LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Coalition Interoperability Assurance & Validation (CIAV)
Information Exchange Forum
Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6
Facilitator: Joan C. Smith, HQDA CIO/G-6, Interoperability & Certification
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
CTTP No N/A
Owner: CIAV Management Group
Originator: CIAV WG
Version: Version 20110725
Date : 25 July 2011
Style of Brief 101
AMN Coalition Interoperability
Assurance and Validation (CIAV)
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Operational Issue
Afghanistan Mission Network
Coalition Mission Threads
AMN Governance
Coalition Interoperability Assurance & Validation (CIAV)
Coalition Test & Evaluation Environment (CTE2)
Architecture Working Group (AWG)
CMT Review
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 3
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Coalition forces within Afghanistan could not communicate effectively and share operational Commander’s guidance, information and intelligence
•Different networks with inadequate cross-domain solutions resulted in poor ops, planning and intelligence information exchange between U.S. and NATO forces in International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)
•Communication gaps between partner nations increased risks to life, resources, and efficiency
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 4
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
The underlying importance of the AMN as a blueprint for future Alliance mission networks and for the governance model for new complex programs in theater is a fundamental underpinning of the AMN Capability Planning approach. AMN and its spiral development is proving to be a test bed for future capability development, stressing the importance of progressive development processes whereby increasingly adaptive and agile CIS delivery is being expedited in support of operations. The collapsing of traditional acquisition processes is bringing innovative and flexible solutions to the war-fighter in shorter timescales than hitherto deemed possible. This trajectory in CIS delivery is underpinned by COMISAF whereby he states that the AMN is the most important enabling capability he has as a commander. The approach is about ‘command – centric’ delivery that is ‘network – enabled’ and not ‘network – centric’.
Gen David Petraeus COMISAF, Dec 10
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 5
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Primary Coalition, Command, Control, Communications and Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) network in Afghanistan for all ISAF forces and operations
Consists of the ISAF SECRET network as the core with connections to national extensions from numerous TCNs
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 6
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 7
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Service
Mgmt
Joint
Fires
MEDEVAC
Force
Protection
Joint
ISR
Freedom
of Movement
C-IED
COP TACTICAL
OPERATIONAL
STRATEGIC
Full COP requires
Vertical & Horizontal
Information Exchange
It must be understood that one mission thread drives the other threads in various ways.
2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 8 IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 9
JFCBS
SHAPE THEATER
Secretariat
Forward
P
U
R
P
L
E
B
R
I
D
G
E
AMN Capability
Authority
Senior Responsible Officer –
COMISAF
Operating Authority - NCSA
COM IJC
AMNOC
AMN Enterprise
Services
Federated Control
Joining Rules
AMN
Secretariat
AMN
Steering Group
AMN
Working Group AMN CAB TCN
Change Mgt
AMN
NETOPS
CIAV Architecture
WG ISAB OPT
ACT
NATIONS
Design and
Implementation
Authority
Operating
Authority
3
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Process and methodology for Assurance & Validation (A&V) of mission thread interoperability on the AMN
Process for validating Coalition Mission Threads (CMT) and Coalition Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (CTTP)
Assures information exchanges and operational information exchange processes
Provides CMT Capability and Limitation Reports supported by Operational Impact Statements
10 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Coalition Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (CTTP) present the end to end (E2E) mission thread performance criteria for Coalition Interoperability Assurance and Validation (CIAV) events. The T1 (tactic-mission thread) presents operational mission requirements and frames Information Exchange Requirements (IER). Functional Area Services (FAS) further parse the T1 to service specific tasking in which the T2 (enabling architecture) is designed and executed via country specific procedures (P). The physical systems utilized within the T2 are identified and depict the IER flow in order to meet the T1 operational requirements via country specific procedures.
CMT Battlespace
Management
•T1 of CTTP •CONOPS •Operational REQ (Fidelity) •MMR
•T2 and P of CTTP •Technical REQ •Data Format •Data Standard
“IER” KPP
MOP MOE
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 11
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
The CIAV Mission Statement:
Increase the exchange of critical Coalition Mission Thread (CMT) warfighting information and improve overall interoperability allowing Coalition forces to fight more effectively and efficiently.
The CIAV Vision:
To improve overall global interoperability through the implementation and execution of a Coalition focused, mission based interoperability process enabling multiple nations to fight as one.
Ensure a succinct exchange of critical warfighting information to multiple Coalition partners.
Assure & Validate interoperability of authorized mission threads and capabilities through standardized operational requirements.
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 12
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
CIAV is a function that provides operational A&V of coalition interoperability based on authorized CMTs
CIAV interoperability is NOT about providing opinion; it is about providing C5ISR mission risk assessment and operational impact with appropriate mitigation
CIAV does NOT replace National/Joint/Service/System interoperability testing activities
CIAV is tasked by the Capability Authority and is executed by the CIAV Management Group (National Co-Chairs)
CIAV is operationally relevant and persistent; it is enduring
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 13
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Purpose: Responsible for assuring and validating services, systems and business processes supporting AMN mission threads
Interoperability execution arm for the AMN Governance structure
Managed by national co-chairs/heads of delegation from participating troop contributing nations (TCNs) and NATO
Coordinates Assurance & Validation events per AMN Secretariat and National direction and provides results/recommendations on mission and coalition interoperability improvement across AMN
Executing mission thread assurance for initial 8 AMN Coalition Mission Threads prioritized by IJC in 90 day sprints
14 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Time
Phase X
Report
Phase X
CMG Decision Brief
Phase Y
Planning
Phase Y
SOVT
Phase Y
A&V Phase X
Phase Y
Combined Event
Phase Y
Report
Phase Y
CMG Decision Brief
Phase Z
Planning
15 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
CAN
DEU
DNK
FRA
GBR
ITA
NLD
NOR
NATO (NC3A and NCSA)
SWE
USA IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 16
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 6 IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 17
Blandford and Porton Down
GBR
C4AD Coalition Lab
VA, USA
CTSF--US Army Battlelab TX, USA
LCSS-ISAF Battlelab Ottawa
CAN
Battlelabs Pratica di Mare and
Anzio, ITA
DGA MI Bruz FRA
Battle Lab Kolsas NOR
Euskirchen DEU
NC3A Battlelab The Hague
NLD
NCSA ISTF Mons BEL
JITC CENTRIXS ISAF Lab MD, USA
USN Coalition Labs--SSC CA, USA
JITC Instrumentation
AZ, USA
NGA Labs CA, USA
Coalition Test & Evaluation
Environment (CTE2)
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 18
ATTAC
Battleview
CHAT
CSD-CAN [Service]
FMV [Feed]
Internet Explorer (CIDNE Web)
MIP2 Gateway
OpenFire (CHAT)
SC2PS Client
TransVerse Client [CHAT]
CHAT
CIDNE Web
CORSOM
ICC Lite
IGEOSIT
LC2IS
JOCWatch
MIP
CHAT
CIDNE Web
ITA-BFT (NFFI)
JOCWatch
SIACCON 2
CHAT
COP InfoManager
COP LM
ICC
IFTS Data Terminal
IFTS Server (R)
IFTS Server (S)
IGEOSIT
JOCWatch
NIRIS
Bowman
CHAT
CIDNE Web
CSD
HeATS & GrATS (H & G)
ICC
IPA
JADOCS GBR
NIRIS
NITB
TIGR
C2PC Gateway
CHAT
CIDNE Web
GCCS-J
JADOCS
TIGR
CHAT
GCCS-J
MOSS 2007
TransVerse Client [CHAT]
ADSI
AFATDS
AMDWS
BC Server (PASS)
BCS3
C2PC
C2PC
C2PC Gateway
CHAT
CIDNE
CPOF Client Application
CPOF Data Bridge
CPOF Master Repository
CPOF Mid Tier Server
DCGS-A
FBCB2 - AIC (TOC)
FBCB2 – EPLRS
GCCS-A
JADOCS
JOCWatch
MIP Gateway
TAIS
TransVerse Client [CHAT]
CTE2
NC3A Battlelab NLD
Porton Down GBR
JITC Labs MD & AZ, USA
CTSF Battlelab TX, USA
CFX-LSL CAN
JSIC VA, USA
DGA-MI RIT FRA
Italy Army Battle Lab
ITA
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Develops the overall AMN architecture and modeling of the AMN mission threads in order to support multinational C5ISR planning at the enterprise level. AWG activities are focused on supporting the conduct of safe operations and enable operational agility in the Afghanistan Area of Operations. The AMN AWG supports the following objectives:
• Migration to a common Coalition C5ISR network
• Identify common coalition “mission threads” and ensure each has adequate information systems support
• Ensure data consistency and availability across the AMN for the duration of the operation
• Enable nations to bring their own tools to the fight, yet fight using common AMN data
• Improve efficiency and effectiveness by reducing the number of systems and data sources
• Enable the sharing of information
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 20
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Purpose:
• Capture and discover the RC’s operational and technical requirements, business processes, and systems utilized to conduct the successful execution of coalition mission threads
Authority:
• HQ IJC via FRAGO
Outputs:
• Recommend mission and coalition interoperability improvements across AMN
• Identify limitations (gaps) in process and technology
• Update AMN Architecture
21 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
CIAV embedded into AMN Change Management
• Identified Cat 3 and all Cat 4 changes must go through CIAV
TCNs must follow national Change Management requirements
TCNs must inform the AMN Change Manager about upcoming changes on the AMN for inclusion in the AMN Strategic Roadmap
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 22
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
RFC Categories
Cat 3 - “Able to satisfy as a major change or enhancement to an existing OA Service.”
•Major Change Existing Service
•Solution not compliant with AMN Service Catalogue
•Solution compliant with AMN Capability Plan
• Implementation requires resources, testing or engineering beyond in-theatre capability
•CIAV assessment may be required
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 23
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
RFC Categories
Cat 4 - “Able to satisfy through detailed planning, funding and delivery of a new service/solution.”
•Major Change New Service
•Solution not compliant with AMN Service Catalogue
•Solution not compliant with AMN Capability Plan
•Significant resource allocation, testing or engineering required
•New TCN joining the AMN
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 24
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 25
CIAV
Training
RIP/TOA
MRE/MRX
Governance
AMN
Operational
DMZ
“landing site”
• Lessons learned
• Ops Issues /
Gaps
Data
Coordination
RESULTS
Op
Exercises
Developers
PMs Policy &
Doctrine
Push/pull data for
training prep
Ops Data
• Technical Req.
• Interoperability AV
• TTP Validation • CAPS/LIMS Report
• Policy / Doctrine
Issues & TTP
Requirements
2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
NOR LTC Nils Prestmo
CAN Mr. Bruce Morris
DEU LtCol Tom Erlenbruch
DNK Mr. Esben Andersen
FRA Mr. Vincent Motte
GBR LTC Jon Fraser
ITA LTC Luigi Sambin
NLD Maj Hans Baltzer
NATO Mr. Mel Smith
SWE Mr. Jan Engman
USA Mr. Jeff Phipps
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 26
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Questions?
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 27
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 28 IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
CIAV Phase Assessments Key Findings and
Recommendations
Information Exchange Forum
Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6
Robert Boerjan
Army Coalition Assessment Lead/Coordinator
CTSF, AMC LCMC
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // CIAV Phase Assessments, Key Findings and Recommendations 30
PH 1-1B
Focused on Blue Force
Situational Awareness
(BFSA) & Friendly
Force Information (FFI)
between GBR and US
PH 2
Focused on
Battlespace Awareness
AMN Mission Thread
PH 3
Focused on Counter-
IED AMN Mission
Thread + TCN
Integration
PH 4
Focused on Joint Fires
& ISR AMN Mission
Threads + AMN Change
Management + TCN
Integration
PH 5/6
Focused ISR, Service
Management, &
MEDEVAC AMN
Mission Threads + AMN
Change Management +
TCN Integration
NATO
US
GBR
NATO
US
GBR
CAN
SITE FOCUSED SITE FOCUSED
IJC
RC
TF
TF
CMD FOCUSED
IJC
RC
TF
RC
TF
IJC
RC RC
TF
RC
TF
CMD FOCUSED CMD FOCUSED
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
1. Identified interoperability issues with a TCN’s soon to be deployed system that negatively affected BFSA
2. Identified standards issues that reduced quality of BFSA
3. Identified loss of TCN ownership of data as it moved through the architecture
4. Validated CIAV processes for expanding fidelity of future efforts
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // CIAV Phase Assessments, Key Findings and Recommendations 31
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
1. TCN patched software prior to deployment which prevented potential in-theater Warfighter BFSA failure
2. Produce detailed mapping of standards deltas for BFSA
3. Further collect and assess the loss of data ownership
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // CIAV Phase Assessments, Key Findings and Recommendations 32
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
1. Battlespace Awareness requires correlation and positive picture management by TCN to ensure quality of service to the end user.
2. Increased risk of duplicate tracks/events on COP due to availability of data through multiple paths.
3. Lack of a common time standard across the AMN leading to data latency issues. Increased risk to loss of service of US PASS when security authentication is disabled to allow Coalition systems’ access.
4. National identification of data passed throughout the AMN is not universal. This impacts national operational record keeping policies.
5. There are currently no defined Authoritative Data Sources for the Battlespace Object Management Service.
6. AMN Change Control is currently unable to provide CIAV and the Architecture WG with a sufficiently agile service.
7. Activity was constrained due to lack of technical support for various AMN systems.
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // CIAV Phase Assessments, Key Findings and Recommendations 33
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
1. TCNs to implement IJC approved COP CONOPS on AMN.
2. AMN Change Management must control all Authoritative Data Sources, network configuration, system versions & configuration.
3. IJC/J6 to implement the use of Coalition PKI (PASS certificates) to enable secure Coalition access to PASS.
4. IJC to issue time standard policy.
5. Further investigation required to id & resolve data tagging issues.
6. IJC to define the Authoritative Data Sources and their subordinate hierarchy for the Battlespace Object Management Service.
7. AMN Service Management Framework must provide CIAV and the Architecture WG with authoritative artifacts in a timely manner.
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // CIAV Phase Assessments, Key Findings and Recommendations 34
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
1. Due to multiple data models there were significant observations of data changing, data inaccuracies, and loss of data
2. Continue to confirm issues found in previous CIAV phases: Lack of a common time standard; loss of data ownership; Coalition use of PASS security (authentication); divergent standards
3. Identified significant issue with a Coalition system publishing to PASS; developer informed and corrections made prior to release
4. Identified issue with a TCN using newer standard of NFFI than was fielded allowed TCN to add additional configuration steps that mitigated the issue
5. TCNs’ desire to ‘fight’ C-IED/Events with primary C2 systems vice the use of a separate “WEB-based” process
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // CIAV Phase Assessments, Key Findings and Recommendations 35
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
1. CMT Owners (C-IED & Battlespace Awareness) identify requirements for one data model (future capability)
2. Identify responsible organization to correct: Lack of a common time standard; loss of data ownership; Coalition use of PASS security (authentication); divergent standards
3. Need to ensure synchronization of TCNs’ new capabilities to current standards and data models (NATO Interoperability Standards and Profiles [ADP-34E; 25 Jan 11]) -- Identify responsible organization/agency
4. Ensure Change Management is assessed in CIAV prior to fielding in AMN
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // CIAV Phase Assessments, Key Findings and Recommendations 36
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
CIAV Phase 4 FIRES
Efforts and Results
Information Exchange Forum
Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6
MAJ Kevin Neumann
JITC
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Phase 4 – Conducted April 2011-June 2011 and included the following primary activities:
• Joint Fires Coalition Mission Thread (Time Sensitive Target and Close Air Support)
• Troop Contributing Nation Integration (France, Italy, Norway)
• Change Management (CIDNE 2.1.5, JOCWATCH 2.0.2)
Activities executed during Phase 4 focused on the following key questions:
• What is the level of interoperability of the Coalition Joint Fires Mission Thread?
• Will there be an impact to existing capabilities for command and control when new systems are added or existing systems are upgraded?
• Will there be an impact to existing capabilities for command and control when new TCN systems are integrated into the AMN, and their systems will operate as Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures require?
Activities executed in conjunction with Phase 4 include:
• Continued Multilateral Interoperability Program (MIP) assurance and validation
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // CIAV Phase 4 FIRES Efforts and Results 38
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
1. TCNs define if the exchange of overlays is supported by the MIP components. If not, default is to fall back on basic OIG exchange (w/ the corresponding loss of context).
2. During MIP Gateway configuration, operator request OIG selection for data exchange from the sending MIP2 Gateway.
3. Review C2 systems consuming track data; revalidate.
4. Determine alternative method for exchange of facilities; revalidate.
5. Highlight false connectivity status and submit Engineer Change Request (ECR) to PM Fires and Effects.
6. System Interoperability: Leverage EUCOM hosted NATO Targeting Conference, 03-07 OCT 2011, form a working group which provides recommendations to improve SA and sharing of targeting data with all TCNs in the future.
7. Technically feasible to link databases; but policy needs to be developed for proper releasability and sharing of targeting information.
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // CIAV Phase 4 FIRES Efforts and Results 39
LANDWARNET 2011 TRANSFORMING CYBER WHILE AT WAR UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
1. Targeting systems on the AMN are not automated with other C2 systems.
2. TCN target intelligence records and targeting lists databases are not synchronized.
3. Warfighter automated tool for targeting terminates connectivity randomly; depicts false federated connectivity.
4. Inability to exchange objects representing facilities as ADatP-3 BL 11c messages with certain TCNs.
5. TCN system slow to process large amounts of ground tracks.
6. MIP Change Management: Use of overlays to group data (graphics, Ground Tracks, events) was not handled in a consistent manner by each MIP2 Gateway.
7. Standards Issues: Lack of a common data model results in inconsistent or incomplete data exchanges between TCN systems.
IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // CIAV Phase 4 FIRES Efforts and Results 40