Download
1 / 29
300 likes | 530 Views
ACGU Training Integration and Interoperability Work Group 22 September 2010 0800-1200hrs Worldwide Joint Training & Scheduling Conference . UNCLASSIFIED. Agenda. Welcome / Introductions Col Walrond ACGU Issue Refocus/Update Col Walrond ACGU Charter Col Walrond
E N D
ACGU Training Integration and Interoperability Work Group22 September 20100800-1200hrsWorldwide 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
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
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
48 - Persistent sites + other networks 5 - JTEN 1.0 sites awaiting install 1 – JTEN 1.0 site awaiting relocation 3 – FY10 JTEN 2.0 sites installed (in parallel) 2 - FY11 JTEN 2.0 sites awaiting install PAX River (HPCMO) Aggregate Router Ft Belvoir (NCR Node) Petersen AFB (NORTHCOM) Schriever AFB Norfolk 2.0 Suffolk 2.0 Ft Sam Houston (SAR Node) Current JTEN Sites CF-JTEN 22 sites Eielson AFB Ft Lewis Ft Drum Hanscom Field (ESC) JMETC 34 sites Yongsan ARCnet 23 sites SDREN 23 sites SIPRNet AFRES (DTOC) Offutt (STRATCOM) Quantico 2.0 Cp Courtney NCTE 40 sites Cp Atterbury Quantico DMON 32 sites Suffolk HUB (NOSC, JWFC, JATTL, JFL ) Ft Carson TCOIC Ft Riley Ft Leavenworth NAS Fallon Dam Neck (TTGL) LangleyAFB Nellis AFB Cp Roberts HUB Scott AFB (TRANSCOM) JMNIAN 7 sites Ft Irwin (NTC) Ft Campbell Ft Bragg Cp Lejuene RAF Molesworth 29 Palms (MCAGCC) Schofield Barracks Shaw AFB Little Rock AFB Cp Pendleton Ft Sill WPC (EUCOM) Kirtland AFB HUB and DMOC Ford Island HI PACOM HUB Pt Loma (TTGP) Ft Stewart Yuma MCAS Barksdale AFB Davis-Monthan AFB Keesler AFB HUB USAREUR FON 60 sites Hurlburt Field 2.0 Grafenwoehr GE (EUCOM HUB JMCTC) NCTE 40 sites Ft Hood Hurlburt Field Ft Bliss Ft Polk Eglin AFB DTEN 5 sites Key Orlando (JDIF) Regional communications hub MacDill AFB (CENTCOM & SOCOM) Army site (18) Joint site (12) STEN 9 sites Navy site (4) Coalition site Miami (SOUTHCOM) USMC site (6) JTEN 2.0 site Air Force site (13) UNCLASSIFIED Non-JTEN secure network As of 1 July 2010
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
U.S. U.S. + Coalition Partner: Real World(We will never operate alone) Rules allow sharing of Operational U.S. Classified Information Rules allow sharing of Operational Partner Classified Information US Operational Realm (J2, 3, 6 Real World) Coalition (NATO) Operational Realm (J2, 3, 6 Real World) C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 COP COP Guard Sensor Inputs Sensor Inputs Conflict Conflict Sensor Inputs Sensor Inputs Sensor Inputs Sensor Inputs Coalition Partner
U.S. + Coalition Partner; Training World(We should not train alone) Rules allow sharing of Operational U.S. Classified Information Rules allow sharing of Operational Partner Classified Information COALITION PARTNER OPERATIONAL REALM (J2,3, 6 REAL WORLD) US OPERATIONAL REALM (J2,3, 6 REAL WORLD) COALITION OPERATIONAL NETWORK (i.e. NATO SECRET) IA Controls IA Controls GUARD GUARD SIPRNET COP C2 C2 C2 COP C2 C2 C2 The Curtain US TRAINING NETWORKS JTEN, NCTE, DMON, ETC. COALITION TRAINING NETWORKS (i.e. SNOW LEOPARD) Sensor Inputs Sensor Inputs Coalition Federated LVC Conflict Federated LVC Conflict Sensor Inputs Sensor Inputs Sensor Inputs Sensor Inputs COALITION TRAINING ENVIRONMENT J7 LVC WORLD US TRAINING ENVIRONMENT J7 LVC WORLD The Problem!
Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and United States Training Environment Most Trusted Mission Partners share the highest fidelity information
JTEN ACGU Training EnvironmentAs it Evolved JTEN Client Site JTEN Client Site JTEN Client Site DMZ DMZ DMZ JTEN DMZ DMZ DMZ Dam Neck Kirtland DMZ JWFC DMON NCTE DMOC DMZ DMZ DMZ DMZ SIPR AUS (DTEN) GBR (JMINIAN) CAN (CFXNet)
JTEN ACGU Training Environment November 2011 JTEN Client Site JTEN Client Site JTEN Client Site DMZ DMZ DMZ JTEN DMZ DMZ DMZ Dam Neck Kirtland DMZ JWFC DMON NCTE DMOC DMZ Provides an additional degree of separation and reduces management within JTEN DMZ SIPR Provides an independent 4 Eyes training environment JTEN ACGU Training Environment DMZ DMZ DMZ GBR (JMINIAN) AUS (DTEN) CAN (CFXNet)
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? • Doesthe 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?
