Q&A: Major General Susan S. Lawrence

Written by Harrison Donnelly

MIT 2009 Volume: 13 Issue: 8 (September)

Lawrence has served as a platoon leader in the 67th Signal Battalion, Fort Gordon, Ga.; aide-de-camp to the commanding general, Army Signal Center, Fort Gordon; military assistant at the Defense Communications Agency; platoon leader in Korea under Eighth U.S. Army, 122nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry Division; executive officer to the commanding general, Army Signal Center; company commander of B Company, 67th Signal Battalion; S-2 and S-3 officer of the 67th Signal Battalion; branch chief to the U.S. Army Information Systems Engineering Command-Europe; deputy G-6, 2nd Armor Division; executive officer,142nd Signal Battalion; force development action officer, Washington, D.C.; and chief, Signal Career Assignments Branch, Officer Personnel Management Directorate.

In addition, Lawrence commanded the 123rd Signal Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga., which deployed in support of Operation Desert Thunder. She commanded the 7th Signal Brigade, 5th Signal Command, prior to serving as chief of staff and vice director, J-6, Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. She also served as the director, command and control, communications and computer systems, J-6, U.S. Central Command.

Lawrence received a bachelor’s degree from Campbell University in North Carolina, where she received her commission, and holds a master’s degree in information systems management from the University of Georgia.

Lawrence was interviewed by MIT Editor Harrison Donnelly.

Q: What are the goals of the Global Network Enterprise Construct (GNEC)?

A: As you know, the Army is facing a wide range of threats. They are synchronous, asynchronous, worldwide and persistent. The GNEC is our Army’s strategy for aligning and transforming our network assets—our people, equipment and policies—to meet these challenges. The GNEC will deliver a global, standardized, protected and effective network enterprise that supports the needs of the warfighter in joint, international, intergovernmental and multinational operations.

The reason for transforming to the GNEC is obvious: We live in a different world than we did in the 1980s and 1990s. When I was a young signal officer, the focus was on the forward deployment of forces. The new reality is that 80 percent of Army forces are CONUS-based. This means that our soldiers are called to deploy with little to no notice, and the Army’s relevance in these conflicts will be judged by its responsiveness and expeditionary capability. The Army must be ready to fight upon arrival. The key to that is ensuring that we can provide reliable network services to our soldiers anytime, anywhere. The GNEC will allow us to do that by providing a seamless network that is universally available and accessible to the warfighter from home station, to the area of operations and back again.

Q: What is the role of 9th Signal Command (Army) in implementing the Army’s GNEC?

A: The 9th SC (A), in partnership with the CIO/G6, the PEO community and the CIOs of the Army’s various commands and agencies, is leading the march to make the GNEC a reality. Our job is to use the GNEC strategy to deliver a global network enterprise from the desktop to the foxhole, improving defensive capabilities and effectiveness while at the same time gaining resource efficiencies through a set of common standards and configurations. Once implementation is complete, we will serve as the Army’s single information technology service provider.

We already started working on this: Right now, we are in the process of obtaining full visibility—or aggregating—of our network assets. Once that is complete, we will move to federate and ultimately consolidate, where it makes sense, these assets into a single network. We’ll make the best use of collected data and systems by way of a federation that employs common standards that will allow organizations to manage their own systems and networks. This is a big job. The collection of disparate networks we have to consolidate consists of a variety of new, nearly-new and legacy systems.

Another part of our role is to improve overall network security. One way we will do this is through the consolidation of points of access. We currently have 400-plus points of access to the network in CONUS alone. We plan to reduce that to between 12 and 15 entry points and, over time, to apply this same model to the worldwide network. This will immediately enhance our network defense posture. At the same time we’re operating in this federation, we are going to standardize our assets and achieve a common technical and operational picture to ensure that universal capabilities and services are delivered seamlessly across the enterprise network, and if juggling all that isn’t enough, we’re going to modernize our systems and operations while doing everything else. So these activities are not necessarily going to be performed sequentially. As a matter of fact, we expect them to happen in parallel.

At the end of the day, while the job is hard, our goal is simple: to bring about a unified network enterprise that provides soldiers with a single identity from home station to AOR and back, manage the network so that our forces have the capability to access data from anywhere, at anytime, and provide our warfighters the information superiority they need to accomplish their mission.

Q: How will the creation of Network Service Centers [NSC] and Area Processing Centers [APC] change the way the Army conducts its network operations?

A: The NSCs will enable always-on, real-time access to the network and network services globally. The kind of network service I’m talking about is what you find in everyday life. You don’t even think twice when you make a call on your cell phone—you expect, and get, a connection. That is the type of access that the NSCs will provide.

The APCs are key components of the larger NSC construct. We’ve already established them in the European and CONUS theaters, and are in the process of doing the same in the Pacific. They will enable us to provide better service in terms of data and applications, as well as reduce the number of access points on the network, ultimately reducing the cost of ownership for information technology.

While we’re on the subject of centers, let’s not forget our Theater Network Operation Security Centers [TNOSC] or the Army Global Network Operations Security Center [AGNOSC]. These organizations are the focal point of network operations for the NSC. There are six TNOSCs, operating globally on a 24/7 basis. Along with the AGNOSC, they serve on the front line in detecting, analyzing and defusing threats to the network.

Q: What do you see as the biggest challenges involved in implementing the GNEC?

A: As it turns out, our biggest challenge hasn’t been technical; it is cultural. That’s understandable. The current architecture of having networks support single organizations or regions has been in place for years. That worked well for a time, but times have changed, and most importantly, our Army is now network dependent, requiring universal access and availability regardless of location or operational requirement. We have to be smarter, faster and better than we’ve been in the past if we hope to meet the operational and resources challenges of the 21st century.

There are efficiencies and economies of GNEC implementation that will tremendously benefit any organization—not just providing information superiority, but also saving time and money spent due to outdated processes and redundancies. We’ve done the math, and these savings increase as time goes on, so that as expenditures for maintenance and repair of networks infrastructure dissipate, that money can be spent elsewhere, addressing the specific needs and mission of an organization. Our challenge is in getting that word out—helping our community see both the necessity and the benefits of transforming to a true network enterprise.

Q: How will the GNEC enable or directly support the warfighters’ expeditionary tenants?

A: In the past, warfighters were network enabled. The network was a force multiplier. Today those same warriors are network dependent; the enterprise has become part and parcel of how we fight. The GNEC will provide that network enterprise both at home station and in the area of operations.

In previous conflicts, we would deploy an initial communications capability to the battlefield, and then plan for the network to catch up. We can’t do this anymore. Under the GNEC, the network will never leave the warfighter. It will remain with the soldier through all phases of operations, providing the single network identity I mentioned earlier, as well as the always-on access to intelligence, logistics, fires and other information necessary in today’s world. This will free up additional time for training and contingency planning while in transit, reduce disruptions in battle command, and provide units on the ground with always-on, real-time access to the network. When the warfighter is operationally engaged, he will be better prepared and informed, have greater situational awareness, be able to react within shorter decision cycles and as a result be more lethal than at any time in the past. GNEC makes that possible.

Q: How will the GNEC change the way in which 9th SC (A) and the Army in general work with industry?

A: GNEC is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the Army to standardize our environment through secure hardware configurations and common toolsets. For example, the Army’s standard desktop configuration, the Army Golden Master, incorporates the federal, Department of Defense, and Army security configurations. Industry partners, both hardware vendors and software developers, must understand these configurations and build their products to work in our secure environment and, at the same time, with open standards to ensure interoperability. Federal and DoD acquisition regulations actually prevent the Army from purchasing hardware and software that cannot operate in the secure environment.

The Army has always worked with industry on customizing solutions to meet our operational needs. However, the fast pace at which technology changes requires the Army and industry to work together so that we can influence changes to hardware and software capabilities before they are released to the public. In some cases, the Army leverages enterprise software agreements to achieve this capability.

For example, our software agreement with Microsoft enabled us to collectively develop a Vista activation solution that ultimately saved the Army millions in hardware costs. DoD and other federal agencies now use this activation solution as well. We will also continue to increase our cooperation with industry in this area.

The transformation of the network into a true global enterprise will also change our relationship with business. Over the years, industry has provided IT services to individual commands and organizations in an organic manner with proprietary solutions. This has sometimes resulted in duplicative and overlapping services that are not interoperable and are non-standard from an enterprise perspective. This limits our ability to share information, conduct joint operations, collaborate, and defend our networks. We will look to industry to view the Army in global terms and craft solutions that meet enterprise requirements. The relationship will be between the IT industry and the enterprise, not between industry and individual commands.

Q: In what ways will industry need to change in order to achieve the greatest mutual benefits from GNEC?

A: The GNEC is a paradigm shift from how the Army previously addressed our technical and user challenges. Industry can assist by forming more teaming arrangements to help us achieve greater capabilities. The Army needs integrated, end-to-end solutions, not the standard one-toolset-per-capability approach that is used today. This is extremely important for the GNEC, which incorporates the sustaining base and the tactical Army. A single solution must span that user base and provide equal capability.

Industry can also benefit from understanding our environment and becoming a partner with us. We want industry to continue to innovate, with regard to solutions and services that we need in order for us to succeed. We want industry to identify savings and efficiencies that we can make as we go through our GNEC enterprise transformation. We also want to adopt best practices from industry on how large commercial enterprises manage their own IT infrastructure, and apply those principles to the Army. Another area that industry can help with is to ensure that the solutions they propose can scale to Army enterprise level. Often, we are finding that solutions do not scale to the Army’s large, complex environment and wide geographic base. Also, industry needs to understand that our tactical forces operate in austere environments and require special consideration when targeting solutions for this problem set.

Q: The role, and even name, of directorates of information management [DOIMs] will be changing under a re-organization currently under way. How will this change operations, and what benefits do you see as a result?

A: The renaming of DOIMs to Network Enterprise Centers [NECs] is a direct function of GNEC implementation. NECs at each installation are transforming their internal processes to align with this GNEC model. The advantages of the NEC transformation are eliminating network capability gaps for units preparing, deploying and transitioning, and dramatically improving our network defense posture by applying globally consistent network security policies and procedures. This yields economies and efficiencies while improving effectiveness and enhancing our ability to share information with joint forces and coalition partners. This transformation is occurring in all Army theaters. What’s ultimately behind the change to NECs is a new alignment of command and control responsibility and an enterprise approach to the security and management of the network, which improves capabilities and supports operations through all phases of the fight.

Q: Since the annual LandWarNet conference has become one of the biggest technology-focused military conferences, and because of your command’s involvement in this conference each year, how do you feel this conference helps DoD and the Army? What came out of this year’s conference?

A: Because of its focus on joint and coalition operations, the Land- WarNet conference is DoD’s premier C4IT conference. It is an important opportunity for our community to anchor our successes, to share our lessons learned, and to chart out a course for the future. The conference puts leaders and operators, program managers, staff and industry in the same room to hear first-hand operator requirements, issues, concerns and timelines. Likewise, operators hear about what technologies are working their way to them.

From the 9th SC (A) perspective, the annual conference is also an important opportunity to shape the discussion of critical operational subjects. Starting with the theme of the 2009 event, Land- WarNet—A Global Network Enterprise Enabling Full Spectrum Operations for the Joint Warfighter, and through our after-action report, our entire focus continues to be on generating and capturing discussion on what matters to the operating and generating forces that better enables their mission. My expectations each year are to hear first-hand from conferees about what they need to fight the war, and from industry what they can bring to the table to meet our global interoperability and collaboration requirements more securely, effectively and efficiently.

Q: What is your strategy for strengthening cybersecurity under GNEC?

A: Ensuring a safe, secure network is fundamental to making the GNEC work. We’ve developed a comprehensive strategy that focuses on enhancing our defensive capabilities, improving the sustainment of programs, working with industry to develop more effective and rapid detection and response capabilities, and partnering with the military intelligence community to improve predictive intelligence. This strategy will allow us to win the Army’s cybersecurity fight.

Q: What are the key cybersecurity initiatives of other parts of your command? How will your work in this area interact with the new U.S. Cyber Command?

A: The cyberthreat is real, and the U.S. Cyber Command is an important step in confronting that threat. The Army is currently performing a mission analysis of how it will provide forces in support of the newly formed Cyber Command. 9th SC (A) will be a critical part of this solution. In the meantime, we remain involved in cyber-operations on a daily basis through our AGNOSC and TNOSCs, and the development of expanded network operations [NetOps] capabilities.

I discussed our TNOSCs and the AGNOSC a bit earlier, but I can’t overstate their importance on the cyberfront. The TNOSCs and AGNOSC are the network’s guardians. The work they do on a daily basis to detect, analyze and overcome the threat to theater and global network operations is central to our maintaining information dominance. Additionally, the TNOSCs also provide NetOps and service desk functions—ensuring the seamless delivery of standardized enterprise services—while the AGNOSC serves as the Army’s operational arm into the world of the Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations. Together, they represent the Army’s key LandWarNet cyberdefense capability.

Speaking of NetOps, and its role in the GNEC and cyberoperations, I should mention that the Army made an important initial investment in NetOps capabilities during the 2009 midyear review. This investment provides significant resources to close computer network defense gaps in the network and to standardize critical network management tools that facilitate the further federation and consolidation of the LandWarNet. These tools, together with our other efforts, will enhance our ability to see the network, know what’s happening on it, and rapidly respond to threats.

Q: What are the elements of your command doing to support the stepped-up U.S. efforts in Afghanistan?

A: We don’t anticipate a change in personnel requirements but do plan to increase our support of current mission requirements through commercialization and infrastructure improvements.

The 9th SC (A) currently manages commercial satellite terminals, technical control facilities, and data network equipment at key strategic locations in Afghanistan. The program manager defensewide transmission systems/program manager defense communications systems-Southwest Asia has responsibility for Operation Enduring Freedom [OEF] and Operation Iraqi Freedom [OIF] commercialization implementation, as part of an ongoing commercialization effort aimed at relieving the requirement for tactical OEF rotational units and equipment. Operational control and direction is provided by 335th Theater Signal Command, with project oversight provided by 9th SC (A). The Total Army Communications- Southwest Asia Central Asia Africa [TAC-SWACAA] contract continues to provide operations and maintenance support for communications and information systems under the purview of the 160th Signal Brigade in the CENTCOM area of operations. Currently, the number of TAC-SWACAA contractors supporting OEF and OIF covers 51 sites.

Several forward operating bases in Afghanistan were deemed enduring sites and are in the design and implementation stages to support strategic communications, releasing tactical elements for other missions. The new C4 facilities at International Security Assistance Forces and New Kabul Compound and scheduled upgrade of C4 facilities at Camp Phoenix and Kandahar Air Field in Afghanistan will give warfighters communications expansion capabilities for current and future growth. Meanwhile, the completion of the Fixed Regional Hub Node at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, provides up to 48 links of Frequency Division Multiple Access and Time Division Multiplex Access satellite connectivity and 12 links of mounted battle command on the move and airborne command and control to support warfighter communications in Afghanistan. These significant changes will greatly enhance war fighting efforts.

Q: What do you see as the most effective ways of responding to the growing bandwidth/spectrum crunch, especially related to UAV surveillance and imagery?

A: Spectrum really has been a force multiplier/enabler. Due to technological advances, we are able to use spectrum-dependent systems to meet our mission goals and, at the same time, keep our warfighters out of harm’s way. Our challenge for the future is to ensure we have the proper requirements for our future spectrum-dependent systems.

Let’s take our ISR systems on UAVs, for example. The warfighter wants streaming video in order to have real-time situational awareness. We must be smart in our methods for meeting that requirement. Capabilities exist to provide streaming video using systems with an 18 MHz bandwidth. When you compare this bandwidth to that of a typical broadcast television bandwidth, which is below 6 MHz wide, we see that smart design and efficient use of the spectrum can be achieved. The key is understanding the requirements, and looking at spectrally efficient methods of meeting those requirements.

We also need to question whether all requirements are valid and the best use of our limited spectrum. We must approach development of spectrum-dependent capabilities the same way we are approaching the construct of our network—on an enterprise level. We must prioritize our requirements to determine the smartest approach for an enterprise solution. In taking this approach, the Army will realize gains in spectrum efficiency while meeting our war fighting mission. We can’t develop spectrum-dependent systems without taking into consideration all of the other spectrum-dependent systems in its operational environment. By taking this approach, the Army is able to realize mission goals with far fewer interference issues.

This is not to say we don’t need to continue our research for further advances in technologies. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA] is studying and developing methods of spectrum-sharing technologies. The Army is very interested in a spectrum-sharing technology called dynamic spectrum access, which DARPA has shown great strides in developing. This technology has the potential of increasing our spectrum usage by at least sixfold. It is technological advances, smart requirement formation, and enterprise-level development that will get us to where we want to be in the future in our use of spectrum-dependent systems and our war fighting capabilities. ♦

Back to Top