1 / 18

ALLIED COMMAND TRANSFORMATION JOINT WARFARE CENTRE

ALLIED COMMAND TRANSFORMATION JOINT WARFARE CENTRE. JTLS at JWC [12 Dec 2012]. Mr Ivan Vianello Chief Team A CAX Support Branch Simulation Modelling & C4 Division. New NATO ’ s Military Structure. Military Committee. ACT. ACO. HQ-SACT. SHAPE. JFC Brunssum. JFC Naples. JC

trung
Télécharger la présentation

ALLIED COMMAND TRANSFORMATION JOINT WARFARE CENTRE

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. ALLIED COMMAND TRANSFORMATIONJOINT WARFARE CENTRE JTLS at JWC [12 Dec 2012] Mr Ivan Vianello Chief Team A CAX Support Branch Simulation Modelling & C4 Division

  2. New NATO’s Military Structure Military Committee ACT ACO HQ-SACT SHAPE JFC Brunssum JFC Naples JC Lisbon JWC JFTC JALLC HQ LANDCOM izmir MCC Naples HQ Madrid HQ MARCOMM Northwood HQ AIRCOMM Ramstein LCC Heidelberg NC3A NCST 2 CAOCs FRRCORP NRDC-T NRDC-I EUROCORPS ARRC NCIA NRDC-S NRDC-GE/NL NRDC : NATO’s Rapid Deployable Corps ; ARRC : Allies Rapid Reac Corps

  3. JWC Mission JWC plans, conducts and executes operational training; conducts and supports collective training of joint and combined staffs of the NATO Command Structure (NCS) and NATO Force Structure (NFS) for Major Joint Operations (MJOs) and Small Joint Operations (SJOs) SIMULATION,  MODELING & C4 DIVISION (SMC4) is responsible for the planning, management and provision of Computer  Assisted Exercises (CAX) and the C4 and CIS environments related to the JWC Programme of Work (POW).   CAX SUPPORT BRANCH is responsible for  providing appropriate modeling and simulation support to deliver CAX capabilities for training events. 

  4. JWC Customers: Joint Force Command Brunssum SHAPE Joint Force Command Naples Joint Warfare Centre MCC Northwood ACC Ramstein LCC Izmir

  5. Models in JWC • JTLS + VBS2 to support NRF (Nato Response Force ) Exercises • 2 Main Events per year • 1 JFC and 3 HQ’s involved (1200 people) - Distributed • Exercise Control 400 people - centralized in JWC • JWC CAX Specialist Team 9 People (Core Team) . Additional Support from Contractors , R&A , M&S COE (2 people) • VBS2 to support ISAF HQ Training Event • Live Stream is definitely a TA requirement but at today : • Multiple streams are not possible • max 3/4 vignettes per day (manpower demanding) • difficulties to support TA last minute requests for streaming outside the MEL MIL (MSEL) plan .Going towards Kinetic (Article V) scenarios this requirement may rise more frequently. TA can take initiative not only React.

  6. 2012 a ChallengingYear • Steadfast Joist 12  Moving to New Building • The Complete infrastructure is Virtualized • JWC Staff use Thin client for daily job • During the Execution JTLS is running on VM : • Two Pools : 1 for Server (JTLS Services) , 1 for Clients (Whips). • In Total 5 full Games Running • 1 JWC CAX Technician prepare and look after the entire CAX Infrastructure

  7. 2012 a Challenging Year • Steadfast Juncture 12  New Scenario (towards Article V) • Settings (GEO – DB) : • 52 national Boundaries • 17 Countries • Around 140.000 targets • (46520 Bridges , 69688 Facilities , 3040 Runways , 9789 Tunnels etc etc ) • 8 Sides • 6345 Flight Corridor for Civilian flights. • 1500 Civilians Flights per day over the exercise Area • Orbat : Alliance , Sitfor , OPFOR (new concept) , built with JOBE

  8. JTLS in JWC • Flexible ( easy to Rerun and deploy the model) • Manageable - no complex Architecture key • Size of the Game has impact on crash procedures i.e . CEP start time .(example of Next exercise)

  9. JTLS in JWC • “ Keep the CAX Architecture as Simple as possible” • -Scenario Size implications • Reduce Complexity of Setup / Crash - Recover procedures • Game Start up time • -Only CAX tools considered Critical for a specific Event are added in the event CAX Architecture . • -CAX Environment has to be easily reproducible after the exercise with minimum manpower and resources • -Minimize the possibility that required Architecture updates , can prevent a new model version to be used for an event. • Current Approach fits with JWC IT (VM) Environment and available Manpower

  10. SFJE12 EXPERIENCE • JTLS to play a Cyber Attack incident • JTLS for EXCON “next day preview” in support of a Kinetic Incident. • JTLS information’s combined with Mel Mil (MSEL) layer and UAV Stream on a NATO C2 System

  11. CYBER ATTACK with JTLS One of the goals of Cyber Attacks is to discredit the “trust” in the IT systems used. However, from training perspective, such an effect could be intentionally planned to achieve a specific training Objective.

  12. CYBER ATTACK with JTLS • During the Execution of SFJE12 Mel Mil (MSEL) Team planned a specific Cyber Incident • One of the two C2 systems (MCCIS) used had to be “attacked” : Additional enemy tracks were supposed to appear in the RMP. • The goal was to have a mismatch in the Training Audience C2 systems. • MCCIS showing “enemy tracks detected” • AIR and Land C2 with no information's about the incoming threat

  13. CYBER ATTACK with JTLS A Specific side was selected as temporary source for the “fake” tracks . Copies of enemies ships were created from the chosen side. In JTOI the Naval update for the “fake tracks” side was Filtered out in order to prevent Air C2 system to be stimulated (potentially it could receive Ship updates as well) TPFDD in

  14. CYBER ATTACK with JTLS • Fake Ships were then Magic Moved and ordered to start sailing • Unit intel was passed to Training Audience Side to force detection • Fake Ships started getting reported only in 1 C2 system (MCCIS) • No DSA in the area • Air Cell were role playing “no detection” from air asset in the area (fake tracks were still appearing in the WHIP)

  15. CYBER ATTACK with JTLS

  16. ”The day after” Requirements : An MEL MIL (MSEL) Incident triggered the Training Audience Decision to conduct an Amphibious Attack during the Night. (No 24 hrs manning). Mel Mil team needed the “next day “ situation for a possible contingency plan. Solution : CAX team implemented the Amphibious in Run Ahead game Runahed was fast forwarded until the next morning with the TRIPP connected . During the Evening MEL MIL Sync meeting , Mel Mil team intensively used the TRIPP to analyze the situation.

  17. Experiment : C2 as UDOP From Theatre : UDOP (User Defined Operational Picture) . The goal was to optimize the information flow and access within the HQ itself. The key was to reuse tools available in NATO (ICC) without starting new projects. • ICC 2.8.2 clients have been fed with different KML files : • “Incidents” and “Actions” pulled from JEMM (MSEL tool) • Simulation data’s updated in real time from JTLS. (KOI) • JOC WATCH information's (Training Audience perception of incidents) • VBS2 Stream Hyperlink within the KML “info bubble” the pointed operator to directly to the Live feed (As in real Life)

  18. Questions “……Clearly the value of JTLS to an operational-level exercise is enormous. If we were not able to maintain “white truth” via JTLS , the exercise would not only be unmanageable but the entire exercise would fall apart. ……JTLS set conditions for the execution of a revolutionary exercise in numerous way to include : cyber play , incorporating kinetic play as part of an operational-level exercise ….and the list goes on; I realize that we have only begun to tap into the potential for JTLS and I cannot imagine a serious exercise without it. ………” JWC Chief Mel Mil Steadfast Juncture 12 Exercise.

More Related