1 / 104

Sense-Shoot-Command on the Battlefield After Next

Sense-Shoot-Command on the Battlefield After Next. Koblenz Symposium on Information Technology Network Centric Warfare 28 August 2008. COL (ret) Kevin Cogan U.S. Army War College Center for Strategic Leadership Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton.

alexandra-romero
Télécharger la présentation

Sense-Shoot-Command on the Battlefield After Next

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sense-Shoot-Commandon the Battlefield After Next Koblenz Symposium on Information Technology Network Centric Warfare 28 August 2008 COL (ret) Kevin Cogan U.S. Army War College Center for Strategic Leadership Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton

  2. A networked forceimproves information sharing Information sharing and collaborationenhance the quality of informationand shared situational awareness Shared situational awarenessenables collaboration, self-synchronization, and speed of command These dramaticallyincrease mission effectiveness Quality of Information New Processes Mission Effectiveness Robustly Networked Force Shared Situational Awareness Self Synchronization InformationSharing Information Domain Physical Domain Cognitive + Social Domains Collaboration Tenets of Network-Centric Warfare

  3. Getting the Theory Right 1999 Practice Theory Network Centric Warfare Case Study Major Combat Operations in Iraq - 2003 2006 NCW Case Studies Theory Practice

  4. Volume IOperations

  5. OIF: Southern Iraq • Controlled by V Corps / 1 MEF • Traditional land battle w/heavy joint & coalition flavor • – Very high operational tempo • Networking of distributed ground force commanders via SATCOM • Common Operational Picture • Unprecedented in military history • From lowest tactical level (Co) to strategic • Enabled by Blue Force Tracking

  6. Volume IIINetwork Centric Warfare Insights

  7. Battle Stories Enablers NCW Insights Vignette

  8. Selected Case Study Findings • Increased connectivity and the flow of information at the brigade level and above provided freedom to command regardless of location - “Battle Command on the Move.” • Information systems are not a substitute for leadership; they help good leaders make better decisions quicker.

  9. Volume II – Iraq 2003 A View of C4 Architecturesat theDawn of Network Centric Warfare

  10. Mobile Subscriber Equipment

  11. Mobile Subscriber Equipment(MSE) • The NCW Tactical Communications Architecture for Corps and below • A good communications architecture first fielded 20 years ago in the 1980s • Based on telephony routing paradigms • Mounted on “Cold War” era platforms • Failed to keep pace in the 1991 Gulf War • Predicted to be obsolete in 1998 • Went to the war in Iraq in 2003 (OIF-1) • Failed to keep pace in Operation Iraqi Freedom

  12. DIVISION FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 4th ID 1st CAV 82nd ABN 101st ABN 10th MTN 3rd ID 2nd ID Traffic Rates 25th ID < 80% Traffic Capacity 1st ID 80% Traffic Capacity 1st AD 100% Traffic Capacity Division System Fielding and Capacities - MSE 1998

  13. Rising Bandwidth Requirements Brigade Tactical Operations Center Needs 2000 Requirement Kbs 1000 Capability 1996 2001 2006 MSE Bandwidth today Bandwidth required by Fielding Schedule

  14. Relative growth rate of voice, video, and data Growth - Interagency Management Council Study Growth Doubles in 6 years Video and data unpredictably outstrips voice for MSE Prepared for the Future Communications Services Working Group of the Interagency Management Council

  15. “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.” -- Donald Rumsfeld Former U.S. Secretary of Defense

  16. The Army We Had - 2003 • MSE could not provide “on the move” Command & Control Communications • OIF-1 was fought with Blue Force Tracker and Tactical Satellite Radios

  17. “The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.” -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum Computer Scientist, c.1980

  18. The same can be said about C4 architectures

  19. “We can’t have programs of record that are measured in decades; we have to have some agility in our capability cycle times.” -- Terry J. Pudas Acting Director, Office of Force Transformation U.S. Department of Defense

  20. WIN-Tactical Operational Concept with Strict Adherence to Standards Mvr Bn II Post/Camp Base/Station DISA HQ DISN Allied/Coalition Non-DoD STEP/TELEPORT AFFOR SECOMP-I NAVFOR XXXX MARFOR Joint TAACOM WIN-T JSOTF Corps Main XXX WIN-T TUAV ARFOR Marine RECON Battalion JTRS II DMain XX JTRS Mvr Bde X WIN-T ABCS WIN-T

  21. WIN-Tactical Proposed Acquisition Schedule Now Delayed to 2013!!! FY03 FY01 FY02 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 BLOCK I BLOCK II AAE/DAE OIPT OIPT IPR MS B MS C FRP AWARD AWARD JROC OPTION JROC AWARD SSEB Best Valve Down Selects Integrating Contractor SYSTEM INTEGRATION FDT&E RFP RELEASE SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION RFP RELEASE DT&E • Dual Contractor Teams Deliver : • Objective System Architecture, • Technology Demonstrations, • Modeling & Simulations NET PROD IOT&E SSEB Operational Test Unit SYSTEM DEMO AAE - Army Acquisition Executive JROC - Joint Requirements Oversight Council DAE - Defense Acquisition Executive MS - Milestone DT&E - Developmental Test & Evaluation NET - New Equipment Training FDT&E Force Development Test & Evaluation - OIPT - Overarching Integrated Process Team FRP - Full Rate Production Phase SSEB - Source Selection Evaluation Board IOT&E - Initial Operational Test & Evaluation

  22. “The time to fix bandwidth is now, before the next fight.” -- GEN William S. Wallace before the House Armed Services Committee, October 21, 2003

  23. 2003 Joint Network Node The warfighter gets an interim capability after OIF-1 before fielding WIN-T

  24. Commercial equipment as called for by the NC3TA switch VG228 gateway Cisco Router Redcom Switch

  25. “Everything should be made as simple as possible … but not simpler.” -- Albert Einstein geboren 14 March 1879 Ulm, Wurttemberg, Germany

  26. Ideal Communications Architectures (Homogeneous) FUTURE PRESENT PAST

  27. Communications Architectures (Heterogeneous) JNN MSE Pre-OIF WIN-T OIF FCS

  28. U.S. ARMY TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS ARCHITECTURE Pre-OIF OIF Future Today GIG LandWarNet Capability FCS Spirals OIF-1 WIN-T Technologies MSE Continues D E L A Y WIN-T MSE J N N WIN-T 5-YEAR DELAY (notional) 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

  29. A Look at NATO Architectures

  30. NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) EAPC (AC/322-SC/2) N (2004) 002 12 January 2004

  31. NATO Network Enabled Capability (NNEC) … Technology to increase the quantity of information exchanged, improve the richness of information, and increase speed of transfer … at the heart of transformation … The NC3TA will be required to support the NNEC initiative by identifying appropriate architectural models, services, profiles, standards, and commercial products that will be used to implement technological aspects of NNEC. from NC3TA 3.1

  32. NATO Approach to Standardization Strict adherence to standards can inhibit the effective exploitation of Information Technology, whilst in the meantime overlooking potential advantages offered by commercial products which may effectively meet user requirements and reduce complexity. NC3TA 2.2.1(8)

  33. NATO Approach to Standardization U.S. Lesson Learned WIN-T Strict adherence to standards can inhibit the effective exploitation of Information Technology, whilst in the meantime overlooking potential advantages offered by commercial products which may effectively meet user requirements and reduce complexity. NC3TA 2.2.1(8) JNN

  34. GE/US Defense Posture - 1988 XXX III GE XXX V US XXX VII US XXX II GE XXX

  35. TORN TAPE RELAY circa 1988 GE U.S.

  36. How good are we at predicting? • What was your e-mail address in 1985? • What was your organization’s web address in 1990? • In what year did you anticipate owning a cell phone?

  37. 1945 ENIAC University of Pennsylvania circa - 1945

  38. Prediction after invention of the ENIAC computer - 1943 “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”

  39. Prediction after invention of the ENIAC computer - 1943 “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” -- T.J. Watson Founder and Chairman, IBM

  40. If we could have … ENIAC Mounted on a WW II M-24 Tank

  41. Now that we can …

  42. ENIAC on a chip, 1997 Size: 7.44mm x 5.29mm; 174,569 transistors; 0.5 um CMOS technology (triple metal layer).

  43. Ubiquitous Fiber Optics Spanning the Globe

  44. Satellite Geostationary Orbit - 22,300 miles

  45. Human Reaction Time Studies • Reaction times for college-age individuals have been about 190 msec (0.19 sec) for light stimuli and about 160 msec for sound stimuli • Laming (1968) concluded that simple reaction times averaged 220 msec but recognition reaction times averaged 384 msec. Source: http://biae.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm#Mean%20Times

  46. The Math for roundtrip earth communications Ground only (fiber): 26,000mi / 186,000mi/sec = 139 milliseconds Geostationary Satellite only: 89,200mi / 186,000mi/sec=479 milliseconds

  47. Observation • The earth is about the right size for human biology in a universe whose physics is constrained by the speed of light. • 300 milliseconds is the limit for human command and control in Colonel John Boyd’s OODA Loop

More Related