Q&A: Brigadier General N. Lee S. Price

Written by Harrison Donnelly

From July 2002 to July 2005, Price was the project manager, Defense Communications and Army Transmission Systems (PM DCATS). As PM DCATS, she was honored as the Army’s Project Manager of the Year in October 2004. In that position, she was responsible for managing programs valued at more than $2 billion that support the national command authorities, combatant commanders, joint services and the Army. Highlights of those three years include: a $300 million project to build a commercial communications network in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait; delivering the first-ever dedicated communications for combat service support troops; increasing the production by over 1,000 percent on its award-winning Vehicle Intercom Systems; and more than quadrupling the deliveries of Land Mobile Radio systems for a variety of DoD forces and other government agencies.

Prior to becoming PM DCATS, Price established the first strategic communications office for the Army Staff’s chief information office/G6. While in her capacity on the Army staff, she was also a division chief charged with building the systems architectures for the Army’s new Brigade Combat Teams. With more than 19 years of acquisition experience, Price is a certified member of the Army Acquisition Corps.

In 1994, Price became the tactical integration manager for the Defense Message System, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), and in 1996 became the chief of the director’s group, working for the DISA director. In 1997, she became project manager, Defense Information System Network-Pacific, a $2.5 billion joint services program. Subsequently, she served as product manager, Theater Automated Command and Control Information Management System (TACCIMS), in Seoul, Korea. TACCIMS, now the Global Command and Control System-Army in Korea, is used by all of the U.S. forces, as well as the Republic of Korea’s Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

Price began her military career in 1975 as a private first class in the Alabama National Guard, and was later commissioned through Officer’s Candidate School and was transferred to the Signal Corps. She entered active duty in October 1981. She has a Bachelor of Science from the University of Alabama in Birmingham and master’s degrees from the University of Arizona and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

Price was interviewed by MIT Editor Harrison Donnelly.

Q: What is your role as deputy program manager for Future Combat Systems, Brigade Combat Team-Network Integration?

A: Before jumping into a discussion about the network and my role in that, it is important to understand FCS and how it functions. This modernization effort is no longer about fielding 15 future brigade combat teams, but rather about critical technology enhancements, which include network elements as well as a robust set of unmanned hardware and sensors, that will be incrementally fielded to all Army brigade combat teams, starting with the infantry brigade combat teams. The network provides the backbone to this strategy—linking all sensors and systems together and allowing for data sharing at all unit levels. This will be an aggressive schedule and will mean more equipment for more soldiers faster.

The FCS program continues to evolve to take advantage of the lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure our soldiers have leading-edge technologies and capabilities that dominate ground warfare. The network is what makes this all possible. The FCS program adapted the traditional Open Systems Interconnection Reference Model into a five-layer model that consists of sensors and platforms, applications, services, transport and standards.

Sensors are the hardware and software that provide FCS with the ability to “see first” and achieve situational awareness and understanding of the battlefield. Soldiers will be able to detect, identify and track both enemy and friendly systems and to survey the terrain around them.

The applications layer is responsible for providing the integrated ability to assess, plan and execute network-centric mission operations using a common interface. It consists of 10 software packages known as battle command applications. The combined capabilities of the battle command software packages enable full interaction among FCS and provide the ability to understand the battle situation first.

The services layer is commonly referred to as System-of- Systems Common Operating Environment [SoSCOE]. SoSCOE provides interoperability with existing systems, intra- and interplatform networking [including e-mail and Web services], data services and information assurance, and search capabilities.

The transport layer is the telecommunications layer. It provides the radios and computers to process information. It improves current force communication limitations because it is primarily embedded in the mobile platforms and moves with the combat formations.

The standards layer is the foundation of the FCS network. This layer provides the governance for the implementation of the network—that is, the rules the soldier has to accommodate. So, getting back to your original question, my role as the deputy program manager FCS networks is to develop a network that seamlessly merges complementary programs, legacy programs and FCS systems. This includes the development of the network, preparing it for test and working with each individual system to ensure that all systems are compatible.

Additionally, because FCS is a joint program, I coordinate network issues with the other services. I am also responsible for developing training for the FCS program. My office includes the project manager for network systems and its six subordinate product offices and requires interaction with all commodity and integration areas.

Q: Where does your office fit within the overall FCS structure, and how is your office organized?

A: As the deputy project manager for networks, I work directly for the project manager, FCS [BCT], Major General John R. Bartley. Additionally, the FCS structure incorporates a partnership with private industry. Boeing, as the lead system integrator, is responsible for coordinating the efforts of individual private industry endeavors. However, Major General Bartley, as the program manager for FCS, still has overall responsibility. The structure under him is organized based on commodity areas, such as FCS platforms as well as integration areas. Other organizational areas include systems integration, logistics integration, network systems integration and future force simulation.

The organizational structure emphasizes that FCS is not just the acquisition of new technology but that new doctrine must be developed to incorporate this technology. Therefore, it is important to have the soldier involved through the utilization of the Army Evaluation Task Force [AETF]. The AETF was created in October 2007 and allows us to place equipment in the hands of the operators and to get immediate feedback.

Q: Please give us an overview of where FCS network integration efforts currently stand.

A: The easiest way to answer this question is to consider the results of the Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment [JEFX] ‘08. JEFX was a series of joint service experiments, headed by the Air Force’s Global Cyberspace Integration Center, focusing on collaboration and connectivity across the strategic, operational and tactical levels to plan and execute global strike and other military operations.

FCS provided the ground maneuver [brigade and below] network portion of JEFX. This marked an important step in joint service collaboration. The JEFX provided one of the first opportunities to test the functionality and applicability of the FCS network in a realistic joint war fighting environment. It also evaluated FCS core program network systems maturity in a joint operating scenario.

FCS program successes for JEFX include joint network integration, demonstration of joint interoperability and spinout interoperability, demonstration of assured Global Information Grid connectivity, establishment of a capability for evolving enterprise services, and achievement of shared situational awareness and understanding across the services.

Q: Where do things stand with the System-of-Systems Preliminary Design Review?

A: The FCS System-of-Systems [SoS] combines the network, its battle command sensors, and its manned/unmanned aerial and ground vehicles allowing elements at all echelons to detect the enemy while our forces are beyond detection range. Over the past 16 months, the Army has conducted a series of preliminary design reviews for each FCS system. The goal of these reviews was to evaluate the maturity of the preliminary designs and determine if we are ready to proceed to detailed design. As of today, we have held all preliminary design reviews for our major systems, including our manned and unmanned vehicles and the FCS network.

Through this process we are confident that we have acceptable system maturity and risk to proceed forward to our system of systems preliminary design review in May.

Q: FCS recently staged soldier evaluations of the network in the Integrated Mission Test-1. What was the goal of that and what did you learn?

A: The successful Integrated Mission Test-1 [IMT-1] that was recently concluded provided soldier evaluations and tests of initial build phases of the FCS network, which, from a design standpoint, will ultimately lead to the Army being linked to a common network on the battlefield. During IMT-1, soldiers participated in a variety of simulated combat exercises that helped to verify that the integration of FCS systems and battle command software is proceeding as planned.

IMT-1, which capped more than two years of software development, paired soldiers of the AETF with Army and industry engineers. During the evaluations soldiers crewed FCS ground vehicle mock-ups, and through interfacing with the FCS, battle command software performed simulated full spectrum combat operations. IMT-1’s purpose was to validate early prototypes of FCS battle command and system software by soliciting soldier feedback and analyzing how they executed their missions. Careful observation was made to see how soldiers interacted with the FCS Warfighter Machine Interface display panels, which provide the soldier with a common operating picture of the battlespace.

Q: How would you evaluate the current maturity of the network and its synchronization with comparable programs?

A: The JTRS Ground Mobile Radio [GMR], JTRS Handheld/Manpack/ Small Form Fit [HMS] and Warfighter Information Network- Tactical [WIN-T] radios are complementary programs for FCS. Synchronization of these programs’ technical interfaces occurs through the use of interface requirements documents [IRD] and quarterly synchronization summits. The IRDs describe system performance and technical interface expectations from the three parties that enable an integrated network communications solution. The programmatic gaps in schedule, cost and performance between the programs are resolved at quarterly transport layer synchronization summits. The result is a continuously updated process of alignment of short-term requirements for FCS spinout demonstration and mid-term requirements in support of FCS core program verification test and fielding. This approach allows for continuous leadership awareness of achievable capability delivery dates to support system verification testing, limited user testing, and initial operator test and evaluation timelines in FCS, JTRS and WIN-T.

Q: What are you doing to achieve network/hardware maturity and ensure that these elements come together effectively?

A: Dovetailing on the answer to your question about network synchronization efforts with comparable programs, the IRDs that I mentioned above have enabled us to find ways to support recently mandated JTRS capability demonstrations, such as the WNW 30-node test requested by the director of defense research and engineering. Second, it has allowed the JPEO JTRS program to accelerate capability deliveries for near-term FCS spinout test events driven by a recent Army decision to focus on the infantry brigade combat teams [IBCTs].

Looking ahead, a plan to reach agreement between programs on the baseline IRDs defining the WIN-T radio, GMR radio, HMS radio, SRW waveform and the WNW waveform is on track for the third quarter of fiscal year 2009 between FCS, JTRS JPEO and WIN-T. The first introduction of the JTRS into the Army’s current force is through FCS capability to the IBCTs.

Of course, any time you are working system-of- systems capabilities, it requires constant communications and alignment of schedules and events. Eventually, you have to “snap the line” and jointly decide, based on each program’s maturity, what we can collectively accomplish together.

Q: What are some of the most exciting areas of research under way into FCS network-related capabilities?

A: The most exciting aspect of the FCS network is the ability to move more information in different formats to the soldiers, the commanders and the staff officers who support both. Just as each of us learns and absorbs information differently, soldiers receive and process information differently. The increased communications means and significant increased bandwidth provides the ability to move text, video and voice quickly between different echelons. This connectivity facilitates improved situational awareness at all levels and prevents the environment of “have and have-nots” that exist in our current structure.

More nodes with multiple means for distribution and receipt of information prevent pockets and choke points of critical information for conduct of the fight and for force protection. However, new radios and computers are only part of this capability. The software that provides enhanced network planning tools, protects the security of the information, and improves the speed of planning and conduct of operations is also a critical part of this network.

Q: How would you describe the “phased build” approach to the network, and why is that an effective approach?

A: A phased and incremental approach to network build is actually industry standard and allows the Army to drop network capabilities to platforms as the capability is matured. There are four phases to the FCS network development process, each allowing for more capability to be added. Also this allows our complementary programs such as JTRS and WIN-T to be developed in the same fashion. Most important, this incremental approach allows for soldiers to be part of the testing and evaluation for all phases of network build. Soldiers’ evaluating the software is a huge risk mitigation step that allows soldiers and leaders to provide valuable input to software developers—producing more useable end products.

Soldiers stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Missile Range, N.M., make up the AETF. Currently, AETF soldiers are evaluating network capability and software related to spinout to the IBCTs. This is done via vehicle-based network integration kits, and allows the transfer of FCS sensor data from unattended sensors and unmanned ground and air vehicles to soldiers at the squad, platoon and company levels. Soldiers at these levels have been identified as those needing information most.

Q: You have an extensive background with Army C4I and more recently with Special Operations Command. How have those experiences shaped your approach to developing FCS networks?

A: Supporting the special operations community requires that you move quickly to support a multitude of missions. To do that, U.S. Special Operations Command [USSOCOM] has well understood processes that support unity of effort across the command. In the acquisition community there, we managed risk but did not allow it to hold acquisitions hostage. We often fielded an 80 percent solution knowing that we would continue to improve it. In the FCS network, we are also working incremental solutions and continuously building on the previous efforts.

At USSOCOM we also looked for ways to break down programs into manageable pieces so that we could propel a program to the field. I could not have asked for a better background. Again, FCS is not merely the acquisition of new technology. FCS is the culmination of blending that technology with new doctrine to make the soldier more effective. My background in Army C4I has given me an understanding of the technological challenges facing FCS, while my role in Special Operations Command has given me an understanding of how the new technologies will shape our doctrine.

Q: What do you see as the chief challenges you face in your mission, both in terms of technology and in organizational culture?

A: The complexity of the FCS program is probably the biggest challenge. The program requires merging complementary programs, legacy programs and the FCS platforms into a cohesive product that enhances the soldier. The overall FCS program is in a variety of developmental phases, with some technologies on the verge of being fielded to units and others still under development. This requires a creative approach to developing the network and also in testing the network.

Q: Is there anything else you would like to add?

A: It’s been a big transition for me to come out of three years in the special operations community back into the Army working its largest acquisition program. I’m constantly wowed by the talent and dedication I find throughout our services to include the military, civilians and contractors. Couple all their collective talent with the finest technology, and it’s no wonder that we continue to have the world’s strongest Army. Army Strong! ♦

Back to Top