Showing posts with label C4ISR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label C4ISR. Show all posts

30 March 2010

STRATCOM Missions Proliferating

Focused on deterrence, STRATCOM has inherited more and more missions.

Stratcom has been assigned heavy and varied responsibilities. It began with strategic deterrence, nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. In 2002 came space operations, including global command and control (those communication and early-warning satellites in space) and missile defense. Cyber operations recently were added, followed by combating weapons of mass destruction, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR aircraft), and finally information operations (IO).


By: Brant

24 January 2010

New Tactics for Cyber Combat

Aviation Week's Ares blog recently posted a good article on cyber-warfare.

It begins with an example, from a test exercise, of a 2MW electrical generator being over-loaded and self-destructing under a cyber-attack. This is a very good illustration of the potential two-way relationship between cyber effects and kinetic effects in the physical world. In the same way that a carefully-targeted JDAM could take down a large part of an enemy's C2 network, a carefully-targeted cyber-attack could take down a key part of an enemy's infrastructure.

The part of the article that I found the most interesting is the following, which includes quotes from Lt. Gen. William Lord, the US Air Force's CIO and Chief of Warfighting Integration:

“We need to protect and defend parts of the network so that our forces can continue network centric operations [during a cyber attack]. That’s the price of admission. Protecting the network is a ship that sailed 5-6 years ago. Now we have to learn
to fight through attacks [while operating on a] network that the enemy is already in. We can’t afford to shut down the network every time it is attacked. We live on the network, so that requires a defense in depth.”

As a result, Air Force cyber warriors are redefining their tactics. Instead of defending the network, they are defending the work that network does – the data and the applications.

The one error that the article makes is that it overstates the significance of the recent hack of UAV video feeds. Intercepting an unencrypted video stream being transmitted in the clear over a radio frequency is one thing. Penetrating secure networks is quite another.

By: Guardian

18 January 2010

C4+4 ISR

The boys over at DefenseTech have a good article on cyber conflict. What jumped out at me was the re-defining of C4ISR into C8ISR.

C8ISR — (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat systems,
Collaboration, Coordination, Code, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance)

By: Brant

14 January 2010

General Dynamics Acquires Ascend Intelligence

According to a press release forwarded to me by a friend, General Dynamics has recently acquired Ascend Intelligence, the developers of the very successful Tactical Ground Reporting (TIGR) system for battlefield information collection and reporting. Between this and their early acquisition of the similarly successful Command Post of the Future (CPOF), General Dynamics seems to have a lock on the evolution of Army battle command.

This is especially true considering that, with the cancellation of the Net-Enabled Command Capability (NECC) program in mid-2009 and the uncertain future of FCS Battle Command, there don't appear to be any revolutionary changes in Army battle command on the immediate horizon.

Unfortunately, I can't find the actual press release anywhere on the Web, so I've quoted it in its entirety below.

P.S.: For those of you who might be wondering, yes, I actually am part of the military-industrial complex. I don't just sit around in my Multi-Cam smoking jacket and fondle my AR-15s all day. I save that for the weekends :).

General Dynamics Acquires Ascend Intelligence, LLC

General Dynamics has acquired substantially all of the assets of Ascend Intelligence, LLC, an Arlington, Va.-based provider of software for military mission planning, execution, and continuity of knowledge.

Acquired Jan. 8, Ascend Intelligence, which has approximately 40 employees located throughout the United States, and deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, will become part of General Dynamics C4 Systems, reporting into its Battle Management Systems Division.

Ascend Intelligence produces the Tactical Ground Reporting (TIGR) application which is sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
Well-embraced by the Army for its ability to facilitate tactical information collection and dissemination, TIGR provides soldiers and commanders an effective platform for sharing information about adversaries. The application enables users to share a computer database of maps, text and multimedia files gathered while on patrol and to pass along knowledge about places, events, people and objects for increased combat effectiveness. For more information see www.gdc4s.com/TIGR

Ascend was recently awarded $14 million for the initial phase of a DARPA contract for the Advanced Tactical Information System (ATIS), a tactical ground reporting
system. The total contract value, with all options exercised, is approximately $114 million.

The acquisition of Ascend Intelligence will allow C4 Systems to increase the relevance of our command and control portfolio by providing valuable information to the front-line soldier. This new addition to our business will expand our customer relationships and allow us to support and sustain the growth of TIGR by building on our success with Command Post of the Future to create two solid cornerstones for Battle Command: one at the patrol level, and the other for company and higher command.

Ascend Intelligence now reports into Manny Mora, Vice-President and General Manager of BMSD through direct reporting into Richard Coupland, Director of Science, Technology and Products.

By: Guardian

17 October 2008

Back at the C4ISR Conference

From day 2 of the C4ISR Conference in Washington, DC.
Still working; still experimenting with live-blogging...
Updates coming throughout the day on this post...


First Session
Coast Guard C4&IT, Mark Powel, Director, C4 & IT Infrastructure Operations, U.S. Coast Guard


Start with some CG history
Only guy talking here whose parent is not DoD b/c they take strategic direction from DHS instead


Goal 1: promote compliance, efficiency, sharing, quality
Goal 2: Technology: Innovative, Interoperable, Spectrum Use, Net-centric, Optimized, Enterprise-wide, Mission-focused
Goal 3: Security: Complaince, Prevention, Mitigation, Awareness, Recovery

Boy, they're big on "compliance" aren't they?

Goal 4: Governance: Requirements, Project Mgmt, Performance Mgmt, Systems development Lifecycle, Capital Planing & Investment Control, Enterprise Architecture


It feels like this guy's just using a canned brief for USCG IT guys, and not something specifically targeted at this audience.


Yet another goal... (that doesn't include "compliance")
Goal 5: Organizational Excellence: Outreach, Customer Service, Workforce Development, Process Improvement


Good explanation of Strategy to Implementation to Results
DHS/USCG plan to CG-6 plan, then CG-6 performance plan to roadmap of unit performance plans, to actual target architecture and individual performance plans, then the results


During Q&A, good point came up, USCG has to work both SIPR/NIPR and the DHS networks, b/c of dual reporting chain.


Next speaker is late getting here, so BREAK TIME!


And now, a word from our sponsors... the exhibitors here were/are:
OWL Comp Tech, NEK Advanced Security Group, Dynamic Aviation, Goodrich, L3 Communications, Mercury Computer Services, ESRI, Tactronics Holdings.



Next Session
Change of plans... next speaker is CAPT Jack Steiner, USN. Chief of Staff of J-6 / C4 Systems
(Scheduled speaker called away)


Wants to talk less about what we need to do than what we need to stop doing
Basing talk around GIG 2.0


Show of hands - who's on social networking vs who's just on email. Who shares info daily and willingly vs only when required.
You can probably guess the generational divide in that show of hands.


Poking fun at the USAF, with the baby-pilot video... (yes, the one we had last month)


GIG 2.0 - Warfighter-focused
Global authentication, access control, directory services
Information and services "from the edge"
Unity of Command
Joint Infrastructure
Common Standards and Policies - key point he made was here: the limitations we're using here are not technological. How long does it take to get set up on email when you PCS to a new station? How many installations have IT managers who limit what's on the network based on their local definition of some centralized regulation instead of centralized mgmt?


We have created our own boundaries to sharing and collaboration, whether through tech, or policy, or funding, we create NIPR, SIPR, MCFI, GCTF, CFE, Bilat, all separate on the desk, and force the commander with 6 computers on his desk to be the integrator.


Policies say we should share. Technology is not causing the problem. But technology while technology can help with solutions, technology doesn't write/enforce policies.


Don't stand up 38 different bi-lateral networks for each bi-lateral partner in the coalition. Set up 1 physical network, with 38 data 'enclaves' to share the data, rather than 38 networks.


Where does industry fit in? (bullet points)
- Today's teens = tomorrow's leaders
- Embrace different cultural approaches
- Leverage across government and mission partners
- Global authentication and access control (identity management)
- Directory services
- Scalable enterprise services


Comments, in order with above:
- The kids have the right ideas about sharing ideas; already doing socially what everyone should be doing professionally
- Don't be a slave to your technology. How do you make a phone call in nation with no landlines?
- Need to attack policy, culture, bad habits. Don't engineer a technology solution around a bad policy decision; fix the decision.
- Authentication token should be good anywhere on the planet on mil domain and not wait 2 days for an account. Example is free online email systems like Yahoo or GMail (same login/info, anywhere)
- Mil domain directory should not be segmented
- We currently build complex and intricate networks that can't deploy to the forward edge b/c of the bandwidth constraints. Build the network to focus on deployability and make sure it works where it's needed, and not in the GO's office.


Final bullets:
Remove impediments that don't add value.
Shared information is the enabler.
Less about tools, more about culture and habits.
GIG 2.0 is achievable


Q&A: Interesting bit about whether or not a collaborative wiki is more or less authoritative than a 'vetted' source. Though not invoked by name, James Suroweicki's Wisdom of Crowds was mentioned as evidence that wikis can work when their material is given time to gel.


Q from moderator: When posting shared information, how do you ensure people read what you want them to?
A from presenter: If something out there is of value to me, I will get off my butt and go get it. And if it's not of value to them and they don't go get then maybe you as the sender need to re-evaluate how much value you think you're providing, and either increase the value or educate the receiver about why it really is more valuable than he sees it.


Collapsing the networks is pointless unless the tools you need to work exist on the resulting network.


Favorite show of hands, thus far:
How many of you use text-messaging on your phones? Five or seven hands, including me...
How many of your kids use text-messaging? Lots of hands. Of course, my son is 5. But he'll get there.


Overall a very good talk about what people should be doing. But unfortunately, until the current crop of O5s and above die off and go away, we won't, b/c they inherently don't trust the technologies.


Next Session
Delivering More Intel to Forces in Iraq & Afghanistan
Kevin Meiners, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Portfolio, Programs & Resources, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence)


(filling the time with some jokes while they get the presentation up on the screen)


And here we go...


Looking for irregular warfare in earlier QDRs/reports, they found 1 hit in 8 reports from '99-'01:
2001, Annual report: "Although irregular forces will be unable to match the combat power of heavy us weaponry in the near future, they could pose challenges to the US military"
2006, there were several hundred hits.


Opational ISR TF
6 integrated product teams, which is entry point for the 'great ideas'"
ISR Requirements
Rapid Acquisition
Operational Concepts
Operations Integration
Evaluation
Future Initiatives


ISR equivalent of WWII Liberty Ships. Now called the "Liberty Project Aircraft"
Modified C12 aircraft, and within 12 months, they put 37 aircraft out.
Picked C12 b/c all the services use them.


Find - Fix - Finish
ISR for this in irregular warfare requires greater persistence and resolution.
Example: to identify individuals, you need ground-sample-distance: 0.05m resolution at 15Hz frame rate and 5x5km area
To ID vehicle, not as high-res, but to identify actions of people, you need more.


Look for next QDR to recommend MQ1 / MQ9 split within the services, with the Army taking over one of them.


Persistence / endurance seems to always lead back to an airship, and the 'giggle factor' goes up with snarky remarks about putting "Goodyear" on the side. But airships offer years of endurance. DARPA is apparently seriously investigating this.


Ops ISR task force focused on deploying is fast. How are you getting your gear/ideas deployed in 6-9 months? The two-year deployment is no good for them.
How is large data being moved around?
NSA is building a new cloud architecture for SIGINT enterprise, and everyone needs to be educated on that cloud architecture if you're going to work with NSA / Ops ISR TF.


Q&A time... and a few crickets at first...
Lots of hardware questions and wanting to know about where acquisition decisions are going and how they're shaped.


Not sure what's up for after-lunch presentations. Might be time to E&E before Friday afternoon DC traffic turns the town into a 1500 sq mi parking lot...

By: Brant

16 October 2008

C4ISR Conference - the afternoon session

First afternoon session
Intel Sharing for Homeland Defense - Michael Noll, Director of Intelligence (J2), U.S. Northern Command/ North American Aerospace Defense Command


Starts off with the oft-repeated point, that thus far AQ has successfully conducted zero attacks on US homeland since 2001.


What's the real threat that NorthCom is supposed to spend time on? Terror? Natural disasters? ICBMs?


How many &%$^# times do you need to remind people to turn off their damn phones?! (Checking mine quickly, of course...)


Fortunately, my phone was off.
Talking about differences between "Homeland Security" and "Homeland Defense" but I have yet to hear much about the difference between "Homeland Defense" and "Department of Defense"...


"Homeland Defense" apparently revolving around defense of critical infrastructure. Never got that memo from DHS... would've been nice to know that's their raison d'etre.
Apparently "critical infrastructure" includes nursing homes.
Should DoD get involved? Yes! Never again will we let people drown in nursing homes.

Gee... I seem to remember us telling those people to evacuate and they didn't.


Talking about using C4ISR assets for homeland missions, like aerial surveillance for firefighting in California: ID hotspots from the air with IR, use live video feeds to overwatch firefighters on the ground, map the post-burn areas for potential mudslide hazards afterwards.


Important point about who has authority to authorize use of military ISR assets in a homeland defense/security mission. Can you use military assets within US boundaries?


Apparently, the FAA is not fond of UAVs at all - plays havoc with air traffic control...


A lot of talk about considerations, but not a lot about actual solutions. Could've been a much better talk about details within specific incidents, rather than just hand-wave over "bridge collapse in Minnesota when the Navy was working for the county sheriff." Why was sheriff in charge? How was that agreement reached? What were implications/ramifications?


Needed a much more dynamic speaking in the first post-lunch session...


Next Session
CDR Phil Turner, USN CANES project
SOA-oriented program to get data on boats and share it...


Current issue is that anyone coming on a boat was required to bring their own systems: hardware, software, etc. That was a lot of time and money and space allocation on the boat.


Had some issues with ratio between space/capacity and frequency of use. Fleet wanted greater capacity with reduced footprint. Complicating factor is that ships only lay up every 2 years for refit and IT overhauls have to happen then.


Big wake-up call was when Microsoft stopped supporting Windows NT and it was a huge effort for Navy to overhaul the fleet. Microsoft told Navy to catch up since they were a tiny percentage of Microsoft's overall budget. Navy realized need to get away from being tied to COTS.


Navy currently trying to migrate away from COTS to GOTS and SOA-based architecture. Move legacy systems and data to the future.


Navy had a standard of 95% availability on networks, but 1 hour of downtime during a day resulted in 24-hour reset time when underway, and that was unacceptable in the fleet.


Roadmap has common computing environment online in FY08 and legacy systems collapsing into that thru FY11 when CANES should go live.


Afloat Core Services (ACS) is basically Net-Centric Enterprise Services (NCES). Each service building NCES-compliant projects to meet their individual needs. SOA is a migration through iterative process, not a 'lightswitch' where suddenly today you're SOA when yesterday you weren't.


Example of migration from legacy to SOA environment is the SABRE airline reservation system. SABRE system wasn't changed, but exposed thru SOA to websites like Travelocity.


18 different architecture and engineering docs over the past 6 months bounced between Navy and industry with monthly updates based on comment/review from subject-matter experts.


Pilot program has been the Lincoln Strike Group, and reduction in racks/rack space from 18 to 3 equates to space, weight, power on the boats, which is vital when afloat.


BREAK TIME...


Keynote Speaker - LTG Sorenson, Army CIO
We're in en era of persistent conflict: globalization, resource competition, WMD proliferation, climate change, failed/failing states, demographic trends. Protracted conflict fueled by these six factors. (ed note: not much in the way of expected conventional warfare there)


The decade of change: GEN Shinseki (transformational focus - more deployable Army); GEN Schoomaker (operational focus - modularity at brigade/battalion level); GEN Casey (institutional focus - transform enterprise to expeditionary focus)


4 Army Imperatives: Sustain, Prepare, Reset, Transform
Restore balance between current needs and future force requirements


Catalysts for change: tansformation from division to brigade-based force; GWOT global fight; CONUS-based force.
Expeditionary Tenet: Short/No-Notice deployments; fight-upon-arrival; Austere operational environment; CONUS-based Army; Operational flexibility with modular taskOrg
Fight-upon-arrival will require overcoming networks challenges given the lack of sufficient bandwidth in conflict zones (ie, no one's laying fiber on the battlefield before we get there - unless we start building services for the enemy...).


Current networks are all point-to-point in their stovepipes, requiring a lot of bandwidth to remain open in case it's needed, instead of shared bandwidth between many SOA-enabled apps.


Current LandWarNet organization is expensive and not synchronized and hard to deploy on little notice to austere environment.
Next move is federated systems. Operating principles are to aggregate, consolidate, standardize, modernize.
Goal is an enterprise with global, standardized, protected, economical portfolio of projects.


Building better connectivity by building centralized data centers that are easier to secure and require smaller footprints.
FY09 start APCs
FY10 SWA and all CONUS servers up
FY11 global system ready, including Pac-rim


Army KM principles went by too fast for me to type out - there were 14 of them... gimme a break...


Started a set of AKO-based web forum portals for types of units. Allowed Stryker BDE's to share ideas/info from downrange to home station


wrap-up slide:
Posturing for persistent conflict; Network service centers (global network enterprise construct); Future data solutions; Shared situational awareness


Still preaching the SOA gospel during the Q&A, especially as it relates to FCS battle command, and migrating ABCS to FCS SOA.


GREAT question about how to allow reservists/Guardsmen to bring their personal equipment into armories for weekend drills and use their same equipment they use at home preparing for drill while they're at the units. Currently not allowed to do that, but it's a need, especially given that there's remote access capability from home, but no direct-line access capability at the armory.
Solutions might include thumb-drive keys allowing log-on, or CAC-card readers, something similar.


So apparently there's a broad-strokes plan to migrate the data, but not a lot of details in the Q&A.



I don't know if I'm going to do this for day 2 or not. It's not a bad way to take notes, but gets tiring trying to keep up.
By: Brant

C4ISR and Future Warfare

From the C4ISR Conference in Washington, DC. I'm attending for work, but hoping to offer some comments here throughout the day.
Updates coming throughout the day on this post...



First presentation:
"Adapting Joint Operations to the 21st Century Reality" - LTG Bob Wood
"Must be prepared to deal with a wide variety of complex challenges in peace, crisis, and war anywhere in the world, on short notice, for indeterminate duration, in response to unexpected events.

Nothing really surprising right there, but it sure does focus the attention when it's all written out there, eh?


"We need to get away from set-piece blocking-and-tackling and start paying more attention to the ebb and flow of the complex 'soccer match' of irregular warfare."



5 areas of focus: Land Power, Sea Power, Air Power, Space Power, Cyber Power
Need to connect C2+C2ISR at tactical, operational, strategic levels to aim for 'targets at the edge'.


If I hear "at the edge" one more time, I'm going to scream...


There's a lot of discussion of adaptive planning and opportunistic decision-making. This is antithetical to the existing Army doctrine on the MDMP, which focuses on deliberate steps with a single COA at the end. This is far more similar to the planning process used by the OPFOR at Ft Irwin, where 3-4 COAs are planned, briefed, and rehearsed, and the decision is made on which COA to execute based on enemy actions.


Not "Net-centric warfare" - ie. 'building the perfect network' - but rather "Leader-centric... Net-enabled warfare"


(I will try to post the graphic with this later)
C2ISR capability barely exists at PLT level, and grows as echelons go up to Corps level. However, much of the fight where ISR is needed is at CO/PLT level and information was designed to flow from top down when it's needed from bottom-up.


Biometrics and body language is no longer a useful social skill, but now a necessary tactical task.


At least we're not talking about "to the tactical edge and beyond."


A question was just asked about when "Cyber Power" would be treated as an equal with Land/Sea/Air/Space. I think the real answer to that is that it'll happen when we have a serious fight that we're in danger of losing, and are forced to focus attention rather than assuming dominance in the domain.


Interesting that even while discussing irregular warfare and complex events, there's no discussion on "Information Power" and trying to win the Information/Media war at the same level with Land/Sea/Air/Space/Cyber...


Second Presentation
"Air Force Cyber Command" - A Status Report - Maj. Gen. Dave Senty

USAF apparently wants to work with NGB to create an organization of "cyber Minutemen" who can mobilize and respond instantly cyber attacks and integrate "Title 10 capabilities with Title 32 missions."
Also working on a deal with Georgia Tech to send new Cyber career field officers to GT instead of Air Command & Staff College.
And of course, they've already got a draft of a "cyber operator badge" because, hey, it's the US military - can't have nearly enough chest candy...

I'd've blogged more about that talk, but it was of a snoozer compared to the first one.


Not standing up separate command, but letting it involve.
"Don't create a command and then say 'OK, what do we want it to do?' but figure out what capabilities first, then when they evolve and grow big enough, group those capabilities as a command"



BREAK TIME


Third Presentation
Ronald Jost, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3, Space and Spectrum, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration
Was supposed to be talking about "The Bandwidth Bottleneck" but is instead talking about the GIG and the varying layers of the gig, such as the transport layer, or other layers.
Security in older stovepipe systems was much easier b/c of high walls around the system. New IP-based systems have more distributed security needs and will be more attribute-based and role-based.


Cost of deploying GIG from core to edge (there's that term again) increases approximately 100x. But needed more on edge than at the core. Centralizing IT systems works best for cost control, but lousy for distributing info.


And here's the inevitable SOA slide...


Boy, that was a very hardware-focused talk that would've really ignited the imagination of a few colleagues, but did very little for me...


Next Presentation
USAF MG Kennedy, USJFCOM. Apparently a pilot in Afghanistan, but I heard a side-remark at the table that apparently he was flying Cessnas, rather than strafing Taliban at Tora Bora
C4ISR - A "3D" Approach
3D: Decision-Maker, Decision Cycle, Data Management


Need to focus on interagency architecture and shared systems supporting shared decision-makers.
Lots of agencies, nations, partners, etc.


Bragging about Predator video feed with an airman flying in Nevada, as though fighting the war from home is somehow 'cool.' Count me among the Army guys that doesn't think the USAF really "gets" burden-sharing.


Good to know we're spending millions of dollars every year to keep a fleet up satellites in the air just to provide "Predator P0rn" feeds to every O-4 with a jones for some carnage. Oh, and chat rooms. Glad we've got our chat rooms. Can't run a war without our chat rooms these days. Makes you wonder how we won WWII without them...


While the data-pipe realities of tiny bandwidth at the tactical level are a necessary consideration of creating your networks, when you discuss how to focus the traffic being sent around the network, don't describe "doctrine" as "TTPs". "Doctrine" isn't just a "good idea" - it's required. I guess a USAF guy describing Army doctrine isn't necessarily a recipe for success.


(showing some Pred-P0rn)
Those were two locals identified as insurgents who needed to not be contributing to the insurgency anymore. And thanks to single-digit-minute decisions enabled by the network, those two insurgents are no longer contributing to the insurgency.



LUNCH!
Will return in a new post with more details.

By: Brant