coalition interoperability assurance & validation (ciav) · pdf filecoalition...

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


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)


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


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



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



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



UNCLASSIFIED IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 7


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



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


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


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



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.



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



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



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



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


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)



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


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


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


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



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



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



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



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



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


UNCLASSIFIED

NOR LTC Nils Prestmo

[email protected]

CAN Mr. Bruce Morris

[email protected]

DEU LtCol Tom Erlenbruch

[email protected]

DNK Mr. Esben Andersen

[email protected]

FRA Mr. Vincent Motte

[email protected]

GBR LTC Jon Fraser

[email protected]

ITA LTC Luigi Sambin

[email protected]

NLD Maj Hans Baltzer

[email protected]

NATO Mr. Mel Smith

[email protected]

SWE Mr. Jan Engman

[email protected]

USA Mr. Jeff Phipps

[email protected]



UNCLASSIFIED

Questions?



UNCLASSIFIED 2011-08-23 & 24 // AMN CIAV 28 IEF Session: 1 & 4, Track: HQDA CIO/G-6

../Lokale innstillinger/Data$/FIS/INI FK-KKIS AMN-UTREDNING/01 Møter/2010-09-20 NC3A AMN/NOR AMN Meeting 20100921/Presentations and Examples/CIAV/Downloads/USRPNT1/logon/Upcoming events.ppt


UNCLASSIFIED

CIAV Phase Assessments Key Findings and

Recommendations



Robert Boerjan

Army Coalition Assessment Lead/Coordinator

CTSF, AMC LCMC

[email protected]


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


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


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



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.



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.



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



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



UNCLASSIFIED

CIAV Phase 4 FIRES

Efforts and Results



MAJ Kevin Neumann

JITC


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


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.



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.


coalition interoperability assurance & validation (ciav) · pdf filecoalition...

Documents