Joint C2 Integrated Architectures Providing Operational ...

1. 1 Joint C2 Integrated Architectures Providing Operational Context Strategy & Execution

2. 2

3. 3 USJFCOM�will �lead the development of joint warfighting, C2 capabilities, architectures, and operational concepts.� --DOD Directive 5100.30 05 Jan 2006 �In coordination with the Chairman, leading the development of joint doctrine, concepts, requirements, and integrated architectures for joint command and control to ensure integration and interoperability from the tactical level through the interface with the global level.� --Unified Command Plan 2006, 05 May 2006 The Joint Capability and Integration Development System (JCIDS) methodology �requires a collaborative process that utilizes joint concepts and integrated architectures to identify prioritized capability gaps and integrated DOTMLPF solutions (materiel and nonmateriel) to resolve those gaps. --CJCSI 3170.01E, 11 May 05 Here are the documented reasons we are developing joint integrated architectures for joint C2, even though, logically-speaking it is also the best way to manage the complexity of the joint C2 environment for operational use, capability analysis, and training. It is always a more difficult journey if you do not know where to start from. Our JTF Core Architectures provide a baseline that allow for the synchronization of both current and future efforts necessary to move the Department forward.Here are the documented reasons we are developing joint integrated architectures for joint C2, even though, logically-speaking it is also the best way to manage the complexity of the joint C2 environment for operational use, capability analysis, and training. It is always a more difficult journey if you do not know where to start from. Our JTF Core Architectures provide a baseline that allow for the synchronization of both current and future efforts necessary to move the Department forward.

4. 4 This chart depicts an increasing requirement for Joint Force Headquarters over the past 6 fiscal years. The number in RED is the number of JTF Headquarters that had to stand-up in that 12 month period. The number in PURPLE is the number of JTF Headquarters that were in operation as some time during the 12 month period. This chart shows why DOD is having an increasingly difficult time forming and sustaining JTF HQ for the Global War on Terrorism and other important functions. The existing AD HOC process might have worked well in previous years when the Department only formed 1 or 2 JTF HQ, but is showing increasing strain when it tries to provide 3, 4 or even 5 times that number in a year. Also, the high number of JTF HQ that are operating at any given time represents a significant burden in individual augmentees that must be taken from other trained and ready Service units in order to man the JTF HQ that is unresourced until needed. The next chart drills down into the facts and figures behind the FY 05 numbers. Next slide, Our Operating Space This chart depicts an increasing requirement for Joint Force Headquarters over the past 6 fiscal years. The number in RED is the number of JTF Headquarters that had to stand-up in that 12 month period. The number in PURPLE is the number of JTF Headquarters that were in operation as some time during the 12 month period. This chart shows why DOD is having an increasingly difficult time forming and sustaining JTF HQ for the Global War on Terrorism and other important functions. The existing AD HOC process might have worked well in previous years when the Department only formed 1 or 2 JTF HQ, but is showing increasing strain when it tries to provide 3, 4 or even 5 times that number in a year. Also, the high number of JTF HQ that are operating at any given time represents a significant burden in individual augmentees that must be taken from other trained and ready Service units in order to man the JTF HQ that is unresourced until needed. The next chart drills down into the facts and figures behind the FY 05 numbers. Next slide, Our Operating Space

5. 5 The Nature of Today�s Problem Key Point: This chart shows the JTF HQ build process. The base headquarters brings with it a significant capability, but their first task is to do a quick mission analysis, determine what additional expertise they need, request that augmentation from their Combatant Command. The Combatant Command forwards requests they cannot fill to the Joint Staff who validates the request and forwards to the Services. The Services then need to determine if personnel are available to fill the augmentation slots, publish orders and then assemble the individual augmentees at the JTF Headquarters location. Once all the personnel arrive, the JTF Headquarters can begin the TEAM training necessary to reach peak capability. Recent experience shows that in most cases this peak capability occurs after the JTF Headquarters must begin actual operations, and in many cases has not occurred before the JTF Headquarters completed its primary task.Key Point: This chart shows the JTF HQ build process. The base headquarters brings with it a significant capability, but their first task is to do a quick mission analysis, determine what additional expertise they need, request that augmentation from their Combatant Command. The Combatant Command forwards requests they cannot fill to the Joint Staff who validates the request and forwards to the Services. The Services then need to determine if personnel are available to fill the augmentation slots, publish orders and then assemble the individual augmentees at the JTF Headquarters location. Once all the personnel arrive, the JTF Headquarters can begin the TEAM training necessary to reach peak capability. Recent experience shows that in most cases this peak capability occurs after the JTF Headquarters must begin actual operations, and in many cases has not occurred before the JTF Headquarters completed its primary task.

6. 6 Key Point: JTF enablers are performance enhancers. The net effect of those enablers will be to push the JTF Headquarters capability curve up and to the left. The JTF Headquarters will have increased capability upon notification and they will also be able to gather and absorb necessary capabilities in a more rapid manner. But if the intent is to have JTF Headquarters that are immediately capable of commanding and controlling integrated joint operations then we can see there is still significant room for improvement in pushing this curve up and to the left. Build one: in order to move JTF Headquarters capability up into this upper left section, we will need to go back and challenge some of the initial assumptions about the realm of possible solutions.Key Point: JTF enablers are performance enhancers. The net effect of those enablers will be to push the JTF Headquarters capability curve up and to the left. The JTF Headquarters will have increased capability upon notification and they will also be able to gather and absorb necessary capabilities in a more rapid manner. But if the intent is to have JTF Headquarters that are immediately capable of commanding and controlling integrated joint operations then we can see there is still significant room for improvement in pushing this curve up and to the left. Build one: in order to move JTF Headquarters capability up into this upper left section, we will need to go back and challenge some of the initial assumptions about the realm of possible solutions.

7. 7 Five Critical Architectural Questions

8. 8 Integrated Architecture Methodology of Building DoDAF Relationships This is the general Framework product flow based on a structured methodology for developing DoD Framework compliant architectures. It roughly reads from left to right with each product represented with the product reference (i.e. AV-1, OV-5 ...) and the product name. (i.e. Operational Node Connectivity, �) This chronology does not imply a rigid course of event; however, there is an order of precedence that is required to ensure data integrity. Specific entities need to be introduced in the order in which there relationships to nearest entities occur from a functional perspective. This is the general Framework product flow based on a structured methodology for developing DoD Framework compliant architectures. It roughly reads from left to right with each product represented with the product reference (i.e. AV-1, OV-5 ...) and the product name. (i.e. Operational Node Connectivity, �) This chronology does not imply a rigid course of event; however, there is an order of precedence that is required to ensure data integrity. Specific entities need to be introduced in the order in which there relationships to nearest entities occur from a functional perspective.

9. 9 DoDAF Products Being Produced

10. 10 The key is to be able to show how one area is effected by the sum of the whole. The JTF HQ Core Architecture is posted on JFCOM�s Joint Digital Library System (JDLS). The architecture can be viewed there at �Integration�, �JBMC2 Board of Directors�, and �JBMC2 Integrated Architecture Increment 1 Draft (JTF HQ Core Architecture) � For Review� or click to follow link. http://www-secure.jwfc.jfcom.mil/library/browse/viewer?volumeID+-2001&objectID=3240561&style=default The key is to be able to show how one area is effected by the sum of the whole. The JTF HQ Core Architecture is posted on JFCOM�s Joint Digital Library System (JDLS). The architecture can be viewed there at �Integration�, �JBMC2 Board of Directors�, and �JBMC2 Integrated Architecture Increment 1 Draft (JTF HQ Core Architecture) � For Review� or click to follow link. http://www-secure.jwfc.jfcom.mil/library/browse/viewer?volumeID+-2001&objectID=3240561&style=default

11. 11

12. 12 This slide illustrates how JFCOM and CENTCOM Directorates are teaming together to develop the C-IED architectures. After the architectures are completed, the CENTCOM led Analysis Working Group will meet to develop recommendations and solutions to the CENTCOM leadership. The supporting JFCOM Directorates have already provided their analysis capabilities to CENTCOM on July 27th. This slide illustrates how JFCOM and CENTCOM Directorates are teaming together to develop the C-IED architectures. After the architectures are completed, the CENTCOM led Analysis Working Group will meet to develop recommendations and solutions to the CENTCOM leadership. The supporting JFCOM Directorates have already provided their analysis capabilities to CENTCOM on July 27th.

13. 13 Desktop Analysis/Assessment feeds DoD Process The DTA encompasses the FAA, FNA, and FSA-like processes embedded in the JBMC2 JCIP. Joint Interoperability gap analysis based on joint operational architecture (FAA) vs. C/S/A system architecture and technical architecture (FNA) Gap & shortfall solution identification (mainly from C/S/As) (CBA Process) using functional decomposition (EIPT FSA) DOT-LPF as well as materiel solutions (ONIPT FSA) Conduct ongoing DTA throughout assessment process Draft applicable JROC documentation (JCD, DCR, ICD, CCD, etc.) Design specific assessment objectives and measurements if JT&A required to validate JROC documentation Link between operational and engineering communities The DTA encompasses the FAA, FNA, and FSA-like processes embedded in the JBMC2 JCIP. Joint Interoperability gap analysis based on joint operational architecture (FAA) vs. C/S/A system architecture and technical architecture (FNA) Gap & shortfall solution identification (mainly from C/S/As) (CBA Process) using functional decomposition (EIPT FSA) DOT-LPF as well as materiel solutions (ONIPT FSA) Conduct ongoing DTA throughout assessment process Draft applicable JROC documentation (JCD, DCR, ICD, CCD, etc.) Design specific assessment objectives and measurements if JT&A required to validate JROC documentation Link between operational and engineering communities

14. 14

15. 15 JFCOM�s methodology allows the user to see holistically the JFT HQ C2 core and then be able to drill down to billets, tasks, and systems and applications that are required to support each staff position. All information is mapped back to authorative data sources, Joint Pubs, Lessons Learned, etc. This allows the user to know without question where the reference to a specific task, UJTL, MET, etc. originated. JFCOM�s methodology allows the user to see holistically the JFT HQ C2 core and then be able to drill down to billets, tasks, and systems and applications that are required to support each staff position. All information is mapped back to authorative data sources, Joint Pubs, Lessons Learned, etc. This allows the user to know without question where the reference to a specific task, UJTL, MET, etc. originated.

16. 16 This is just the drill down of the J3 section of a JTF. Again, the user can drill down to specifics of billet, tasks, and systems / applications / infrastructure required to accomplish his or her task.This is just the drill down of the J3 section of a JTF. Again, the user can drill down to specifics of billet, tasks, and systems / applications / infrastructure required to accomplish his or her task.

17. 17 These are screen shots of the billets required of a sub-cell within in the J3. It also identifies tasks, systems and applications.These are screen shots of the billets required of a sub-cell within in the J3. It also identifies tasks, systems and applications.

18. 18 The Joint C2 architecture data can be used both for the more rapid, efficient, and effective stand-up and sustainment of JTFs, as well as for JC2 Capabilities Assessments. In both cases, the contextual relationships provided can answer the question: How do new or changed/updated capabilities fit in? As an example, in the C2 Capabilities Assessment box, a new UAV system, which is designed to incorporate newly implemented workstation software back at the JTF that will process the streaming video protocol on-board is in the acquisition process for development. How can we be assured that there is the spectrum to support this new capability, and that it is interoperable with other UAV systems and protocols already in place to provide a JC2/ISR capability to the warfighter? Without an architecture integration framework, how do we know this capability is worth the cost of development, or how much more investment is required to make it interoperable with existing capabilities, which may be using different protocols or standards? Having an end-to-end integrated architecture framework, that includes all the touchpoints that will be involved in this new capability, is the only way to ensure that a thorough, objective, up-front analysis can be conducted before additional investments are made in developing this capability. At the same time, using architecture information that is linked back to the doctrinal references, organizational nodes and their locations, and billet attributes (including training and clearances required) that will control this new capability, will allow the remainder of the analysis � for Doctrine, Organization, Training, Leadership, Personnel, and Facility implications � to be conducted. This allows a holistic approach that will allow JTF operators to assess if the new capability will provide JTF improvement, while the acquisition analysis is simultaneously occurring, both using the same core information and data sets. This capability management methodology applies beyond this notional example, and encompasses all aspects of Joint C2 Capability Portfolio Management, including the NECC, the first large-scale JC2 transformational task the Department has before it. The Joint C2 architecture data can be used both for the more rapid, efficient, and effective stand-up and sustainment of JTFs, as well as for JC2 Capabilities Assessments. In both cases, the contextual relationships provided can answer the question: How do new or changed/updated capabilities fit in? As an example, in the C2 Capabilities Assessment box, a new UAV system, which is designed to incorporate newly implemented workstation software back at the JTF that will process the streaming video protocol on-board is in the acquisition process for development. How can we be assured that there is the spectrum to support this new capability, and that it is interoperable with other UAV systems and protocols already in place to provide a JC2/ISR capability to the warfighter? Without an architecture integration framework, how do we know this capability is worth the cost of development, or how much more investment is required to make it interoperable with existing capabilities, which may be using different protocols or standards? Having an end-to-end integrated architecture framework, that includes all the touchpoints that will be involved in this new capability, is the only way to ensure that a thorough, objective, up-front analysis can be conducted before additional investments are made in developing this capability. At the same time, using architecture information that is linked back to the doctrinal references, organizational nodes and their locations, and billet attributes (including training and clearances required) that will control this new capability, will allow the remainder of the analysis � for Doctrine, Organization, Training, Leadership, Personnel, and Facility implications � to be conducted. This allows a holistic approach that will allow JTF operators to assess if the new capability will provide JTF improvement, while the acquisition analysis is simultaneously occurring, both using the same core information and data sets. This capability management methodology applies beyond this notional example, and encompasses all aspects of Joint C2 Capability Portfolio Management, including the NECC, the first large-scale JC2 transformational task the Department has before it.

19. 19

20. 20

21. 21

22. 22

23. 23 Modern Information Exchange

24. 24 1) (As you are leaving slide 21) "Even if the Xs line up in the colored portions of the slide, they may not line up at the next level of detail - for example this next slide shows data elements implemented for the message/application layer." 2) (After turning to slide 22) "This slide shows a breakdown of the message elements implemented for each of the aircraft, It is not shown here but interoperability is actually one layer down from this point at the bit level which should be described in the applicable standard/version. So if aircraft agree on which standard to choose, and similar options in the standard, such as data elements shown here for the message layer, they will be interoperable at this layer." 1) (As you are leaving slide 21) "Even if the Xs line up in the colored portions of the slide, they may not line up at the next level of detail - for example this next slide shows data elements implemented for the message/application layer." 2) (After turning to slide 22) "This slide shows a breakdown of the message elements implemented for each of the aircraft, It is not shown here but interoperability is actually one layer down from this point at the bit level which should be described in the applicable standard/version. So if aircraft agree on which standard to choose, and similar options in the standard, such as data elements shown here for the message layer, they will be interoperable at this layer."

25. 25 So, what did we learn? By looking at all of the data, it appears there is little or no interoperability between CAS aircraft. Of the three ground terminal kits studied, they all had different approaches to remaining interoperable with CAS aircraft, but even with that there was little capability today. It is not being used in theater. Standards were not enough to ensure interoperability. Compounding the standards issue, there are multiple message sets, multiple protocols, multiple TTPs for each system, and that is not well understood, at least not at the detail level. Documentation of bit level implementation will resolve the interoperability issues. CONOPs and TTPS must be written for cross Service execution with digital techniques in mind.So, what did we learn? By looking at all of the data, it appears there is little or no interoperability between CAS aircraft. Of the three ground terminal kits studied, they all had different approaches to remaining interoperable with CAS aircraft, but even with that there was little capability today. It is not being used in theater. Standards were not enough to ensure interoperability. Compounding the standards issue, there are multiple message sets, multiple protocols, multiple TTPs for each system, and that is not well understood, at least not at the detail level. Documentation of bit level implementation will resolve the interoperability issues. CONOPs and TTPS must be written for cross Service execution with digital techniques in mind.

26. 26 Standards = Interoperability

27. 27 Standards = Interoperability

28. 28

29. 29 How we got here� These challenges: No designated, empowered Joint Advocate �cradle to grave� for joint capabilities We organize, train and equip C2 at the Service level but fight at joint level Lack of prioritization and balance across the entire joint capability area Joint management activities not well defined/aligned with primary DoD processes Unable to view joint C2 across the entire portfolio of contributing investments Begat this approach: CPM capability-based planning and management efforts to better enable strategic choice and improve ability to make capability tradeoffs Manage groups of like capabilities from across the enterprise to improve interoperability, minimize capability redundancies and gaps, and maximize capability effectiveness Integrate requirements/capabilities, acquisition and programmatics - across DOTMLPF spectrum Four capability areas selected as test cases: Joint Command and Control (JC2)��.Commander USJFCOM Joint Net-Centric Operations (JNO) �.ASD(NII)/Commander USSTRATCOM Battlespace Awareness (BA) ���....USD(I) Joint Logistics (JL) )��������..USD(AT&L)/Commander USTRANSCOM

30. 30 Capability Portfolio Management (CPM) The business process is reasonably straightforward, though as is always the case, the devil is in the details! While easy to describe in concept, the implementation of a portfolio process has, is, and will require changes in how the Department operates. To make these types of changes, a limited target set was determined. JFCOM�s target is Joint Command and Control.The business process is reasonably straightforward, though as is always the case, the devil is in the details! While easy to describe in concept, the implementation of a portfolio process has, is, and will require changes in how the Department operates. To make these types of changes, a limited target set was determined. JFCOM�s target is Joint Command and Control.

31. 31

32. 32 JC2 CPM Mapping and Analysis The focus of JC2 CPM analysis thus far has been to: 1. Scope the JC2 data for systems / applications providing JC2 functionality. This has provided the core of the JC2 portfolio. 2. Perform functional analysis of the BoB candidate systems to identify areas of redundancy for further Desk Top analysis (DTA) or testing and assessment. This has focused on the system to system function mapping, using the JBM CSFL. The CPM FITs have been charged to conduct analysis, prioritization and development of recommendations for the CPM. The FIT will perform technical, operational and cost analysis of portfolio elements. The goal is to identify gaps, redundancies and efficiencies with an emphasis on delivering Capabilities vice programs. This analysis will identify how well current resource profile reflect warfighter operational requirements and priorities. The graphic depicts the CPM FIT focus on these three main elements of analysis (tech, op, fiscal), however the actual assessments will span the mapping architecture depicted from standards and policy, through to JCAs. This is a complex process that will take time. JC2 has provided one link in the chain for more than 100 systems, as well as validate or identify potential focus areas for FIT action. The focus of JC2 CPM analysis thus far has been to: 1. Scope the JC2 data for systems / applications providing JC2 functionality. This has provided the core of the JC2 portfolio. 2. Perform functional analysis of the BoB candidate systems to identify areas of redundancy for further Desk Top analysis (DTA) or testing and assessment. This has focused on the system to system function mapping, using the JBM CSFL. The CPM FITs have been charged to conduct analysis, prioritization and development of recommendations for the CPM. The FIT will perform technical, operational and cost analysis of portfolio elements. The goal is to identify gaps, redundancies and efficiencies with an emphasis on delivering Capabilities vice programs. This analysis will identify how well current resource profile reflect warfighter operational requirements and priorities. The graphic depicts the CPM FIT focus on these three main elements of analysis (tech, op, fiscal), however the actual assessments will span the mapping architecture depicted from standards and policy, through to JCAs. This is a complex process that will take time. JC2 has provided one link in the chain for more than 100 systems, as well as validate or identify potential focus areas for FIT action.

33. 33 JC2 Capability to System Mapping

34. 34

35. 35

36. 36

37. 37 Architecture Products Supporting JC2 CPM

38. 38 Architecture Product Availability for JC2 CPM

39. 39 This slide depicts architecture data and products in relationship to DOTMLPF outcomes areasThis slide depicts architecture data and products in relationship to DOTMLPF outcomes areas

40. 40

41. 41

42. 42