| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Boeing Asks for Cooperation on War Tech |
| 2003-09-21 |
| EFL Boeing Co. (BA) is urging the unprecedented cooperation of rival U.S. defense contractors to establish a single communication standard that would allow future weapons systems built for the U.S. military to talk to each other. Boeing executives have invited Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, as well as software companies like Microsoft and smaller suppliers to a meeting to discuss create a standards body that would eliminate competing technologies used in radios and data networks on planes, ships and other weapons platforms. "There is a cost associated with doing this, but there is a terrible cost to our nation if we don’t," Carl O’Berry, vice president of strategic architecture at Boeing, said during a tour of the Boeing Integration Center here Thursday. Boeing executives said they had not invited the U.S. Department of Defense to the meeting, which is to take place in 30 or 40 days. O’Berry said industry should take the lead in setting the standards, then present its work to the Pentagon. Not all the major defense contractors have agreed to participate and none have yet agreed to take the next step, O’Berry said. "It’s all very fragile," he said. "Companies have agreed just to have an initial meeting to see if it’s viable or not." The idea, Boeing executives say, is to build more profitable display systems, weapons and other applications that could "plug and play" into a future networked battlefield. Instead of creating a network linking their own products, Boeing wants to see all U.S. forces linked by requiring that future ships, planes and weapons built by rival defense contractors speak the same language. Boeing believes its competitors could be developing distinct technology that might not talk to its own Internet protocol-based devices. Boeing is working with the Pentagon on a vision of the "integrated battlespace," where soldiers carry handheld devices that gives them locations of fellow troops and enemy forces. The Army’s 4th Infantry Division already uses networked "battlefield Internet" screens in its vehicles, which network among themselves and use real-time intelligence to make quick decisions. If the companies agree to proceed, O’Berry said, a standards-based corporation could be formed by the end of the year. Companies would contribute engineers, technology and investment. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #3 .com is exactly right about upper management and their agendas and egos: Get the Pointy haired bosses out of the way, and the Dilberts will do just fine. However, we ALREADY have a pretty good inter-computer communications network protocol, designed to ride out a nuclear attack: Boeing went the right way in picking the internet protocols. Unless they have to decide on a Mil-spec Ethernet plug (requiring 20 full turns of the screw ring before the pins engage electrically), we consumers would benefit from selective improvements on the base algorithms, like maybe working in the bluetooth handshaking specs, so that devices can check in and out of the network more quickly and flawlessly. Then again, given the higher calibre of US troops, perhaps the ability to work in the field with grunts is no longer a guarantee that it'll work in the consumer field. Then again, the reverse may be true. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-9-21 9:06:58 PM |
| #2 Just make sure that when we do the programming it doesn't get sent off shore to India or Pakistan. This is the latest cost cutting craze in corporate America that has no regard for the rotten code produced or the security holes it creates, just the bottom line. |
| Posted by: Douglas De Bono 2003-9-21 7:14:36 AM |
| #1 [rant mode] Can you say "friendly fire"? How about "missing in action"? Or "intense firefight, need immediate reinforcement"? I knew you could... Where's Bobby Inman when you really need him? The need for this is so painfully obvious, from an American's (not to mention a programmer's) point of view, that one has to wonder why it isn't being rammed down their throats instead of watching the def con's pussy-foot around. With top-down Pentagon buy-in to the idea, it is easy to resolve the tech issues - 99% of the time it is the politics of the corp asshats (the management) that is the sticking point / monkeywrench, that prevents cooperative collaboration, not the technology. We do this everyday on the job in civilian sector. It can be done if the Pentagon will play dictator, instead of hooker, in these situations. I recognize the complexity (yes, I do), but it is far from insurmountable. If this follows form, historically, the biggest obstacle to successful cooperation will be the Navy. If I was The Prez, I'd kidnap Bobby Ray Inman (Current location: Bobby R. Inman, Lyndon B. Johnson professor of national policy at the University of Texas at Austin, has been named chair of the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science Advisory Board) and hand him the job. He knows where every body is buried and, in particular, which Admirals are worth their salt and which are future Wesley Clarkes. He would have the power to "retire" (read: fire) anyone who didn't salute cooperation and then perform to spec in the process - in all of the services. The missing ingredient is the will to do it. The motivation is continued Gov't contracts. So Do It, already. [/rant mode] It's 2200 hrs, do you where your units are? JCS & Service Head Buy-in: Check! Integrated battlefield: Check! Coordination of forces: Check! Reduce blue-on-blue engagements: Check! Simplify SAR support: Check! Cancel uncooperative Contractors: Check! Doh! |
| Posted by: .com 2003-9-21 1:56:15 AM |