United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on Governmental Affairs,

U.S. Senate

July 1998 DEFENSE

NETWORKS

Management

Information Shortfalls

Hinder Defense Efforts

to Meet DISN Goals

GAO/AIMD-98-202

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Accounting and Information

Management Division

B-276998 

July 30, 1998

The Honorable John Glenn

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator Glenn:

The military services and Defense agencies have long procured and

operated multiple long-haul telecommunications systems to meet their

individual mission needs. As a result, Defense’s communications

environment has been fragmented and redundant. To eliminate costly

duplication and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its

communication services, Defense began in 1991 to plan and implement the

Defense Information Systems Network (DISN) as the common-user,

long-haul telecommunications network for all Defense components.1

To ensure the success of the DISN program, the Assistant Secretary of

Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence

(ASD/C3I) established policies that (1) directed Defense components to

develop comprehensive inventories of their own long-haul

telecommunications networks and directed the Defense Information

Systems Agency (DISA) to develop a Defense-wide inventory of long-haul

networks, (2) directed DISA to report annually on telecommunications

services acquisitions, trends, and associated costs, (3) mandated

components to use common-user networks—such as DISN or FTS 20002

—for long-haul communications, and (4) directed DISA to establish a

waiver process to let components procure independent networks when

their telecommunications needs could not be met by common-user

networks.

This report responds to your request that we (1) identify those Defense

long-haul telecommunications networks operating outside of the

common-user DISN, (2) evaluate the Department of Defense’s progress in

implementing its policies for managing DISN, and (3) evaluate Defense’s

1

A common-user long-haul network is one which provides long-distance communications service to a

large, general population of users, rather than being dedicated to a small and specialized community.

2

The Federal Telecommunications System (FTS 2000) program provides long-distance services to the

federal government. It is managed by the General Services Administration (GSA).

Page 1 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
B-276998 

progress in developing performance measures for DISN, which Defense

agreed to do in response to our previous review of the DISN program.3

Results in Brief Although Defense has been implementing the DISN program for 7 years,

numerous networks continue to exist without DISA’s knowledge. Our own

survey found that the military services are operating at least 87

independent networks that support a variety of long-haul

telecommunications requirements. The Services reported costs on 68 of

these networks totaling more than $89 million annually.

Defense’s inability to restrict the number of networks operating across the

department stems from its failure to implement basic telecommunications

management policies established at the beginning of the DISN program and

its failure to develop objective performance measures for the program.

First, DISA has not developed a comprehensive inventory of

telecommunications networks throughout Defense nor have the military

services developed inventories of their own networks. Second, DISA has

not reported on telecommunications acquisitions, trends (volumes and

types of traffic) and costs throughout Defense, and it lacks the data to

develop such reports. Third, Defense has not effectively enforced the use

of common-user services, such as DISN, nor were ASD/C3I officials clear on

how enforcement would occur. Fourth, Defense has only recently begun

to implement an interim waiver process to exempt Defense components

from using common-user networks—a final process has yet to be

implemented. Fifth, Defense has not developed performance measures for

the DISN program even though it agreed with our previous report that these

measures were essential to ensuring DISN was efficiently and effectively

managed.

By not implementing the above, Defense lacks the basic management

controls to ensure that it can achieve its goal for an interoperable and

cost-effective telecommunications environment. Specifically, it lacks a

foundation for identifying “stovepiped” and redundant networks that are

not interoperable and cannot share information, and replacing them with

mandated common-user services; it lacks a basis for maximizing the

efficiency and cost-effectiveness of DISN; it cannot quantify problems; and

it cannot learn from mistakes. As a result, Defense’s stated goals for DISN

are at risk, and Defense cannot ensure that DISN is the most cost-effective

solution to Defense’s telecommunications service requirements.

3

Defense Communications: Performance Measures Needed To Ensure DISN Program Success

(GAO/AIMD-97-9, November 27, 1996).

Page 2 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
B-276998 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) identify those Defense long-haul

telecommunications networks operating outside of the common-user DISN,

(2) evaluate the Department of Defense’s progress in implementing its

policies for managing telecommunications services, which include:

developing a comprehensive inventory of telecommunications equipment

and services, reporting on telecommunications services acquired, trends,

and costs, mandating the use of common-user networks, and developing a

waiver process to grant exceptions from using common-user networks,

and (3) evaluate Defense’s progress in developing performance measures

for DISN to ensure effective and efficient use of the department’s

telecommunications resources.

To determine what long-haul telecommunications networks were planned

or operating in Defense, we reviewed applicable Defense directives,

instructions, and memorandums regarding the use of common-user

networks. We met with officials from DISA and OASD/C3I to assess Defense’s

progress in developing a comprehensive inventory of telecommunications

equipment and services. We met with representatives of the Joint Staff for

Command, Control, Communication and Computers (J-6); the Department

of Defense’s Office of Inspector General; the Army, the Navy, the Marines,

the Air Force, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the Defense Commissary

Agency to assess component efforts to develop inventories. When we

learned that no comprehensive inventories of networks exist at the

department or component level, we sent a questionnaire to the four

military services requesting that, for every non-DISN long-haul network,

they report: the name of the network; functional description; types of

telecommunications services supported; estimated annual costs; whether

the network was planned or operational, and if planned, its status,

life-cycle costs, and whether it was scheduled to be replaced by DISN, and

when. We did not independently verify the information provided by the

Services. However, we consulted with them to confirm our understanding

of their responses and to discuss and ask questions we had about

information they provided. Appendix I details the results of our survey.

To assess progress in reporting on telecommunications services acquired,

trends, and costs, we reviewed applicable Defense directives, instructions,

and memorandums and discussed Defense’s implementation of these

requirements with officials from ASD/C3I and DISA. We analyzed information

on costs maintained by DISA and reviewed a recent contractor evaluation

of DISA business processes.

Page 3 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
B-276998 

To assess Defense’s progress in enforcing its policy mandate that Defense

components acquire services from common-user networks, we reviewed

applicable Defense directives, instructions, and memorandums and met

with officials from ASD/C3I, DISA, and the Defense components. During these

interviews we asked for documentation showing that existing policies on

telecommunications management and the use of common-user networks

were being implemented and enforced. We obtained and analyzed network

plans, requirements, and other acquisition documentation to determine if

Defense components were complying with telecommunications

management policies.

To assess Defense’s progress in developing a waiver process to grant

exceptions from using common-user networks, we reviewed applicable

Defense directives, instructions, and memorandums. We met with officials

from ASD/C3I and DISA to discuss their plans to implement an interim waiver

process and to develop a strategy detailing how and when independent

networks will be replaced by their common-user counterparts. Because

the interim process began during our review, we met again with DISA

officials in April 1998 to assess the agency’s progress to date in granting

waivers.

To assess Defense’s progress in developing performance measures for

DISN, we met with officials from DISA and reviewed DISA’s draft

documentation on the issue, which consisted of draft performance

measures for information technology acquisitions. We reviewed the

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of

1994, the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993, and the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 to determine applicable legislative requirements for developing

performance measures. We relied on work we performed in developing

our recent guide on performance measurement, Executive Guide:

Measuring Performance and Demonstrating Results of Information

Technology Investments (GAO/AIMD-98-89, March 1998). In addition, we

examined network performance measurements used in the private sector.

Our review was conducted from December 1996 through April 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We

obtained written comments from Defense on a draft of this report. These

comments are discussed in the “Agency Comments and Our Evaluation”

section of this letter and are reprinted in appendix II.

Page 4 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
B-276998 

Background The military services, Defense agencies, and other Defense components

have traditionally acquired and operated many unique telecommunications

networks to support a range of mission requirements. As a result, Defense

components operate many stovepiped telecommunications systems that

are not interoperable and cannot share information across functional and

organizational boundaries. For example, between 1988 and 1992 Defense

reported several interoperability problems including some arising during

the Persian Gulf War. Defense components were unable to use their

telecommunications networks and information systems to coordinate the

issuance of air tasking orders, the use of air space, and the use of fire

support for joint operations.

To improve the interoperability of its military communications services as

well as to reduce costs associated with operating redundant systems,

Defense began in 1991 to plan and implement DISN to serve as the

department’s primary worldwide telecommunications and information

transfer network. The DISN strategy focuses on replacing older data

communications systems, using emerging technologies and cost-effective

acquisition strategies that provide secure and interoperable voice, data,

video, and imagery communications services. Under the DISN program, the

military services and Defense agencies are still responsible for acquiring

telecommunications services for their local bases and installations as well

as deployed communications networks. DISA is responsible for acquiring

the long-haul services that will interconnect these base-level and deployed

networks within and between the continental United States, Europe, and

the Pacific.

Defense issued a number of policies and directives in 1991 aimed at

ensuring that the department could identify and replace redundant

networks with DISN and manage DISN efficiently and effectively. These

policies

• directed components to develop comprehensive inventories of their

telecommunications equipment and services, and DISA to develop a

comprehensive Defense-wide inventory;

• directed DISA to report annually on telecommunications equipment

acquisitions, trends, and associated costs;

• mandated the use of common-user networks; and

• directed DISA to develop a waiver process to grant exceptions from using

common-user networks when these networks could not satisfy Defense

components’ requirements.

Page 5 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
B-276998 

In a previous review of the DISN program,4 we found that Defense was not

doing enough to ensure that the program would be managed efficiently

and effectively. Specifically, the department lacked performance measures

that would help Defense track whether DISA was meeting its objectives,

efficiently allocating resources, and learning from mistakes. In response,

Defense agreed to establish measures for the program.

Defense Does Not

Know How Many

Independent

Networks It Is

Operating

In order for the DISN program to work, Defense needs to know how many

networks are operating in the department and what functions they

support. This is the foundation for identifying redundant and stovepiped

networks and ensuring that they are replaced by DISN. However, Defense

lacks the basic information necessary to determine how many networks

are operating in the department, what functions they support, or what they

cost. In order to estimate the number and cost of networks that are

operating outside of DISN, we conducted our own survey, which identified

87 such networks operated by the military services alone. DISA initiated a

similar data call to the military services and Defense agencies after we

began our survey and identified 153 networks planned or operating

throughout Defense.5

 The results of our survey are presented in appendix I

and summarized in table 1.

Table 1: Independent Networks

Reported by Military Services (Dollars in thousands)

Service

Number of independent

networks reported

Annual recurring costs

reported

Army 37 $25,097

Navy 20 $4,987a

Marine Corps 4 $1,800b

Air Force 26 $57,733c

aThe Navy provided annual recurring cost information for three networks.

bThe Marine Corps provided annual recurring cost information for three networks.

cThe Air Force provided annual recurring cost information for 24 networks.

To manage telecommunications cost effectively, Defense must know what

networks are operating in the department. In 1991, Defense directed DISA

4

GAO/AIMD-97-9, November 27, 1996.

5

DISA’s list includes networks operated by Defense agencies as well as those reported by the military

services. According to Defense officials, DISA discovers independent networks by various means and

has included this information in compiling the list of 153 networks mentioned here.

Page 6 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
B-276998 

to establish a central inventory of all long-haul telecommunications

equipment and services in Defense, and directed the heads of Defense

components to do likewise. However, the central inventory was never

established and DISA staff are still discovering new networks as they

process new telecommunications service requests from Defense

components.

Defense components have also failed to develop inventories of their own

networks. During our initial meetings, Army, Navy, and Air Force officials

stated that they could not readily identify all of their networks or describe

what their functions are because they do not centrally manage their

telecommunications resources. Our experience with the Navy illustrates

the depth of this problem. The Navy’s initial response to our survey only

identified three independent long-haul networks.6

 Other Navy networks

known to exist, such as the Naval Aviation Systems Team Wide Area

Network (NAVWAN), were not reported in the survey.7

 Navy’s headquarters

telecommunication staff acknowledged that they were unable to identify

all of the Navy’s long-haul networks.

Careful analysis is needed to determine whether any of the independent

networks identified in our survey can or should be replaced by DISN

common user services. However, on the basis of our interviews with the

military services and our survey results, we were able to determine that

overlaps exist between telecommunications services offered by

independent networks and services offered by DISN. For example:

• NAVWAN offers its users data communications services using Internet

Protocol (IP); similar services are provided by DISA on DISN’s Unclassified

but Sensitive (N-Level) IP Router Network (NIPRNET).

• The Army’s Installation Transition Processing (ITP) Network also offers IP

router services similar to those provided by DISN’s NIPRNET.

• The Navy Sea Systems Command’s Enterprisewide Network (NEWNET, now

known as Smart Link) relies on asynchronous transfer mode-based data

communications services; similar services are now offered by DISA on a

limited basis.

• The Army’s planned Regional Transition Network (ARTNET, now known

as the Circuit Bundling Initiative) also relies on asynchronous transfer

mode-based data services, similar to services offered by DISA.

6

Navy officials subsequently furnished our office with a copy of their input to DISA’s data call, which

identified an additional 17 networks.

7

Navy officials identified additional networks in the DISA data call that was conducted after our

survey. However, this particular network was not reported to either GAO or DISA.

Page 7 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
B-276998 

DISA Does Not Have

Data to Develop

Required Reports on

Telecommunications

Acquisitions, Trends,

and Costs

To ensure that a common-user network is efficiently and effectively

managed, it is essential to closely monitor its acquisitions of

telecommunications services, costs, and trends in usage, that is, the

volumes and types of traffic it carries. This monitoring helps an agency

ensure that the network is properly sized (i.e., neither oversized nor

undersized) and offers cost-effective services. Since 1991, DISA has been

required to report annually on telecommunications services acquired,

trends (volumes and types of traffic), and associated costs throughout

Defense. However, it has not done so, and it lacks the data needed to begin

developing such reports.

For example, as noted previously, DISA lacks a comprehensive inventory of

telecommunications equipment and services across the department.

Therefore, it cannot effectively report annually on acquisitions. In

addition, DISA has not collected data that would help it identify trends in

network traffic throughout Defense, which in turn would help it plan for

future growth and identify the need for new telecommunications services.

This would include data on the number of anticipated users, the nature of

business functions requiring telecommunications support, and the

potential costs and benefits of new technologies.

Further, Defense managers lack reliable cost information on their

networks. For example, senior Defense managers rely on Defense

components to voluntarily report telecommunications resource

requirements during annual budget preparations. But because

communications resources are embedded in noncommunications budget

items, this process does not allow Defense to identify costs by network or

to identify costs for services obtained by users outside of DISA channels. In

addition, DISA does not have a cost accounting system or any other

effective means of determining DISN’s actual operating costs.

Until Defense managers have good data on status and trends in

telecommunications equipment and services, acquisitions, and costs, they

will not have a sound basis for making decisions on reducing

telecommunications costs across the department, improving network

operations, and reliably determining how efficiently and cost effectively to

meet user needs.

Page 8 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
B-276998 

Defense Has Not

Effectively Enforced

the Use of Common

User Networks

Under Title 10 of the United States Code, the military services have wide

latitude to expend resources to train and sustain their forces.8

 Because the

mandate to use DISN restricts this latitude, compliance will only be

achieved if Defense institutes an effective enforcement process. Since it

began the DISN program in 1991, Defense has never effectively enforced the

use of common-user networks.

While OASD/C3I staff stated that financial pressure could be brought to bear

in the budget process to enforce the mandate, they were unable to

articulate how this enforcement would occur. Further, even though the

military services have implemented several major long-haul networks

during the past 5 years, OASD/C3I staff were unable to identify a single

instance in which they formally analyzed the military services’ plans for

acquiring long-haul networks and insisted that common-user networks be

used instead.

In May 1997, ASD/C3I issued a memorandum that reiterated Defense policy

mandating the use of common-user networks for long-haul

telecommunications and reaffirming DISA’s role as the manager and sole

provider of long-haul telecommunications. Defense is now preparing an

update to this memorandum that it states will reflect the department’s

changing organization and mission, and changes in telecommunications

technology. However, unless Defense defines and implements a process to

enforce this policy, it will remain ineffective.

Defense Components

Are Ignoring DISA’s

Interim Waiver

Process

In August 1997, DISA began implementing an interim waiver process which

outlined the steps that Defense components must follow to operate

independent networks:

• First, operators of all independent long-haul networks must, as of

August 1997, request a waiver to policy mandating common-user

networks.

• Second, DISA must assess the request and issue a waiver in those cases

where telecommunications requirements cannot currently be technically

or economically satisfied by DISN or another common-user system such as

FTS 2000/2001.9

8

The Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force are responsible for and have the authority to conduct

all affairs of their respective services, including organizing, equipping and training their forces. 

10 U.S.C. § 3013 (Army), 10 U.S.C. §5013 (Navy), and 10 U.S.C. § 8013 (Air Force).

9

FTS 2001 refers to the FTS 2000’s successor program, currently in the procurement phase.

Page 9 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
B-276998 

Neither of these steps, however, is well-defined. For example, the

guidance does not describe data that the required justifications should

include or criteria DISA will use in evaluating them. In addition, it does not

specify how DISA will determine if components’ requirements can be cost

effectively satisfied by DISN or FTS 2000/2001.

To date, the Services and Defense agencies have largely ignored the

interim waiver process. Only 9 percent of the operators of the 131

non-DISA-managed independent networks that DISA identified in its survey

has requested a waiver from use of DISN services.

Defense Still Lacks

Performance

Measures for DISN

Performance measures are central to effectively managing any significant

information system undertaking and are required by several federal

statutes, including the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994

and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. For example, under FASA, the Secretary

of Defense is required to establish and approve the cost, performance, and

schedule goals for major defense acquisition programs and for each phase

of the acquisition cycle. Under Clinger-Cohen, agencies must define

mission-related performance measures before making information

technology investments, and must determine actual mission-related

benefits achieved from this information technology, to help ensure an

adequate return on investment. For the DISN program, appropriate

performance measures would be those that facilitate comparisons

between DISN and the independent networks, as well as those that identify

potential problems (for example, network reliability, network availability,

and measures of customer service, including responsiveness to customer

requests for maintenance or for new services).

In our 1996 report on the DISN program, we recommended that Defense

establish performance measures for DISN. Although it agreed to develop

performance measures in response to that review, Defense has never

developed measures for the DISN program. Until it does so, Defense will

not be able to demonstrate to the Services and other components that DISN

is a better choice than their various independent networks, nor will it be

able to target and direct management attention to problem areas.

Conclusions In the 7 years that it has been implementing the DISN program and striving

to improve telecommunications management in the department, Defense

has done very little to implement the basic management controls it

Page 10 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
B-276998 

believed were needed to ensure success. Numerous independent networks

continue to exist without DISA’s knowledge; Defense does not have a

comprehensive inventory of telecommunications equipment and services;

DISA does not collect data and report on acquisitions, trends, and costs;

Defense does not enforce the use of common-user networks; Defense has

not implemented an effective waiver process that includes the objective

evaluation of alternative telecommunications solutions; and Defense has

not established good performance measures. As a result, Defense has not

achieved its goals for an interoperable telecommunications environment,

cannot support any claims that the long-haul networks it operates are

cost-effective, and cannot determine which independent long-haul

networks should be replaced by common user networks such as DISN or

FTS 2000/2001.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Assistant

Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and

Intelligence to ensure that existing policies are clearly defined,

documented, and enforced. Specifically, ASD/C3I should

• develop and maintain a comprehensive inventory of Defense’s

telecommunications equipment and services;

• track acquisitions of telecommunications services throughout Defense, the

actual costs of those services, and trends in usage (that is, the volumes

and types of traffic that networks carry);

• define and institute an effective process for evaluating the

cost-effectiveness of Defense networks and mandating the use of

common-user networks for long-haul telecommunications where

appropriate. As part of this process, define the criteria that DISA will use to

make waiver determinations, including how DISA will measure technical,

economic, and customer service factors in granting waivers.

In addition, we recommend that the Secretary direct the Assistant

Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and

Intelligence to develop and adopt user-based provisioning, pricing, and

performance metrics as minimum performance measures for DISN.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

The Senior Civilian Official for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of

Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence

(ASD/C3I) provided written comments on a draft of this report. Defense

concurred with all of our recommendations. However, Defense expressed

Page 11 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
B-276998 

concern that the body of the draft report may lead the reader to believe

that Defense has done nothing to implement or enforce its own long-haul

telecommunications policies.

In its response, the department notes that it has: (1) established the

Defense Information Systems Database (DISD) as a comprehensive

inventory of long-haul telecommunications networks throughout Defense,

(2) clarified existing policy by issuing an ASD/C3I memorandum dated

May 5, 1997, that reaffirms DISA’s role as the sole manager and provider of

long-haul telecommunications systems and services, (3) developed a

process for determining how individual telecommunications requirements

can best be satisfied, (4) developed a process for granting temporary

waivers, and (5) begun the process of establishing performance metrics

for DISN. We incorporated additional information in the report to more

clearly reflect actions DISA has initiated.

However, while these plans are a necessary first step, they must be

effectively implemented to bring about real improvements in

telecommunications management, which is the focus of the body of our

report. Defense recognizes this in its discussion and expresses its

commitment to effectively implementing our recommendations.

Defense’s comments are presented in appendix II. Detailed GAO responses

follow in the same appendix.

We will send copies of this report to the Chairman of your Committee; the

Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House Committee on

Government Reform and Oversight, the House and Senate Appropriations

Committees, the House National Security Committee, the Senate Armed

Services Committee, and other interested congressional committees; the

Secretary of Defense; and the Director of the Office of Management and

Page 12 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
B-276998 

Budget. Copies will be made available to others upon request. Please

contact me at (202) 512-6240 if you or your staff have any questions. Major

contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Jack L. Brock, Jr.

Director, Governmentwide and Defense

 Information Systems

Page 13 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Results of Survey

16

Appendix II 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

19

Appendix III 

Major Contributors to

This Report

27

Tables Table 1: Independent Networks Reported by Military Services 6

Table I.1: U.S. Army Networks 16

Table I.2: U.S. Navy Networks 17

Table I.3: U.S. Marine Corps Networks 17

Table I.4: U.S. Air Force Networks 18

Page 14 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Contents

Abbreviations

ARNET Army’s Regional Transition Network

ASD/C3I Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,

Communications, and Intelligence

DISA Defense Information Systems Agency

DISD Defense Information Systems Database

DISN Defense Information Systems Network

FASA Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act

FTS 2000 Federal Telecommunications System

GSA General Services Administration

IP Internet Protocol

ITP Installation Transition Processing

J-6 Joint Staff for Command, Control, Communication and

Computers

NAVWAN Naval Aviation Systems Team Wide Area Network

NEWNET Navy Sea Systems Command’s Enterprisewide Network

NIPRNET (N-Level) IP Router Network

OASD/C3I Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command,

Control, Communications, and Intelligence

Page 15 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Appendix I 

Results of Survey

Table I.1: U.S. Army Networks

(Dollars in thousands)

Network Type of service Recurring costs

Army Recruiting Accession Data System data $515

Weather Teletype data 141

Weather Activities data 53

Army/Air Force Exchange Service voice/data 604

National Guard Network (NGNET) data 1,116

DOD Satellite Education Network video 543

Test and Evaluation Analyses Plan (TEAMUP) data 106

Management Information Services data 231

Medical Activities (MEDACT) data 1,249

Army CALS (ACALS) data 120

Command and Control, Misc. (C2) voice/data 321

Intelligence data 7,765

Automated Instructional Management System data 50

Installation Transition Processing Network data 374

Worldwide Military C2 System (WWMCCS) data 226

Engineer Information Systems Network data 33

Defense Intelligence Agency Communications data 499

Defense Technical Information Center data 14

Digital Storage & Retrieval Engineering Documents (DSRDS) data 80

UASREUR Community Automation System data 75

Automatic System for Transportation Data data 353

Army Interoperability Network (AIN) data 859

Admin. Activities-Misc. (not true network) voice/data 346

CC Reserve Forces data 16

Developmental Readiness & Mobilization System data 123

Remote Alarm Intrusion System data 27

Armed Forces Radio/TV Service voice/data 761

Army Training Requirements & Resources System (ATRRS) data 100

Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS) voice/data 987

Army Supercomputer Network data 4,802

Streamlining Information Services Operations Consolidation (SISOCS) data 106

Department of Army Standard Systems for Depots (DASSD) data 149

Scientific and Engineering data 68

TRADOC Decision Support System (TDSS) data 89

USAREUR Data Network data 369

Army Standard Information Management System data 398

Video Teleconferencing Network video 1,428

Page 16 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Appendix I 

Results of Survey

Table I.2: U.S. Navy Networks

(Dollars in thousands)

Network Type of service Recurring costs

Naval Education & Training Management Systems Network

(NETMSN) data $643

Naval Reserve Network (NAVRESNET) data 750

NAVSEA Enterprise Wide Area Network (NEWNET/Smart Link) voice/data/video 3,590

Puget Sound Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) voice/data/video a

Tidewater Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) voice/data/video a

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Wide Area Network

(NAVFAC WAN) data/video a

NAVCOM TELCOM Video Teleconferencing video a

NCTS Pensacola Video Teleconferencing video a

Pensacola Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) voice/data/video a

Corpus Christi Video Teleconferencing video a

Corpus Christi Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) voice/data/video a

NCTAMS LANT Det. Video Teleconferencing video/data a

NCTAMS LANT Det. Advanced Digital Multiplexer System

(ADMS) voice/data/video a

NCTAMS LANT Det. U.S. Atlantic Command Net (USACONNET) data a

NCTAMS LANT Det. Navy C2 System (NCCS) data a

NCTS NOVA System message a

NCTS Micronet 8 message a

Guam Unclassified Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) data a

Guam Administrative Telephone Switching System voice a

Planned — San Diego Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) voice/data/video a

aInformation on these networks came from DISA’s survey which does not include cost data.

Table I.3: U.S. Marine Corps Networks

(Dollars in thousands)

Network Type of service Recurring costs

Defense Megacenter Network Connectivity data $800

Marine Corps Data Network (MCDN) data 500

DISN/Banyan Vines Network data 500

Marine Corps Reserve Network data a

aThe Marine Corps did not provide this information or provided insufficient information to

determine costs by fiscal year.

Page 17 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Appendix I 

Results of Survey

Table I.4: U.S. Air Force Networks

(Dollars in thousands)

Network Type of service Recurring costs

AFPC Wide Area Network data $4,571

Air Weather Network (AWN) data 12,301

NEXRAD data 2,109

Mystic Star Network Management System data 1,560

Strategic Operations Conference Network voice/data 568

Robust ACC Virtual Network (RAVN) voice/data/video/other 1,979

Virtual Circuit Switch (VCS) data 1,136

Mission Operations Support Center (MOSC) voice/data 250

AFMC Classified Network (ACN) data 750

Comp Eng Management System (CEMS) data 228

Internet Access data a

Global Positioning System (GPS) data 378

Defense Satellite Program (DSP) data 259

Granite Sentry Air Defense data 1,082

Threat Warning/Attack Assessment (ITW/AA) data 1,675

Launch and Range data 3,026

Missile Alert Facility Communications voice/data 1,453

Strategic Automated Command and Control (SACCS) data 328

Space Surveillance data 683

Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) data 6,261

Space Air Weather Network (AWN) data 2,125

JCS Alerting Network voice 850

Wheelhouse voice 228

Mystic Star voice/data 22

Northstar voice/data 13,911

Contingency Airborne Reconnaissance System (CARS) voice/data a

aThe Air Force did not provide this information or provided insufficient information to determine

costs by fiscal year.

Page 18 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 19 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 20 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See comment 1.

Page 21 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 22 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See comment 2.

Page 23 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See comment 3.

Page 24 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See comment 4.

Page 25 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Defense letter

dated July 16, 1998.

GAO Comments 1. We acknowledge in this report that ASD/C3I has clarified existing

long-haul telecommunications policy by issuing a May 5, 1997,

memorandum. We have added information regarding Defense’s update of

1991 policy that will reflect changes in technology, organization, and

mission. Nevertheless, Defense’s actions remain preliminary, and unless

that policy is properly implemented and enforced it will remain ineffective.

2. As indicated in the reply, Defense does not maintain a comprehensive

inventory of independent long-haul telecommunications networks, and

therefore does not know how many networks are operating throughout

the department or what functions they support. As Defense notes in its

comments, additional guidance and procedures are needed to ensure that

all requirements for long-haul telecommunications equipment and services

are identified and placed in the Defense Information Systems Database.

3. Defense affirms in its comment what we state in this report, that DISA

currently lacks well-defined steps for determining whether a long-haul

telecommunications requirement can be most effectively satisfied by a

common-user network. We note Defense’s plan to develop and employ a

standard requirements evaluation model. This model, if properly

developed and implemented, could assist Defense in making cost-effective

decisions on individual telecommunications requirements. However, the

model may not be effective without the cooperation of Defense

components, which may choose not to submit their requirements through

DISA. The model may also not be effective if other steps mentioned in this

report, such as adequate data gathering on telecommunications trends and

costs, and use of performance measures, are not taken.

4. Two years ago we highlighted the need for DISN performance measures

in a report on the DISN program (GAO/AIMD-97-9, November 27, 1996). We

recognize that Defense now intends to take action on our recommendation

that it implement user-based performance measures for DISN, and we agree

that such metrics should be applied to all long-haul telecommunications.

We are unable to make further comment, however, until Defense takes

concrete steps to implement these performance measures.

Page 26 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Appendix III 

Major Contributors to This Report

Accounting and

Information

Management Division,

Washington, D.C.

Franklin W. Deffer, Assistant Director

Kevin E. Conway, Assistant Director

Mary T. Marshall, Senior Information Systems Analyst

Cristina T. Chaplain, Communications Analyst

(511368) Page 27 GAO/AIMD-98-202 Defense Networks
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100