acgu training integration and interoperability work group 22 september 2010 0800-1200hrs worldwide...
Post on 25-Feb-2016
63 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
ACGU Training Integration and Interoperability Work Group
22 September 20100800-1200hrs
Worldwide Joint Training & Scheduling Conference
UNCLASSIFIED
Agenda
• Welcome / Introductions Col Walrond• ACGU Issue Refocus/Update Col Walrond• ACGU Charter Col Walrond• Partner Issues/Training Requirements ACGU
Partners• Break• CENTRIXS-ISAF & AMN
USCENTCOM• Technical Update Mr.
Dominguez• Enhancing ACGU Forum Discussion• Way Ahead/Wrap-up Col Walrond
ACGU WG
Update/Actions/Issue Refocus
Col Walrond
WG Update & Actions WJTSC 10-1
Highlights: • Closed original 2008-2 issue (#08-18) as having been successfully achieved• Focus had clearly been on improving process of integrating ACGU training events
and scheduling • Nations to continue to forge working relationships with respective COCOMs, i.e.,
the AUS-PACOM model • Consensus to continue WG at the WJTSC to provide represented nations,
organizations, and COCOMs with an open and collaborative forum to enhance ACGU operational capability, preparedness, and interoperability----to share info and discuss issues of mutual interest
• Continue to engage, socialize and work “enhancement of ACGU interoperability”, with principal emphasis toward the integration of partner training environments with the Joint Training Environment (ACGU Training Enclave)
WG Update & Actions
Action Items from WJTSC 10-1:• Open WJTSC WG to allow COCOMs to collaborate with ACGU
partners and to share activities, synchronize capabilities, and solicit ACGU training participation
• Refocus efforts on the development, establishment, and execution of a full up, multi-lateral, trusted mission partner training environment
• Develop draft ‘ACGU Charter’ which reflects these understandings and the way ahead
• Col Walrond to continue as WG chairman for the time being
WG Update & Actions
Actions Taken
• ACGU Charter drafted by AUS (thanks to Richard Howell) and distributed to WG management group members for review/comment/edit
• Continued efforts regard development of ACGU Training Enclave – Mark Dominguez to provide update/status
ACGU WG
Charter
Col Walrond
ACGU WG
Partner Issues / Training Requirements
Col Walrond
BREAK
USCENTCOM
CENTRIXS-ISAF Training
Mr. Michael Kontodiakos
ACGU WG
Technical Update
Mr. Dominguez
Topics
• Joint Training Enterprise Network (JTEN)• The Cross-Domain Information Sharing Problem
in the Joint Training Environment• Afghanistan Mission Networks• Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and United
States (ACGU) Training Environment• ACGU …Where do we go from here?
Joint Training Enterprise Network (JTEN)
Enabling the Joint Training Environment
KeyRegional communications hubArmy site (18)
Non-JTEN secure network
Navy site (4)USMC site (6)
DTEN5 sites
CF-JTEN22 sites
JMNIAN7 sites
Current JTEN Sites48 - Persistent sites + other networks5 - JTEN 1.0 sites awaiting install1 – JTEN 1.0 site awaiting relocation3 – FY10 JTEN 2.0 sites installed (in parallel)2 - FY11 JTEN 2.0 sites awaiting install
As of 1 July 2010
Suffolk HUB(NOSC, JWFC, JATTL, JFL )
Keesler AFBHUB
Ft Leavenworth
Barksdale AFB
Little Rock AFB
MacDill AFB (CENTCOM & SOCOM)
Ft Hood
QuanticoOffutt (STRATCOM)
Schriever AFB
Ft PolkHurlburt Field
Eglin AFB
Orlando (JDIF)
Ft Bragg
Dam Neck (TTGL)
PAX River (HPCMO)Aggregate Router
Miami (SOUTHCOM)
Scott AFB (TRANSCOM)
Cp Lejuene
AFRES (DTOC)
Grafenwoehr GE(EUCOM HUBJMCTC)
WPC(EUCOM)
Hanscom Field (ESC)
Petersen AFB (NORTHCOM)
Ft Belvoir (NCR Node)
Ft Drum
Ft Sam Houston (SAR Node)
Kirtland AFBHUB and DMOC
Cp RobertsHUB
Yuma MCAS
Cp Pendleton
Ford Island HIPACOM HUB
Ft LewisEielson AFB
Pt Loma (TTGP)
29 Palms (MCAGCC)
Ft Irwin (NTC)
Nellis AFB
Davis-Monthan AFB
Ft Bliss
NAS Fallon
SchofieldBarracks
Cp Courtney
Yongsan
RAF Molesworth
Ft Stewart
Shaw AFB
Cp Atterbury
Ft Carson TCOIC
Ft Sill
Ft Campbell
Norfolk 2.0
Quantico 2.0
Hurlburt Field 2.0
Suffolk 2.0
Ft RileyLangleyAFB
14UNCLASSIFIEDAir Force site (13)
Joint site (12)Coalition siteJTEN 2.0 site
NCTE40 sites
DMON32 sites
NCTE40 sites
SDREN23 sites
SIPRNet
USAREURFON
60 sites
ARCnet23 sites
JMETC34 sites
STEN9 sites
The Problem …. A Primer The Training Environment is NOT the same as the Operational
Environment Operational Solutions do not Satisfy or Scale to the Training
Environment Operational environment does not do distributed M&S with
thousands of multicast groups Key Goal … The Training Audience Cannot Tell The Difference
Between What is Live and What is Not! Dorothy, Toto, Tin Man, and Lion were convinced that they were in
the presence of an all powerful wizard but…. “Never mind that man behind the curtain!”
We must give the training Audience as realistic a representation of the operational experience we can before he encounters it in the real world Can’t give capabilities not present in the real environment
(negative training) More than half the information on our training networks is
“behind the curtain”
General Considerations/Observations• Joint Operating Environment (JOE) 2010, “ … in most endeavors it
(UNITED States) will need partners, whether from traditional alliances or coalitions of the willing.”
• Fidelity of information exchanged is directly dependent upon the partners’ trust relationship
• Not all Cross Domain Information Sharing (CDIS) situations require a Cross Domain Solution (CDS)
• We must pay attention to the role of unintended consequences• The theater commander owns the operational network and defines the
operational needs– The operational needs define the training requirements– The training audience needs to retain communication with operational
assets while in the training environment for SA. • Supporting networks must align to those needs
• Aligning the training CDIS strategy with our alliances may offer a methodology that will enable training multiple, simultaneous coalitions
Conflict Conflict
USOperational Realm
(J2, 3, 6 Real World)
Coalition (NATO)Operational Realm
(J2, 3, 6 Real World)
Guard
Rules allow sharing of
Operational U.S. Classified
Information
Rules allow sharing of Operational
Partner Classified Information
U.S.
COPC2
Sensor Inputs
COP C2
Sensor InputsSensor InputsSensor Inputs Sensor InputsSensor Inputs
C2C2 C2C2
U.S. + Coalition Partner: Real World(We will never operate alone)
Coalition Partner
CoalitionFederated
LVC Conflict
FederatedLVC
Conflict
C2C2C2C2
Rules allow sharing of
Operational U.S. Classified
Information
Rules allow sharing of Operational
Partner Classified Information
U.S. + Coalition Partner; Training World(We should not train alone)
The Curtain
GUARD
GUARD
The Problem!
COP
Sensor Inputs
C2COP
C2
Sensor InputsSensor Inputs
Sensor InputsSensor Inputs
Sensor Inputs
IA Controls
IA Controls
US TRAINING ENVIRONMENTJ7 LVC WORLD
COALITION TRAINING ENVIRONMENTJ7 LVC WORLD
US TRAINING NETWORKSJTEN, NCTE, DMON, ETC.
COALITION TRAINING NETWORKS(i.e. SNOW LEOPARD)
SIPRNET
COALITIONOPERATIONAL NETWORK
(i.e. NATO SECRET)
US OPERATIONAL REALM(J2,3, 6 REAL WORLD)
COALITION PARTNER OPERATIONAL REALM(J2,3, 6 REAL WORLD)
Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and United States Training Environment
Most Trusted Mission Partners share the highest fidelity information
JTEN ACGU Training EnvironmentAs it Evolved
SIPR
JTEN
GBR(JMINIAN)
AUS(DTEN)
NCTE
CAN(CFXNet)
DMONKirtlandJWFC
DMZ DMZDMZ
DMZDMZ
DMZ
DMZ
DMZ
JTEN Client Site
DMZ
JTEN Client Site
DMZ
JTEN Client Site
DMZ
Dam Neck
DMOC
JTEN ACGU Training Environment November 2011
SIPR
JTEN
GBR(JMINIAN)
AUS(DTEN)
NCTE
CAN(CFXNet)
JTEN ACGU Training Environment
JWFC
DMZ
DMZ DMZDMZ
DMZ
DMZ
DMZ
DMZ
JTEN Client Site
DMZ
JTEN Client Site
DMZ
JTEN Client Site
DMZ
Dam Neck
Provides an additional degree of separation and reduces management within JTEN
Provides an independent 4 Eyes training environment
DMONKirtland
DMZ
DMOC
Afghanistan Mission Network … Possibilities
The New NormGeneral Considerations/Observations
• Joint Operating Environment (JOE) 2010, “ … in most endeavors it (UNITED States) will need partners, whether from traditional alliances or coalitions of the willing.”
• Fidelity of information exchanged is directly dependent upon the partners’ trust relationship
• Not all Cross Domain Information Sharing (CDIS) situations require a Cross Domain Solution (CDS)
• We must pay attention to the role of unintended consequences• The theater commander owns the operational network and defines the
operational needs– The operational needs define the training requirements– The training audience needs to retain communication with operational assets while
in the training environment for SA. • Supporting networks must align to those needs
• Aligning the training CDIS strategy with our alliances may offer a methodology that will enable training multiple, simultaneous coalitions
Desired Capability“The requirement is to deliver trained warfighters to the Theater
Commander”Colonel Allen, USCENTCOM CCJ6D
• From January Operational Needs Statement (ONS): “Provide AMN … for all forces flowing into CJOA-A. This provision must include the required modification to existing JNTC equipment …”
• The requirements to support the Theater Commander effects our efforts – All four partners’ resources are under stress
– CX-I/AMN requirements are in addition to current training requirements
– CX-I not currently funded
• No additional resources
• No sustainment beyond 2011
• Largely US Army funded in US
• NATO Crisis Urgent Request (CUR) approved
– training is not the highest priority
• So, how does CX-I/AMN interface with ACGU?
Where are we?• ACGU Enclave is included in the Joint Training
Enterprise solution• FY 2010 material arriving• FY 2011 funding
– $540K• Basic DMZ Services will be up in November
– Critical to Australian C2 play in TS 2011– DSAWG in November or December– Looking at ICI initiatives
• Effects of AMN Training Federation– ~ $450 K will go into CX-I/AMN in 2011– Bandwidth and personnel resources
Where Do We Go From Here?• Does the ACGU Training Environment provide benefit?• Should ACGU become a shared, multinational environment or remain
three bilateral agreements? – If multilateral, how do we share funding, management, and governance?– If bilateral, how does the US ensure the partner requirements are met?
• US funding, management, and control
• ACGU will be implemented by November to accommodate Australia’s exercise of their national C2 while DTEN is connected to JTEN during Talisman Sabre. The internal capabilities are limited.– One of the present requirements states that ACGU be able to operate
independent of all other connected networks, including JTEN. Is this still valid?
– What capabilities should be included within the ACGU?– What group will decide what those capabilities should be?
• Is the WJSC the proper forum for future ACGU WG meetings?• Is there a better venue?
Questions?
ACGU WG
Enhancing ACGU ForumOpen Discussion
Col Walrond
Closing / Wrap UpCol Walrond
top related