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