command overview for CAPT Duryea by yaohongm



             Captain George Galdorisi (USN – retired)
               Director, Corporate Strategy Group
                SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific
SSC Pacific … on Point and at the Center of C4ISR
“Success in optimizing [C4ISR technologies] will be perhaps
the single most important capability that will allow Canadian
naval forces to provide viable support to national and
multinational objectives … With the clearly established
objectives in Strategy 2020 for greater interoperability and
modernization, a guiding principle of future force
development will be achieving ‘seamless operational
integration at short notice,’ with our major allies (and the
USN, in particular), in these key areas of warfare.”

                 Leadmark – The Navy’s Strategy for 2020
“What is very clear today is that the world’s oceans no
longer serve to shield Canada from far-distant events.
Rather, they connect us through a vast and intricate
web of relationships – political, economic, financial,
and social – that has made us neighbours with all the
world’s peoples.”
                    Vice Admiral Dean McFadden
                    Chief of Canadian Maritime Staff
                    Conference of Defence Associations
                    Ottawa, Canada, March 04, 2010
         What We Will Cover Today
 Background

 Perspective

 C4ISR Technologies

 The Challenge of Naval Coalition Networking

 Tell It to the Labs - Achieving Coalition Networking

 A Way Forward
                C4ISR In The News
“Researchers Trace Data Theft to Intruders in China”
                                            New York Times
          “Apple Fights Rival Google on New Turf”
                                            06 April 2010
                                   Wall Street Journal
“The “Going to War? We’ve Got An App For of Toronto,
                                   08 University
        researchers, based at the April 2010 That”
provide a detailed account of how the spy operation …
              “Rethinking a Gospel of a Web”Times
                                    personal April
                                          01 computers in
systematically hacked into New York Times 2010
government offices on several continents.”
                                  11 April Kremlin”
            “Innovation, By Order of the2010
“It’s not only that you’re only secure as theTimes
                                    New York weakest link in
your network … butGiven interconnected 2010 you’re only
                                    12 April world,
   “U.S. Scientists in an Access to Cloud Computing”
as secure as the weakest link in the global chain of
       “China’s Internet Giants May Be Stuck There”
                                         Wall Street Journal
                                         05 Feb. 2010
                                         New York Times
                        Rafal Rohozinski
                                         24 March 2010
                        Principal Investigator, Ghostnet study
 Most navies represented here have a rich history of
  cooperation at sea

 This successful cooperation in peace & war has
  raised the bar for future levels of cooperation

 This naval cooperation has become instantiated in
  the nascent global maritime partnership

 Challenges to this enhanced cooperation are many
  and are dependent on effective C4ISR
 Commonwealth naval communication and can be traced
  back at least as far back as First Sea Lord Fisher’s
  Admiralty War Rooms in 1904
 Rapid advances in technology, beginning at the dawn of
  the 20th Century, have ushered in exciting possibilities
  for faster, better, and more effective naval
 Navies wishing to effectively network at sea will likely
  make substantial investments in technology, what is
  crucial is ensuring that these technologies enhance, not
  impede, networking
 The fact navies have led land forces in networking
  sometimes obscures technological challenges
             Technology Predictions
“No one will need more than 637 KB of memory for a
personal computer –able to hold talk?" enough for
"Who the hell wants to hear actors on to any market it
"Television won't be 640K ought to be
                           H.M. Warner, Warner Bros., 1927
anybody.”after the first six months. People will soon get
                                  Bill Gates, Microsoft, 1981
tired of staring at a plywood box every night."
“Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I
                    theaiPod will 20th Century Fox,
                   Darryl Zanuck,be dead, finished,1946
“Next Christmasfurtherworld market for maybegone,
“I think there
see no hope for is         developments.”                 five
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in
kaput.” Roman engineer Julius Sextus Frontinus, 10 AD
their home."      Sir Alan Sugar, British entrepreneur, 2005
                   Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943
              Ken Olsen, founder of mainframe-producer
              Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
“The Americans have market for copying machines do
“The world potential need of the telephone, but we is
5,000 at most.”
not. We have plenty of messenger boys.”
   IBM executives to the eventual founders Chief Engineer
                       Sir William Preece, of Xerox, 1959
                         at the British Post Office, 1878
C4ISR Technologies
                  C4ISR Today
 Current tools are focused on kinetic warfare

 Planning, situational awareness, and execution are
  only loosely connected
 Migration from stovepipe PORs to a network-
  centric/SOA environment has begun
 Most systems are bandwidth limited, and security
  and training remain challenging
 Automated correlation of like data, as well as data
  fusion remain manual processes
 The U.S. DoD is starting to embrace Web 2.0
So what does the future
 of C 4ISR look like?
So what does the future
 of C 4ISR look like?
So what does the future
 of C 4ISR look like?
Network centric migration achieved - all
 the data is available and users can
 compose own solutions

 Source 1
            Processin   Display
                g       Tool A
 Source 2

 Source 3               Tool B
 C4ISR is truly Joint…common core services
  and architecture…solutions are tailored for
  the platform and mission

 Capabilities, not systems

 Enabled by:
   Services orientation
   Common data
    standards, normalized
   Mission thread and
    platform focused
Information is independent of system
            and application

Users have a few common client applications
that consume almost anything…or small
focused applications that do one thing very well
  …and users “compose” their own tailored
  services and applications….
 Combination of agents and better data
visualization tools leads to better filters on
what information is delivered and displayed


            Level of command
 Combination of agents and better data
visualization tools leads to better filters on
what information is delivered and displayed

 Combination of agents and better data
visualization tools leads to better filters on
what information is delivered and displayed

            Available bandwidth
 Advancements in visualization tools and
  correlation and fusion approaches yield
seamless, multi-spectral, augmented reality
                view of world

Seamless transition from planning to execution
  monitoring and back, use of M&S to judge
  the effect of operations
                 C4ISR Tomorrow
 Tool set and data flow embraces all domains of warfare,
  from irregular warfare to regional conflicts

 Planning, situational awareness, execution are
  seamless and continuous

 All data is exposed, users can easily compose a
  “system” to meet any operational requirement

 Bandwidth and security challenges are largely solved

 Automated workflows + intelligent agents + fusion
  solutions + enhanced presentation tools = a faster path
  from data to knowledge

 The U.S. DoD is starting to embrace Web 5.0
The Challenge of Naval Coalition
“Is there a place for small navies in network-centric warfare?
Will they be able to make any sort of contribution in
multinational naval operations of the future? Or will they be
relegated to the sidelines, undertaking the most menial of
tasks, encouraged to stay out of the way—or stay at
home…The ‘need for speed’ in network-centric operations
places the whole notion of multinational operations at risk.”

                         Professor Paul Mitchell
                         “Small Navies and Network-centric
                         Warfare: Is There a Role?”
                         Naval War College Review
          Naval Coalition Networking:
          How Big a Challenge?
 Effective coalition networking depends on mutually
  compatible C4ISR technology
 Rapid technology advances and insertion have often
  impeded effective coalition networking
 Coalition partners often ask the question: “ What is the
  price of admission to network effectively”
 But the right question is: “ What is the price of omission
  if we can not network together”
 Coordinated technological development in parallel offers
  one promising solution
 This sounds great in theory, but who will provide
  stewardship for this parallel development?
“In today’s world, nothing significant can get done outside of
a coalition context, but we have been humbled by the
challenges of devising effective coalition communications.”

                    Dr. David Alberts
                    Director of Research
                    U.S. Department of Defense
                    7th International Command and Control
                    Research and Technology Symposium
                    September 2002
      Tell It to the Labs:
Achieving Coalition Networking
Our “Beta-Test” Under the Auspices of
The Technical Cooperation Program:
 One Path to “Building the Networks”

One Model for International Defense
  and Networking Cooperation:
       MAR AG-1/AG-6
       MAR Action Group 1:
“Maritime Network Centric Warfare”
       MAR AG-1 Direction and TOR
 Maritime Network Centric Warfare
   Open ended

 Focus on “bounding the problem”
   Good product

 Proof of concept through multilateral analysis

 Warfighting scenarios with traction for all

 Two Studies
   Broad Issues: First Principles of NCW
   Tactical Level Analysis: MIO/ASW/ASuW
                                  AG-1 Membership


                                                            Mr. R. Christian (US)

                                                   New                        United                   United
Australia                 Canada
                                                  Zealand                    Kingdom                   States

Dr. C. Davis (NL)      Mr. P. Sutherland (NL)   Dr. D. Galligan (NL)     Mr. A. Sutherland (NL)   Mr. J. Shannon (NL)
Ms. S. Andrijich (M)   Mr. R. Burton (M)        Mr. C. Phelps (M)        Mr. P. Marland (M)       Dr. R. Klingbeil (M)
Ms. M. Hue (M)         Mr. M. Hazen (M)                                  Mr. R. Lord (M)          Dr. S. Dickinson (M)
Dr. I. Grivell (M)     Mr. B. Richards (M)                                                        Mr. G. Galdorisi (M)*
Dr. D. Sutton (M)
Dr. M. Fewell (M)

 Notes: NL = National Leader
        M = Member
           AG-1 Study “Takeaways”
 Any analysis must begin with the recognition that
  there will likely be a significant networking capability
  gap between US and coalition partners

 This analysis must evaluate the impact of
  technology insertion on a networked coalition naval

 Networking would most benefit coalition naval
  forces in planning and re-planning, training, and
  reach-back to better intelligence

 More study is needed….
      MAR Action Group 6:
“FORCEnet Implications for Coalitions”
       MAR AG-6 Direction and TOR
 Leverage AG-1 work

 Build on AG-1 work but add:
   More specificity regarding ops and force structure
   More granularity to analysis and modeling

 Work within a realistic operational scenario that all
  member nations would participate in

 Produce a product that informs national leadership
  and acquisition officials
                                  AG-6 Membership


                                                           Mr. Don Endicott (US)

                                                  New                       United                    United
Australia                 Canada
                                                 Zealand                   Kingdom                    States

Dr. A. Knight (NL)     Mr. R. Mitchell (NL)    Dr. D. Galligan (NL)*    Mr. A. Sutherland (NL) * Mr. D. Endicott (NL)
Ms. R. Kuster (M)      Mr. M. Maxwell (M)      LCDR W. Andrew (M)       Mr. P. Marland (M) *     Mr. G. Galdorisi (M)*
Ms. A. Quill (M)       Dr. M. Lefrancois (M)                            Mr. M. Lanchbury (M)     Mr. P. Shigley (M)
Mr. M. Coombs (M)                                                                                Ms. M. Gmitruk (M)
                                                                                                 Ms. K. Dufresne (M)
                                                                                                 Mr. T. McKearney (M)
                                                                                                 Ms. M. Elliott (M)
 Notes: NL = National Leader
        M = Member
        * = Former AG-1
          Summary of Key Findings
 FORCEnet improves military performance in every
  vignette assessed

 Improvements primarily in process time, decision
  making, information availability and planning

 Force effectiveness higher when all coalition units
  operate at same FORCEnet level

 Differential levels >1 among coalition units degrade
  force effectiveness

 Convene a follow-on AG to continue this work and
  focus on harmonizing technology acquisitions
A Way Forward
                  A Way Forward
 The rich history of naval cooperation to secure the
  global commons offers good examples of how our
  navies can cooperate today while raising the bar for how
  these navies work together in the future
 Today, globalization and a wide range of challenges
  mean that no navy stands alone and all navies must
  work together even more closely in peace and in war
 Networking navies effectively via C4ISR technologies
  concurrently developed is a necessary condition for
  mutual security and prosperity via an effective global
  maritime partnership
 The AUSCANNZUKUS example of naval cooperation
  under the auspices of The Technical Cooperation
  Program offers one example of how to begin to tackle
  C4ISR interoperability challenges at the lab level
“That gives me great confidence in our future, as we
prepare to embark on a second century of naval
service to Canada … We will remain engaged abroad
to ensure the lawful use of the seas, of the great
ocean highways that will be of even greater
importance in the future, in a world becoming more
interconnected every day.”
                       Vice Admiral Dean McFadden
                       Chief of Canadian Maritime Staff
Backup Slides
Notional Coalition Order of Battle
       Australia            United Kingdom
 2 ANZAC Frigates        1 LPH/LPD
 2 FFG                   2 LSD
 1 AWD                   1 Replenishment Ship
         Canada              United States
  1 Destroyers           3 Amphibious Assault
  2 Frigates             Ships
  Replenishment Ship     1 Cruiser
  Submarine              2 Destroyers
    New Zealand           3 Littoral Combat Ships

  2 ANZAC Frigates       1 Attack Submarine

  1 Replenishment
  1 Multi-role Vessel
      Initial Modeling Results - Summary
                  Summary                                                           MoE Analysis
           Network capability limits time   Force can plan in advance of      Total force at Fn Level1 reduced
Assembly   required to build force          rendezvous, training time         time required “in company” from 3
                                            reduced                           to 1 day
           Networking with increased        Gain in reducing probability of   Fn level 0 or 1 little impact, Level
  FIAC     ISR, flexible ROE enhances       FIAC “leaker” attacking HVU       2 doubles size of swarm that can
           ability to counter                                                 be countered

           Increased networking impacts     Gains realizes in better          Fn Level 1 allowed OTH sensor
           in both planning and common      networking of sensors and         monitoring and increase in
  ASW      operational picture              ISR assets (MPA, helo)            predicted HVU survivability from
                                                                              .55 to .85.
           Networking shared landing        Flexibility in delivering         Fn Level 3 produced impact as all
           craft resources speeds           supplies to beach as HA           landing craft assets were able to
 Offload   delivery of on-cal relief        mission unfolds                   service any supplying ship
           Call-For- Fire process evolves   Reduced time allows for           Time to engage reduced from 55
  Fires    from voice to digital data       improved initial accuracy, less   min (Fn Level 0) to 2 min (Fn
           exchange                         chance of targets escaping        Level 3)

           Range of networked               Better CCOI tracking through      Probability of acquiring CCOI
           capabilities for detection,      enhanced planning, asset          increased from .1 to .7 with Fn
           tracking, and search of CCOIs    management. Boarding party        Level 1. Fn Level 2 needed for
  MIO      have potential for improved      tools for personal safety and     enhanced database tool and ISR
           performance                      reachback into HQ databases       integration
awareness is
focused on effects
vice platforms

To top