1 / 12

Network Centric Warfare Challenges: HQ USEUCOM Perspective

Network Centric Warfare Challenges: HQ USEUCOM Perspective. Thomas J. Verbeck, BrigGen, USAF Director Command, Control, Communications, and Warfighting Integration United States European Command. NCW Activities in EUCOM. Where is EUCOM focused?

marla
Download Presentation

Network Centric Warfare Challenges: HQ USEUCOM Perspective

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. Network Centric Warfare Challenges: HQ USEUCOM Perspective Thomas J. Verbeck, BrigGen, USAF Director Command, Control, Communications, and Warfighting Integration United States European Command

  2. NCW Activities in EUCOM • Where is EUCOM focused? • We are committed to raising NCW to an equal status with kinetic operations • We are actively engaged in improving existing NCW capabilities across the AOR • We are aggressively working to build new NCW capacities among Partner Nations

  3. NCW: Essential to EUCOM AOR • Interoperability is the foundation for progress • Information Sharing and Integrated Operations are cornerstone capabilities • Emerging Partner Nations look to Europe and EUCOM for help transforming capabilities • Success demands innovative solutions to challenging conditions and requirements • Regional Leadership is Essential • Partner Nations must lead their own efforts to modernize military systems and processes

  4. NCW: Arrows in the Quiver • Warfighters must recognize that NCW can generate effects in the battle space • NCW must advance beyond “merely” enhancing kinetic missions – NCW is a mission! • NCW requires flexible and effective capabilities to attack, defend, and exploit networks • Commanders must recognize NCW capabilities as effective weapons and exercise OPCON • Recognize and take advantage of tools to assess our NCW synergies (i.e. CE Interoperability Guide, NCAT, etc)

  5. COMBINED ENDEAVOR: US Stimulated…Coalition Led…Convergence Critical to Success Tech Dir/Dep Tech Dir CJCCC Officer in Charge Frequency Management CJCCC Deputies Technical Support Staff JITC: Leads (2) / Functional Area Experts / CEPTR DBA / Wireless Admin IA Advisor (US) Network / Admin Services KM Panel Core Network Planners IA Panel PfP CJCCC Future Operations N C S EDET Transmission Systems (Tropo,RR,SAT,LTU,OLTU,TP2K) SCR Data Transport Systems Circuit Switch / IP Telephony / TETRA Core Services / MIP Studio VTC Regional Group Controllers RG A RG B RG C RG D RG F

  6. CWID 2006 Ideal opportunity to VERIFY/VALIDATEconvergence of US/NATO Interoperability Demonstrate toolkit abilities to ASSESS how well we’re working in Coalition Environment Provide FEEDBACK to Warfighters in order to improve our NCW capabilities Coalition Warrior Interop Demo

  7. Discussion Areas • A new paradigm for OPCON: Theater Commanders should be prepared to seek OPCON of NCW assets – COCOMs must engage STRATCOM to build effect C2 arrangements for NCW activies • Intelligence Community (IC) Support for NCW: The IC must develop new TTP to support NCW operations • NCW is a new operational science: We are still learning to distinguish between the possible and the necessary • How do we define BEST practices and leverage tool kits to assess how WELL we are operationalizing NCW concepts?

  8. Discussion Questions?

  9. CENTRIXS • Private, Dedicated Bi-Lateral or Multilateral Networks • Standard hardware software and services, implemented as required to establish dedicated communications networks • Because all CENTRIXS networks are built to a single standard, any two CENTRIXS networks may be interconnected • Each CENTRIXS network operates at a single security classification level

  10. Built MPMC Network Established LNO Establishing ASF HQs “Battle Rhythm” Training Needs Assessment IMET for RECs Regional security training and exercise plan Long-term investment in AU structures Template for other RECs Regional Maritime Domain Awareness Info Sharing Challenge ECOWAS C2 Development MPMC Situation Room & Offices Gulf of Guinea Enabler

  11. Non-GIG CriticalInformation Infrastructure • Inter Agency Participants – but also Interagency Multinational • GIG networks – DoD and Internet • Non-GIG networks – dedicated closed networks • Network Centric Warfare operations drive requirements for specialized, Non-GIG communications systems • Dedicated Bilateral and Multilateral networks required to link special communities of interest – and to bring network capabilities to Partner Nations who may have no significant network infrastructure • Non-GIG Networks provide about 40% of EUCOM’s communications with African Partner Nations

  12. Peacetime Engagement (Phase 0) Full Spectrum Influence WAR Interoperability: More than DoD NGOs Dominant Maneuver Doctrine Organization Training Manpower Leadership People Facilities Precision Engagement Multinational Info Operations Interagency Joint C2 Focused Logistics Full Dimensional Protection National Agencies

More Related