network. DOD recognizes these 
challenges, and many of the actions it is taking to implement the GIG 
are meant to address them. However, it is too early to assess how 
successful DOD will be in addressing the challenges and overcoming 
long-standing organizational impediments.

Table 4 below highlights some of the key challenges facing DOD.

Table 4: Key Challenges: 

Management and investment: 
* Deciding what capabilities are affordable; what capabilities are 
unaffordable or not in line with DOD's vision for the GIG, and 
enforcing these decisions among thousands of systems and across the 
military services. Assuring DOD has the right representation in 
acquisition decisions; 
* Assuring management attention and oversight is provided to assess the 
overall progress of the GIG and determine whether it is providing a 
worthwhile return on investment, particularly in terms of enhancing and 
even transforming military operations.

Operational: 
* Deciding when, how, and how much information should be posted on the 
network and used; 
* Establishing rules to ensure the GIG can work as intended without 
reducing benefits of flexible and dynamic information sharing; 
* Convincing data owners of the value of sharing data with a broader 
audience and trusting the network enough to post data.

Technical: 
* Developing new technologies and advancing them on schedule; 
* Assuring common agreement on technical as well as information 
assurance standards and requirements; 
* Developing the means to protect the network and its data. 

Source: GAO analysis.

[End of table]

Management and Investment Challenges: 

While DOD has taken steps to establish a vision and objectives for the 
GIG, it is still not fully known how DOD will manage, oversee, and 
invest in this effort. Addressing these questions is a daunting task. 
DOD must find ways to make and enforce trade-off decisions for 
literally thousands of information technology systems, weapon systems, 
command and control systems, intelligence systems, and other 
systems.[Footnote 14] These decisions will need to span a wide range of 
organizations, including the military services and their respective 
major commands and functional activities, numerous large defense 
agencies and field activities, and various combatant and joint 
operational commands that are responsible for military operations for 
specific geographic regions or theaters of operations. Having accurate 
and reliable visibility over spending on systems that must integrate 
with the GIG will be necessary as well as having effective mechanisms 
for identifying and deciding which systems should be pursued and which 
should not. In 2003, we reported (as part of a survey of federal 
agencies enterprise architecture programs) that DOD had made progress 
in developing the GIG architecture, however, the department had not 
completed some essential architecture products that describe the 
desired (target) technology environment and provide a sequencing plan 
for transitioning to it.[Footnote 15] More specifically, at this point, 
DOD is largely leaving it up to its components and services to decide 
how best to migrate their systems to the GIG. There is no well-defined 
strategy that: 

* identifies what capabilities DOD will invest in and what it will not 
invest in;

* identifies how investments will align with the goals and objectives 
of the GIG architecture;

* determines what is affordable, particularly in light of near-term and 
long-term needs;

* sets out criteria for determining what legacy systems should remain 
or be phased out; and: 

* specifies by whom and how decisions will be enforced.

In addition, it is unknown how senior leaders within DOD will be able 
to focus on the progress of the GIG as a whole, that is, whether it is 
being developed and fielded within cost and schedule, whether risks are 
being adequately mitigated, and whether the GIG is providing a 
worthwhile return on investment, particularly in terms of enhancing 
military operations. Until DOD implements an investment and oversight 
strategy for the GIG as a whole, it is at risk of making investments 
that do not fit its vision for the future.

According to DOD officials, the enhancements DOD is making to its 
planning and budgeting processes are meant to begin addressing these 
questions. However, these changes may be difficult to implement for a 
number of reasons. First, to some degree because of the broad scope and 
crosscutting nature of the GIG concept, no office or single program is 
in charge of the GIG, making it more difficult to make and enforce 
trade-off decisions. Moreover, while key acquisition, budgeting, and 
requirements setting processes have been modified, they still largely 
operate under the same organizational structure, where it has been 
difficult to link acquisition and investment decisions to joint 
concepts like the GIG.

Additionally, previous efforts that have been undertaken in past years 
to foster interoperability among DOD systems have had limited success, 
principally because management tools and leadership attention were not 
strong enough to provide sufficient oversight and overcome resistance 
by the military services to forgo their unique requirements in favor of 
requirements that would benefit the department, as the following 
examples illustrate: 

* In our 2001 report[Footnote 16] on DOD's efforts to improve its 
ability to attack time-critical targets, we noted that DOD had 
undertaken numerous efforts to achieve system interoperability, 
including the development of guidance, oversight controls, directives 
and policies, and technology demonstrations. However, success was 
limited because DOD had not yet overcome resistance from the military 
services, it lacked an architecture to guide interoperability efforts 
and some current oversight and control mechanisms, such as the 
interoperability certification process, were not working or were not 
being enforced.

* In 2003, we reported[Footnote 17] that two joint acquisition programs 
lacked mechanisms to overcome parochialism and stovepipes at the 
military service level. The JTRS program lacked a strong management 
structure to resolve operational requirements and funding issues among 
the services and DOD's approach to planning Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 
lacked an effective strategic plan to ensure the military services and 
other defense agencies focus their development efforts on systems that 
complement each other.

* In 2004, we reported[Footnote 18] that DOD was making limited 
progress with its business modernization initiative--a departmentwide 
effort focused on transforming DOD business operations, including 
standardizing and optimizing business systems across DOD and reducing 
duplication. After 3 years of effort, we reported that we have not seen 
any significant change in the content of DOD's business systems 
modernization architecture (which is to be integrated into the GIG 
architecture) or in DOD's approach to investing billions of dollars in 
existing and new business systems. Further, DOD had not yet implemented 
an effective management structure and processes to provide adequate 
control and accountability over its $5 billion annual investment in 
business systems modernization. In particular, we reported that DOD had 
not yet clearly defined the roles and responsibilities for its new 
business investment domains, established common investment criteria, 
and conducted a comprehensive review of its existing business systems 
to ensure that they are consistent with the business modernization 
architecture. DOD acknowledged that it still had much more to do, 
including developing the business systems modernization architecture to 
a necessary level of detail, defining specific performance metrics, and 
clarifying the roles and responsibilities associated with managing the 
domains of portfolios of business systems and ensuring that these 
systems comply with the architecture.

Several recent studies sponsored by DOD recognize that developing an 
investment strategy and adopting better management tools is critical 
for the success of the GIG. For example, a 1999 Defense Science Board 
study[Footnote 19] assessed DOD's strategies and processes for 
attaining information superiority and advocated that (1) an executive 
office be established to lead and implement the GIG and that (2) the 
office develop an implementation plan, including technical milestones 
and measurable interim goals, and identify resources to permit the 
transition to and completion of the GIG. A 2004 report by the U.S. 
Joint Forces Command,[Footnote 20] documenting the processes and 
planned activities underway to achieve transformational improvements in 
joint military capabilities, recommended, among other things, that the 
GIG should include a time-phased plan for how future capabilities will 
link to current investments. In addition, the report recommends that 
such a plan should show how network development efforts underway by 
each of the military services will contribute to and be compatible with 
the GIG.

Other studies have pointed to the need to strengthen current management 
processes to ensure warfighters themselves have more input into 
investment decisions. For example, a 2003 study[Footnote 21] chartered 
by the Secretary of Defense to examine how DOD develops, resources and 
provides joint capabilities, recommended moderate to more radical 
actions to streamline existing processes and/or establish alternative 
organizations to better integrate defense capabilities in support of 
joint military objectives. Organizational alternatives for 
strengthening the acquisition process ranged from the establishment of 
joint program executives for each of the Joint Capabilities Integration 
and Development System's functional capabilities areas that would 
provide input and oversee resources on joint programs, to capability 
acquisition executives for each of the capability areas who would have 
direct oversight and decision authority over all programs. A 2004 study 
by the Center for Strategic and International Studies[Footnote 22] 
identified defense reforms needed to meet the challenges of a new 
strategic era and made a number of recommendations, including several 
to improve the acquisition of joint capabilities and establish a more 
effective resource allocation process. For example, the study 
recommended that the Joint Staff (J-6--Command, Control, 
Communications, and Computers) be expanded into a departmentwide, joint 
task force with budgetary and acquisition authority for joint command 
and control capabilities. In addition, to improve trade-off decisions 
across mission areas, the study advocates building capacities in the 
combatant commands for a stronger role in the resource allocation 
process.

Operational Challenges: 

There are also many unknowns concerning how DOD will meet its 
requirements and vision in terms of people, processes, and, ultimately, 
operations. First, DOD has yet to determine how much information should 
be posted on the network; when it should be posted; and how and where 
it should be used. Once these factors are determined, DOD must develop 
rules of operation to ensure the network can work as intended without 
precluding the benefits that can be derived from more flexible and 
dynamic information sharing. Currently, various offices within DOD are 
working through questions on whether unlimited amounts of data should 
be made available through the GIG, including unprocessed intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance data, without the benefit of some 
assimilation and analysis. These are important questions that need to 
be addressed in the near future because they could affect the direction 
of investments in netcentric systems and non-network systems as well as 
changes that need to be made in how the intelligence community 
operates.

Even after these questions are settled, significant operational 
challenges remain. Joint commanders and the military services may need 
to find ways to adapt to an environment where data can be more readily 
obtained and shared by lower levels in the chains of command. New 
operational concepts are being developed to guide how military 
operations are to be conducted in this enhanced technology environment. 
They will need to be followed by associated doctrine, tactics, 
techniques, and procedures. Developing joint operational concepts is 
one of the key tenets under the Joint Capabilities Integration and 
Development System; however, it is unclear how the concepts will be 
developed and translated by these boards into more detailed tactics, 
techniques and procedures. We recently reported that DOD had been 
proceeding with the JTRS program for several years without clear 
definition of how JTRS capabilities should be used in an operational 
environment and that the program's concept of operations did not 
reflect the joint vision of JTRS but instead the service-centric radio-
replacement perspective. If DOD is to achieve its long-term goals for 
netcentric warfare, it is imperative that it develop concepts and 
processes for how individual systems, such as JTRS, can be used to 
leverage DOD's new network infrastructure and maximize interoperability 
and collaboration in military operations.

Moreover, DOD must successfully persuade data owners to accept the 
value of sharing data with a broader audience and to trust the network 
enough to post data. We spoke with several officials in charge of GIG 
programs who acknowledged that facilitating these cultural changes--
particularly with the intelligence community--will be difficult.

In addition, DOD also faces a formidable task in persuading the 
military services and other users of the network to rely on information 
technology applications and services being developed by the Defense 
Information Systems Agency. This agency has been tasked with developing 
and providing key voice, video, and data connectivity through core 
enterprise services for the GIG, such as data query (search or 
discovery) capabilities and information assurance. However, the 
military services and defense agencies have historically been reluctant 
to rely on the Defense Information Systems Agency for these services. 
We have reported in the past that the military services have regularly 
bypassed Defense Information Systems Agency, preferring instead to 
procure their own telecommunications networks and commercial satellites 
bandwidth services because they were dissatisfied with the level of 
service provided by the agency as well as the cost and length of time 
it took to procure these services centrally.[Footnote 23]

Technical Challenges: 

Building a reliable, secure network that will operate on the move, 
virtually anywhere and provide the necessary information and services 
to enable netcentric military operations presents considerable 
technical challenges. While DOD intends to utilize existing commercial 
communications and networking technologies, which have advanced 
significantly in recent years, the GIG requires DOD to advance a number 
of key technologies, develop a series of complex systems and software, 
field them without delay so schedules for other dependent systems are 
not disrupted, and develop the means to effectively manage and protect 
the network and its data.

At this time, however, DOD is pushing ahead on several programs with 
immature technologies and with aggressive development and fielding 
schedules. As a result, DOD is at risk of not delivering required 
capabilities within budgeted resources. This, in turn, may affect 
schedules and funding for other systems depending on the GIG. For 
example, two key GIG-related programs--JTRS and TSAT--are facing 
schedule and performance risks, which are largely rooted in attempts to 
move these programs into product development without sufficient 
knowledge that their technologies can work as intended. In March 2004, 
we reported that none of the 20 critical hardware and software 
technologies for the Army's initial JTRS radio development for ground 
vehicles and helicopters were sufficiently mature according to best 
practice standards.[Footnote 24] When product development began in June 
2002, the Army determined that while many of the technologies within 
the program had been used in other radio applications, they could not 
be assessed as mature because they had not been integrated into a 
complex radio, such as JTRS. Mature backup technologies exist for some 
critical technologies, but program officials have cautioned that 
substituting them could complicate integration or result in degraded 
performance. Moreover, the program recently experienced a 4-month 
schedule slip that officials attribute to short-term technology 
deviations affecting size, weight, and power requirements for the radio 
sets. Further, the program entered product development with an 
ambitious schedule that program officials recognized as high risk. In 
particular, the program has a compressed test and evaluation phase that 
leaves little room for error and rework.

We also recently reported that the TSAT program entered into product 
development with only one of its six critical technologies sufficiently 
mature. The remaining five technologies are not expected to reach 
maturity until 2006. Backup technologies exist for three of the five 
immature technologies, but they would degrade system performance. The 
other technology--single access laser communications--has no backup and 
program officials indicated any delay in maturing this technology would 
cause the first satellite launch date to slip significantly. DOD 
believes it has adequate measures to mitigate these risks, however, 
concern over TSAT technology readiness led the Air Force to schedule an 
interim review for November 2004, which will determine whether the 
program's technology development has progressed sufficiently or whether 
alternative action should be taken.

Similar risks extend to the systems that must be integrated with the 
GIG and on which DOD is dependent for achieving its vision for 
netcentric warfare. For example, our review of the Future Combat 
Systems determined that the program is at significant risk, in part 
because more than 75 percent of its critical technologies were immature 
at the start of development and many will not be sufficiently mature 
until the production decision.[Footnote 25] First prototypes for the 
systems that make up the Future Combat Systems will not be delivered 
until just before the production decision, and full demonstration of 
the Future Combat Systems' ability to work and meet its goals will not 
occur until after production has begun. If the lessons learned from 
best practices and the experiences of past programs have any bearing, 
the Future Combat Systems program is likely to encounter "late-cycle 
churn," a phrase used by private industry to describe the discovery of 
significant problems late in development and the resulting search for 
fixes when costs are high and time is short.

Networking, network management, and secure network management 
challenges are considerable.[Footnote 26] Currently, mobile networking 
is limited, mainly to narrowband, fixed infrastructures, and relatively 
stable user groups. The GIG network will require new wideband waveforms 
that can handle the expected high data rates, throughput of 
information, and ability to transmit integrated voice, data, and video 
simultaneously. In addition, dynamic networking capabilities that can 
automatically adjust to changing circumstances, such as intrusions or 
node failures, are needed; however, the scalability of network 
management technologies for a network like the GIG with such a large 
number of nodes is unproven. To facilitate timely and prioritized 
access to information from a wide variety of sources, the network will 
require enhanced quality of service mechanisms and algorithms to manage 
bandwidth allocation and handle the flow of information and security. 
Furthermore, advances will be needed in several other technological 
areas, such as antennas, power sources, and the miniaturization of 
components to facilitate mobile communications. For example, current 
antennas do not support all of the portions of the radio frequency 
spectrum where the GIG network will operate and are limited to specific 
communications waveforms. Advanced multiband antennas will be needed to 
support mobile and simultaneous communications across different 
portions of the spectrum.

Integrating other elements of the network will also be challenging. The 
increased bandwidth capability provided by the GIG-BE program may not 
be fully realized if the military services and defense agencies do not 
use compatible technologies and protocols in upgrading their networks. 
Even if the technologies and protocols are compatible, bandwidth may be 
limited if these networks are not properly designed and integrated to 
manage voice, data, and imagery transmissions. Network management 
policies may pose challenges if common agreement cannot be reached 
across the military services and defense agencies on standards and 
information assurance requirements. For example, DOD and the 
intelligence community have not yet reached agreement on how they will 
exchange information and verify security credentials on the GIG 
network.

Information assurance itself may be one of the most critical challenges 
facing DOD. While building a network based on Internet protocols is 
expected by DOD to provide a more viable path to achieve 
interoperability and enable more dynamic and flexible information 
sharing, it also exposes DOD to the same vulnerabilities that face all 
users of the Internet, and it increases the opportunity for potential 
attackers with limited knowledge and technical skills to cause a great 
deal of damage. Establishing network and system security safeguards--
such as firewalls, identifying the sender and recipient of information, 
protecting information from unauthorized access, and safeguarding data 
to prevent accidental and deliberate alterations--will be essential but 
difficult given the size the network and the thousands of systems and 
users that will be linked to it.

Moreover, if the network is to be used to provide warfighters on the 
move with access to intelligence and other sensitive information on 
demand, information will need to be encrypted to safeguard data from 
misuse.[Footnote 27] However, the technologies needed to secure 
communications, such as software programmable encryption devices are 
still in their infancy. Further, the complexity and magnitude of 
enabling hundreds of systems and applications to operate in a secure, 
Web-based environment will require careful planning and coordination. 
Comprehensive plans will be needed to ensure that sensitive data and 
communications are safeguarded across diverse platforms. This will 
require DOD to identify sensitive data as well as applications, 
databases, storage subsystems, and media used to process and store the 
data. Once systems have been examined, data access models must be 
applied to determine proper security levels for information and how 
integration can occur across platforms without disrupting network and 
near-real time operations. No one security solution likely will address 
GIG requirements.

Lastly, the enterprise information services planned for the GIG pose 
timing challenges. For example, in the near-term, DOD has established a 
goal to complete the transition to Internet Protocol Version 6 by 
fiscal year 2008. According DOD officials, the commercial industry may 
not be able to provide the necessary products for Internet Protocol 
Version 6 by the targeted milestone. Also, the transition will not be 
completed until a Joint Staff developed set of performance and 
technical criteria can be met. In addition, because of the enormous 
amount of data that will become available, new data fusion methods will 
need to be developed to help users rapidly identify, access, and make 
sense of available information.

Conclusions: 

DOD is depending on the GIG to enable a fundamental transformation in 
the way military operations are conducted. While DOD's vision of the 
GIG is compelling, the breadth and depth of the GIG and DOD's 
objectives for netcentric warfare, present enormous challenges and 
risks--many of which have not been successfully overcome in smaller-
scale efforts and many of which require significant changes in DOD's 
culture. Moreover, even though DOD has begun to make heavy investments 
to implement the new network and to ask the military services to accept 
its vision for the GIG, important questions as to how DOD will make the 
GIG a reality and how it will oversee progress as a whole and ensure 
the GIG is providing an adequate return on DOD's investment are only 
just beginning to be addressed, leaving DOD at risk of making 
investments that may not fit in with its vision for the future. 
Moreover, many new weapon systems and sensors, which are costing DOD 
tens of billions of dollars, are critically dependent on the future 
network to successfully achieve their own capabilities. Any disruptions 
in the schedule for key systems that support the network, therefore, 
can have significant ramifications. As such, it is important that DOD 
ensure it has sufficient knowledge about these systems (e.g., 
requirements, technologies, security) as it makes additional 
commitments to them and that it has effective risk mitigation plans to 
ensure that they can deliver promised capability on time. Our future 
work, therefore, will assess DOD's progress in addressing these 
challenges in more depth as well as its progress in managing key 
acquisitions related to the GIG.

Agency Comments: 

DOD provided technical comments on a draft of this report that we 
incorporated where appropriate.

We plan to provide copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, 
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information 
Integration, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 
and Logistics, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the 
Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, and interested 
congressional committees. We will make copies available to others upon 
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the 
GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3519, Cristina Chaplain at (202) 512-4859, or 
John Oppenheim at (202) 512-3111. Other individuals making key 
contributions to this report are Lily Chin, Arturo Holguin, and Yvonne 
Vigil.

Signed by:

Robert E. Levin: 
Director: 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Policies, Standards, and Guidance to Implement the Global 
Information Grid: 

Table 5: Selected Global Information Grid Policies, Standards, and 
Guidance (2000 to 2004): 

Policy/guidance: Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, August 24, 
2000; 
(No. 4-8460); 
Subject: DOD CIO Guidance and Policy on GIG Networks; 
Key Objectives: This policy establishes the Defense Information 
Systems Network (DISN) as DOD's networking capability for the transfer 
of information in support of military operation in the context of the 
Global Information Grid (GIG). It further specifies that DISN shall be 
the means for wide-area and metropolitan-area networking unless granted 
a waiver through the DISN/GIG waiver board.

Policy/guidance: Department of Defense Directive; 
8000.1, February 27, 2002; 
Subject: Management of DOD Information Resources and Information 
Technology; 
Key Objectives: This directive establishes policies for DOD information 
resources management, including information technology, and delineates, 
authorities, duties, and responsibilities for DOD information resources 
management activities. It also provides direction on establishing Chief 
Information Officers at various levels.

Policy/guidance: Department of Defense Instruction; 
4630.8, May 2, 2002; 
Subject: Procedures for Interoperability and Supportability of 
Information Technology and National Security Systems; 
Key Objectives: This instruction implements an approach that considers 
both materiel (acquisition or procurement) and nonmateriel (doctrine, 
organizational, training, leadership, and personnel) aspects to ensure 
life-cycle interoperability and supportability of information 
technology and national security systems throughout DOD. It also 
implements an outcome-based, mission area focused process whereby 
information technology and national security systems interoperability 
and supportability requirements for new, modified, and fielded systems 
are documented, coordinated, implemented, verified, and approved to 
achieve an integrated, and secure information technology and national 
security systems infrastructure supporting global operations across 
the peace-conflict spectrum.

Policy/guidance: Department of Defense Directive 8100.1, 
September 19, 2002; 
Subject: GIG Overarching Policy; 
Key Objectives: The directive states that the GIG shall support all DOD 
missions with information technology, for national security systems, 
joint operations, joint task force, and/or combined-task for commands 
in a manner that offers the most effective, efficient, and assured 
information handling capabilities available, consistent with national 
military strategy, operational requirements, and best-value enterprise-
level business practices.

Policy/guidance: Department of Defense Directive 8500.1, October 24, 
2002; 
Subject: Information Assurance; 
Key Objectives: The policy assigns responsibilities to achieve DOD 
information assurance through a defense-in-depth approach that 
integrates the capabilities of personnel, operations, and technology, 
and supports the evolution to network-centric warfare.

Policy/guidance: Department of Defense Instruction; 8500.2, February 6, 
2003; 
Subject: Information Assurance Implementation; 
Key Objectives: The instructions implements policy, assigns 
responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for applying integrated, 
layered protection of the DOD information systems and networks 
referenced in DOD Directive 8500.1.

Policy/guidance: Department of Defense; Memorandum, July 7, 2003; 
Subject: End-to-End Information Assurance for the Global Information 
Grid; 
Key Objectives: The policy establishes a goal to converge voice, video, 
and data traffic over DOD's inter-network and the National Security 
Agency (NSA) as lead in developing the information assurance component 
of the GIG architecture.

Policy/guidance: Department of Defense Memorandum, September 29, 2003; 
Subject: Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Interim Transition 
Guidance; 
Key Objectives: The policy establishes a goal of transitioning all DOD 
networking to the next generation of Internet Protocol, IPv6, by fiscal 
year 2008. As part of this transition, the strategy will be to minimize 
costs by ensuring products and systems procured, acquired, or in 
development after October 1, 2003, are capable of operating in IPv6 
networks.

Policy/guidance: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer Memorandum, October 24, 2003; 
Subject: DOD Net-Centric Data Strategy; 
Key Objectives: The policy establishes a DOD-wide goal to 
institutionalize the practice of identifying all data assets on the 
GIG by fiscal year 2008. Information will be provided on each data 
asset to standardize the way data are described and used for all IT and 
national security systems. This practice will enable DOD to create 
tools to query data assets across platforms.

Policy/guidance: Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, November 10, 
2003; 
Subject: GIG Enterprise Services Implementation; 
Key Objectives: The policy establishes a program to begin the 
development of core enterprise services within the GIG as part of the 
fiscal year 2006 program review process. Core enterprise services--such 
as messaging, collaboration, services management, security, discovery, 
and mediation--are to be developed to provide access and the delivery 
of data and services across the department.

Policy/guidance: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction; 
CJCSI 6212.01C, November 20, 2003; 
Subject: Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology 
and National Security Systems; 
Key Objectives: This instruction establishes polices and procedures for 
developing, evaluating and providing interoperability and 
supportability certification in support of the Joint Capabilities 
Integration and Development System for acquisition category, 
nonacquisition category and fielded capabilities.

Policy/guidance: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction; 
CJCSI 3170.01D, March 12, 2004; 
Subject: Joint Capabilities Integration and Development Systems; 
Key Objectives: This instruction establishes the policies and 
procedures of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development 
System. Procedures established in this instruction support the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council in identifying, assessing, and prioritizing joint 
military capability needs.

Policy/guidance: Deputy Secretary of Defense; Memorandum, March 22, 
2004; 
Subject: Information Technology Portfolio Management; 
Key Objectives: This policy assigns responsibilities for managing 
information technology investments as portfolios. It also establishes 
that decisions on what information technology investments to make, 
modify or terminate shall be based on architectures, risk tolerance 
levels, potential returns, outcome goals, and performance.

Policy/guidance: Department of Defense Directive; 
8100.2, April 14, 2004; 
Subject: Use of Commercial Wireless Devices, Services, and Technologies 
in the Department of Defense Global Information Grid; 
Key Objectives: This policy assigns responsibilities for the use of 
commercial wireless devices, services, and technologies in the DOD 
Global Information Grid. It also directs the development and use of a 
knowledge management process to promote the sharing of wireless 
technology capabilities, vulnerabilities, and vulnerability mitigation 
strategies throughout DOD and promotes joint interoperability using 
open standards throughout DOD for commercial wireless services, 
devices, and technological implementations.

Policy/guidance: Department of Defense Directive; 
4630.5, May 5, 2004; 
Subject: Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology 
and National Security Systems; 
Key Objectives: The directive updates DOD responsibilities for 
interoperability and supportability of information technology, 
including national security systems, and implements DOD Chief 
Information Officer's responsibilities. It also defines a capability-
focused, effects-based approach to advance information technology and 
national security systems interoperability and supportability across 
DOD and establishes the Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter to assess 
net-ready attributes required for both the technical exchange of 
information and the end-to-end operational effectiveness of that 
exchange. 

Sources: DOD (data); GAO (analysis).

[End of table]

FOOTNOTES

[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Joint Warfighting: Attacking Time-
Critical Targets, GAO-02-204R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2001).

[2] DOD defines the GIG to include "all owned and leased communications 
and computing systems and services, software (including applications), 
data, security services, and other associated services necessary to 
achieve information superiority."

[3] TSAT is one of six initiatives under development as part of the 
Transformational Communications System Initiative. 

[4] The Cryptography Transformation Initiative is part of DOD's broader 
Information Assurance program, which includes many security initiatives 
critical to the GIG. The cryptography initiative is funded from 
different program elements within DOD's Information Assurance program.

[5] A waveform is the representation of a signal that includes the 
frequency, modulation type, message format, and/or transmission system. 
In general usage, the term waveform refers to a known set of 
characteristics, for example, frequency bands (VHF, HF, UHF), 
modulation techniques (FM, AM), message standards, and transmission 
systems. In JTRS, the term waveform is used to describe the entire set 
of radio functions that occur from the user input to the radiofrequency 
output and vice versa. 

[6] "Information assurance is defined by DOD as measures that protect 
and defend information and information systems by ensuring their 
availability, integrity, authentication, confidentiality, and non-
repudiation. This includes providing for restoration of information 
systems by incorporating protection, detection, and reaction 
capabilities. "Department of Defense Directive 8500.1, Information 
Assurance, October 24, 2002 (Certified current as of Nov. 21, 2003), 
Section E2.1.17.

[7] Intelligence is defined by DOD as the product resulting from the 
collection, processing, integration, analysis, and evaluation of 
information. Surveillance is the systematic observation of places, 
persons, or things through visual and other means. Reconnaissance is a 
mission undertaken to obtain information about activities and resources 
of an enemy or potential enemy or to secure data characteristics of a 
particular area.

[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Acquisitions: Space-Based 
Radar Effort Needs Additional Knowledge Before Starting Development, 
GAO-04-759 (Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2004).

[9] Referred to as the Netcentric Operations Warfare Reference Model, 
Version 1.0, December 2003.

[10] For several years, DOD has emphasized the use of a framework that 
defines three types of architectures: operational, technical, and 
system. A technical architecture is a set of rules to guide the design 
of systems and consists primarily of a common set of standards and 
protocols for sending and receiving information (e.g., Internet 
protocol), understanding information (e.g., format standards), and 
processing the information. The Joint Technical Architecture specifies 
the minimum set of standards and guidance for the acquisition of all 
DOD systems that produce, use, or exchange information.

[11] Internet protocol specifies the format of packets, also called 
"datagrams," and the addressing scheme for communication transmissions 
and virtual connections made over the Internet. Internet Protocol 
Version 6 (also referred to as IPv6) is the latest version of this 
protocol.

[12] IPv6 includes a transition mechanism that is designed to allow 
users to adopt and deploy IPv6 in a highly diffuse fashion and to 
provide direct interoperability between IPv4 and IPv6 hosts. The 
transition to a new version of the Internet Protocol is intended to be 
incremental and allow users to upgrade their hosts to IPv6, and network 
operators to deploy IPv6 in routers, with very little coordination 
between the two.

[13] A key performance parameter represent those critical performance 
parameters so significant that a failure to meet a minimum value of 
performance can call into question a system's ability to perform 
missions.

[14] DOD's information technology budget (covering national security 
and business systems) for fiscal year 2004 totaled about $28 billion. 
Of this, about $10.5 billion was for modernizing systems and the 
remaining $17.5 billion for operating and maintaining existing systems.

[15] U. S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: 
Leadership Remains Key to Agencies Making Progress on Enterprise 
Architecture Efforts, GAO-04-40 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2003).

[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Joint Warfighting: Attacking Time-
Critical Targets, GAO-02-204R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2001).

[17] U.S. General Accounting Office, Challenges and Risks Associated 
with the Joint Tactical Radio System Program, GAO-03-879R (Washington, 
D.C.: Aug. 11, 2003) and Force Structure: Improved Strategic Planning 
Can Enhance DOD's Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Efforts, GAO-04-342 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 17, 2004).

[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, DOD Business Systems 
Modernization: Limited Progress in Development of Business Enterprise 
Architecture and Oversight of Information Technology Investments, GAO-
04-731R (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2004) and Department of Defense: 
Further Actions Needed to Establish and Implement a Framework for 
Successful Financial and Business Management Transformation, GAO-04-
551T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2004).

[19] Defense Science Board Task Force, Tactical Battlefield 
Communications (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 1999).

[20] U.S. Joint Forces Command, Joint Transformation Roadmap 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 21, 2004).

[21] Joint Defense Capabilities Study Team, Joint Defense Capabilities 
Study: Final Report (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2003).

[22] C.A. Murdock et al, Beyond Goldwater-Nichols: Defense Reform for a 
New Strategic Era, Phase 1 Report (Washington, D.C.: Center for 
Strategic and International Studies, Mar. 2004).

[23] U.S. General Accounting Office, Satellite Communications: 
Strategic Approach for DOD's Procurement of Commercial Satellite 
Bandwidth, GAO-04-206 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2003); Defense 
Networks: Management Information Shortfalls Hinder Defense Efforts to 
Meet DISN Goals, GAO/AIMD-98-202 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 1998); and 
Defense IRM: Investments at Risk for DOD Computer Centers, GAO/AIMD-97-
39 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4, 1997).

[24] GAO has conducted a body of work on best practices and found that 
programs managed within a knowledge-based approach--where levels of 
product knowledge are demonstrated at critical points during 
development--are better positioned to deliver superior performance 
within cost and schedule estimates. For example, a match between 
program requirements and resources (mature technology, time, and 
funding) at the start of product development is particularly important. 
A high level of technology, time, and funding) at the start of product 
development is particularly important. A high level of technology 
maturity means that the technologies needed to meet essential product 
requirements have been demonstrated in their intended environment. 

[25] U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Acquisitions: The Army's 
Future Combat Systems' Features, Risks, and Alternatives, GAO-04-635T 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2004).

[26] GAO has defined five categories of cybersecurity controls: (1) 
access control; (2) system integrity; (3) cryptography; (4) audit and 
monitoring; and (5) configuration management and assurance, that can 
help as safeguards and countermeasures to protect agencies' information 
technology networks such as the GIG network. Agencies such as DOD can 
use network management to control and monitor networks to obtain status 
data from components, make configuration changes, and alert network 
managers to problems. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Information 
Security: Technologies to Secure Federal Systems, GAO-04-467 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2004).

[27] Cryptographic transformation involves altering data into a form 
that conceals that data's original meaning to prevent it from being 
known or used. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street 
NW, Room LM Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
	
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: