NATO CAPABILITIES OPERATIONAL READINESS Post-ISAF...NATO CAPABILITIES & OPERATIONAL READINESS...
Transcript of NATO CAPABILITIES OPERATIONAL READINESS Post-ISAF...NATO CAPABILITIES & OPERATIONAL READINESS...
1
NATO CAPABILITIES &
OPERATIONAL READINESS Post-ISAF
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
RESOURCES CONFERENCE @ Istanbul
October 2012
Patrick WOUTERS Brigadier General, BEL AF INTERNATIONAL MILITARY STAFF Plans and Policy Deputy Director
2
• The Security Environment ahead of us – Morphing nature of the Threat
– The POST-ISAF climate
• Scenarii & case studies for FUTURE OPS – Parameters & Military considerations
– The SCENARIO debate in favour versatile capabilities ?
– New Terms of the COERCION-equation
• Focus of OPERATIONAL Readiness ? – Future Alliance Military structures & Forces
• Features & challenges
• Future NCS & NFS HQs
• Outline Air C2
• Linkages J-ISR Architecture
• Conclusion & way ahead : the CONNECTED Forces Initiative
Morphing nature of the Threat
Virtual
Territorial Adapted from ACT input
SYMMETRIC
Front
Companies
Corrupt Members
of Legitimate Govt’s
Ideologically
opposing NGOs
Safe Havens
Religious
Recruitment,
Proselytizing,
Cyber / Internet
activists
Facilitators,
Smugglers
(Unregulated)
Financiers
(Suicide)
Training Camps
Media & Propaganda
Piracy, Narcotics,
Human Trafficking
BM+WMDs
Technical Expertise
Weapons Suppliers
IEDs Conventional
MILITARY Force
(an unknown combination of unknowns)
4
The POST – ISAF Climate
• Political & parliamentary climate deteriorated
– Economic austerity reflected in Defence budgets
• Military Establisments reconstituting
– Material fatigue • Partial recovery from AFG & PAK theatres
– Personnel levels & motivation • veteran battle stress & disorders
• Strategic re-alignments & unstable political allegiences
– US pivot to Asia-Pacific
– Resurgent RUSSIA
– Partners & partners • redefine security debitors vs creditors & concentrate on win-win sit’s
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
5
• similar to the project-triangle
• the defence-posture-triangle
Parameters of our future Defence Posture
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
TIME
QUALITY COST
PROJECT
SCOPE
READINESS
QUALITY QUANTITY
RESOURCES
REQUIRED
i.e. to protect against COERCION
COLLECTIVE DEFENCE
CRISIS RESPONSE OPERATIONS
6
Scenarii & case studies for FUTURE OPS Parameters & MILITARY considerations
• Classic Planning parameters categorise ...
– by NATO agreed Mission Types = 15
• High Intensity : CD – CT – PE – EOP
• Low Intensity : PK - CM – CP - ESE - SHA – DR AT - NEO – SCA - PM – PB
– by size (for NDPP use)
• Smaller Joint Ops - Major Joint Ops – MJO+
– through Generic Planning Situations
• aggregate MT defining End State – Objectives – Effects
– into Case Studies
• in context of GEOGRAPHICAL situations
• REAL (FUTURE) DIVIDING LINES
– NATO LEADING versus SUPPORTING
– NATO ‘ad hoc’ MISSIONS & TASKS
• CRISIS MANAGEMENT <> COMBAT <> POST-CONFLICT STAB & RECON
– LONG TERM & TERRITORIAL <> BRIEF & KINETIC <> REMOTE & VIRTUAL (sic)
• JOINT = yes, but ...
• LAND Heavy – MAR Heavy – AIR Heavy(i.e. NO-boots-on-the-ground) - CYBER – SPACE
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
High Intensity = Collective Defence Counter-Terrorism Peace Enforcement Extract OP Low Intensity = Peace Keeping Crisis Management Conflict Prevention Enforce Sanct Embargo Sp Hum Aid DisRelief Sp Implicit in NDPP = Anti-Terror Non-Combatant Extraction Ops Sp Civ Aid Peace Making Peace Building
7
SCENARIO debate should favour versatile (versus single use) capabilities
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
COLLECTIVE DEFENCE
CRISIS RESPONSE OPERATIONS
MOST DEMANDING SCENARIO
MOST LIKELY SCENARIO
High INTENSITY COMBAT CAPABILITIES
EXPEDITIONARY CAPABILITIES
EXCLUSIVE High INT CAPABILITIES (that cannot be used in CRO)
EXCLUSIVE CRO CAPABILITIES (that cannot be used for CD)
CAPABILITIES with BEST potential to be USED for the FULL range of future NATO OPS • in any scenario, forseable or not • that can concentrate effects, if & where required • that can MITIGATE the non-availability of other CAPABILITIES
ROLE of CAPABILITIES OWNED/OPERATED/FUNDED by NATO = ENABLE in the THEATRE
8
New Terms of the COERCION-equation
• The semantics of COERCION has changed – COLD WAR Deterrence was against a ‘HOSTILE TAKEOVER’
• Military action sought to ...
– DEFEAT & TAKE CONTROL of ALL Soviet <> NATO Centres of Gravity
– THREATEN Territorial Integrity ACROSS time & space
– Today’s deterrence should guard NATO from DISRUPTION
• A-SYMMETRIC or HYBRID action will seek to ...
– DISRUPT – DISORDER – CONFUSE – DISARRAY Centres of Gravity of CHOICE
– THREAT is limited in time & space
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
READINESS
QUALITY QUANTITY
RESOURCES
REQUIRED
Media
Cyberspace
Internet
Economy
Natural resources
& Finances
Societal
CoG
Populations (Territorial)
ENCLAVES of
CONTENTION
Cohesion of
9
Focus of OPERATIONAL Readiness ?
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
READINESS
QUALITY QUANTITY
RESOURCES
REQUIRED
Media
Cyberspace
Internet
Societal
CoG
Populations
(Territorial)
ENCLAVES of
CONTENTION
SOF (Few-boots-on-the-ground)
JISR+PGM Capability
Given that the THREAT is limited in time & space, OPERATIONAL READINESS should deter against & guard from COERCION by DISRUPTION !
That will inevitably involve MINIMAL reaction times, but CAPs limited in scope
Economy
Natural resources
& Finances
IMMEDIATE RESPONSE CAPs + CONCEPTS & PLANS
BMD+CBRN
Trained & certified NRF
10
Operational Readiness graduated i.f.o. breath of Coercive FACTOR
• need EARLY WARNING
– Strategic Analysis capacity
– Reliable & available SENSORS
• need EARLY CONSENSUS to ACT
– Build up ifo scope of threat
• TRAIN & CERTIFY
• GENERATE & DEPLOY
– Ability to ‘Quick-connect’
• POL with MIL
• NCS with NFS
• Allies with Partners
• MIL with CIV effects
• need EARLY use of LL to re-orient mission training
to adapt & reconfigure
to avoid mission creep
to re-focus exercise policy
READINESS HQs and Forces (*)
0-48 hrs Ops Liaison Recce
Team NRF
CJ-CBRND-TF
Stand Naval Forces
NATINADS
JTF HQ (L)
JTF HQ (AMPHIB) Graduated
Readiness
Forces
5 days NRF JFHQ
5-30
days
Immediate Response
Forces
0-60 days Response Force Pool NATO Deployable
Forces
0-90 days High Readiness Forces NDF Follow-On
Forces
91-180 d Forces of Lower
Readiness
NDF Follow-On
Forces
OpLevel C2
Response Force Pool
Immediate Response Forces
(*) Conceptual Framework on Alliance (CFAO) refers
11
1 Permanently assigned to NATO. High Readiness Force (M) HQ capable of commanding Maritime Operations at Expanded Task Force (ETF) and Major Joint Operations
2 Permanently assigned to NATO. 7 High Readiness Force (L) HQs (ARRC, NRDC-TU, NRDC-GENL, NRDC-IT, NRDC-SP, MNC NE, NDC-GR)
Operational Command (OPCOM) SACEUR
National Command until NAC approval of the Operation Plan (OPLAN) – Transfer of Authority as OPCOM SACEUR, SACEUR access for evaluation of exercises and training
Coordination
NCS NFS
Entity
ACT
JFTC JWC JALLC
Portugal Poland Norway
ACO
JFC BS JFC NP AIRCOM MARCOM CIS GP
D-AOC
CAOC DACCC
HRF(L)HQ2 STRIKFOR
NATO1
NAEW&C AGS
EURO CORPS
RRC-FR FR JFAC GE JFAC UK JFAC FRMARFOR UKMARFOR SPMARFOR ITMARFOR
D-AOC
Signals Battalion
Signals Battalion
Signals Battalion
CAOC
LANDCOM
Belgium The Netherlands Italy Turkey UK Germany
Germany Spain Italy
Portugal Germany/Italy See 2
Poland Germany Italy
DELIVERING NATO Command & Control NATO Command Structure and NATO Force Structure HQs
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NCS Deployable
Connecting NATO 2020
Virtual
Territorial
(1) By default for 1st MJO / SJO, then NFS (2) Includes NATINAMDS, SNMG, SNMCMG
NCIRC, CCOMC and Depl CIS Modules including backbone of Fut Miss Network
(3) Supported for AIR Heavy Ops (4) Supported for MAR Heavy Ops (5) Policy & C2 arrangements TBD
Graduated Readiness Forces (LAND)
JFAC (3) JFC
JFMC (4)
(1)(2)
AIR Task
Force (3)
MAR Task
Force (4)
Special OPS Task
Force
NRF
Deployable
CIS / FMN
NSHQ
AWACS Counter
Intell
AGS BMDC2
SPACE(5)
ASC
JAC Molesworth
JEWCS
13
• NCS remains the C² backbone of the Alliance
– FULL spectrum capability (to include Art 5)
– Readiness of C² arrangements
– Linkages to NFS and National HQ
• New DEPLOYABILITY model
– In theatre Joint HQ (for LAND Heavy OPS) • directly in Sp of MIL-Strat
– Network enabled (static) HQ for Air and Mar Heavy OPS
• Ability to Face New Challenges
– CIV-MIL interaction
• SHAPE Comprehensive Crisis Ops Mngt Centre
• Part of a wider REFORM
– Resource Reform
• Manpower reductions – Cost of ownership concerns
• Review of Host Nations Support arrangements
– Agency and NATO HQ reform
• CIS synergies between static and deployable parts
becomes
14
Future NCS and NFS HQs (*)
• Cost-lie-where-they-fall – NFS Training & simulation
• Common funding for – certifying exercise
– deployment
– recovery
of NCS + NFS HQs
• NCS + NFS JFHQ – in Long Term Rotation Plan
• Readiness = 30 days – given that NRF takes first SJO
• Deployable – with advance C2 elm
• Training & certification – 6 months prior standby
– distributed learning & simulation
NATO UNCLASSIFIED (*) Conceptual Framework on Alliance (CFAO) refers
15
Deployable
AIR OPS Centre Static AIR
DEFENCE Centre
Deployable
AIR OPS Centre
Static AIR
DEFENCE Centre
Deployable
AIR OPS Centre
NCS CAOC UEDEM
NCS CAOC TORREJON
Deployable Air C² Centre DACCC POGGIO
Deployable
TAC C²
Deployable Sensors
(scalable)
Air Com RAMSTEIN
New NCS Outline Air C2
Peace Establishment JFACC
Strategy Combat
Plans
Combat
Operations
Intelligence,
Surveillance,
Reconnaissance
Combat Service
Support
Command Group
(Embedded) Air Ops Center
Crisis Establishment
JFAC Ramstein
JOA
(§)
15
Deployable
TAC C²
16
Linkage J-ISR Architecture
High Altitude Geo
Wide Area Coverage GMTI/SAR
AEW & C2
Full Motion Video
GROUND STATION JFAC
TAC RECCE/
TAC AIR
ANALYSIS
TARGETING
Battle
Damage
Assessment
SIGINT
HUMINT
Joint Ops Area
17
Way ahead : the CONNECTED Forces Initiative
• WHY Connect Forces (before an operation) ? – so they would be INTEROPERABLE during OPS
• WHO should be Connected ? – ALL actors in a JOA
• COMMAND & CONTROL
– NCS <> NFS <> National HQs <> IOs <> NGOs
• FRONTLINE Troops + SUPPORT ELEMENTS
– including THEATRE (STRAT-OPS-TAC) RESERVES
• CIVIL ACTORS + Private MIL Companies
• HOW should Forces be(come) CONNECTED ? – TRAINING (within ETEE) + DOCTRINE
– Special COMPONENTS • Bolstering NRF
• Enhancing SOF
– TECHNOLOGY (including CIS) + STANDARDS (C3B + CNAD)
OpLevel C2
Response Force Pool
Immediate Response Forces COST
FACTORS
18
CONCLUSIONS
• NATO’s ...
– ... HEADQUARTERS & AGENCIES are RE-FORMING
– ... COMMAND Structures are RE-CALIBRATING
– ... FORCES are RE-CONSTITUTING (post-conflict)
– ... PARTNERS are RE-DISCOVERING (interoperability needs)
• NATO’s C2 & OPERATIONAL READINESS should ...
– ... RE-APPRAISE their future operating environment
– ... RE-VIEW its hardware challenges (processor speed)
– ... RE-CONFIGURE its software
– ... RE-CONNECT NATO’s MAIN processors : i.e. the COMMAND & the FORCE Structure
19
Other than the ACRONYMS : AOR=Area of Responsibility C²=Command & Control CCOMC=Comprehensive Crisis & Ops Management Centre CoG=Centrres of Gravity CNAD=Conference of National Armament Directors C3B=Consultation,Command & Control Board DCM=Deployable Communication & Information system Modules FMN=Future Mission Network JISR=Joint Intelligence Surveillance & Reconnaissance JALLC=Joint Analysis & Lessons Learned Centre NCS= NATO COMMAND STRUCTURE NFS=NATO FORCE STRUCTURE NATINAMDS=NATO Air integrated Air & Missile Defence System NCIRC=NATO Computor Incident Responce Centre NRF=NATO Response Force SLA=Service Level Agreements SNMG = Standing NATO Maritime Group SNMCMG=Standing NATO Mine Counter Measures Group SOF=Special Ops Forces WMD=Weapons of mass Destruction
20
CFI ETEE Strands of Work
• Transparent Management process
– adaptable online tools for cost-effective & accessible training
• Enforce standards for validation & certification
• Large scale exercises for low + high intensity conflict
– maximise CoE – Partner Training & Edu centres
• Greater use of common doctrine – concepts – standards & procedures supporting interoperability
• Simulation to reduce running costs
NATO UNCLASSIFIED