Training for a Network Enabled Capability Welcome If 1st – Outline programme……………. If last – sum up what heard………. Explain this is a personal view – not that of STASYS or DEC CCII Think ‘INTROS’…………. Clive Mann MSc BSc C Eng MCIPD

Clive Mann – STASYS Training Services 21 Years in RAF BSc Physics, MSc Electronics Specialisations: EW, Data Links, Training Support Joined STASYS Sep 2001 Introduce self Mention: Trg specialist Also tours in: EW, Data Links Plus – Usual Staff Tours and Deployments STASYS – proven expertise in TDLs, also currently working in Time-Sensitive Targeting (TST), Kill-Chain Studies (KCS), Future Rapid-Effects System (FRES), Lessons Identified (note: not Lessons Learned) from Op TELIC All impacting on developing ideas in NEC <If time/small group – they intro selves also>

STASYS Training Services Data Link Courses: MIDS/JTIDS Link 16 Network Design and Management Link 11 and / or 11B Link 22 TULIP/iSMART Electronic Warfare Trg Air Battle Management Trg Business/Management Skills Product-Specific Courses Training Support TNAs Course Design First and only advert slide….. Head up STASYS Trg Servs Aware of some of trg course portfolio Also: EW/ABM Trg Business: Presentation skills, Leadership, Proj Mgt, etc Product: Mandril, Tiger……… Trg Support: TNAs, Cse Design, etc If want more - see me at Stand Other suppliers do exist

NEC Employed in Recent Ops ? Many coalition Ops over last 12 – or so – years NEC now seen as ‘way to go’….. Scope: What do we mean by NEC ? <lots of high-flown theory/definitions!> <I’m a simple soul – talk practical…> What does it mean in ‘real’ terms ? How affect average Company Commander/Type 42 Exec officer/GR7 4-Ship Lead ? How do we prepare him/her for NEC ? <May seem to be ‘stating the obvious’ at times – no apologies> <Want to generate practical debate – away from high-flown ‘Policy’>

NEC Goal To radically enhance our operational capability by improving the way we share and use information High level goal is to develop an integrated Equipment Capability (EC) of Network Programmes, Network-Ready Platforms and Integrated Headquarters. ‘Improve the way we share info…’ This – of course – is where data-links (amongst other things) come into picture.. ‘Network programmes’ ? Information network – receive/process/transport/share/protect info for forces Sensor network (air/sea/ground/space/etc based sensors) - produce info of friendly/enemy forces and battlespace environment Engagement network – where achieve desired effect, at precise place and times……..

Network Enabled Capability Trick is to link all these effectively to provide competitive edge in warfare – Need an architecture to link sensors, command & control systems and shooters to increase ‘effects’ Ideally significantly reduce ‘sensor to shooter’ time Issue – different meaning to different Services eg Need new mind-set for GR4 ‘mates’ ? – change kill times from hours to minutes!

A Network Enabled Capability Broadcast/comms services PJHQ JFHQ JFHQ Afloat Tactical HQs Command Centres Precision Forces and Strike Assets Integrated ISTAR Assets A Seamless Integration of sensors, platforms and weapons UK based and theatre support - logistics, intelligence etc OK – Let’s look at a Network Enabled Capability……….. Talk through build Fin – well, that’s theory……………

NEC Tenets Information is shared All users have an awareness of each other’s perception of the battle-space Decisions are made collaboratively Effects within the battle-space are synchronised These are tenets of NEC: NEC not simply an improvement of past (platform-centric) models -not the same thing, but better! New way of thinking about military operations: Modifies existing (eg - linear/sequential – “outside-in” warfare) models Opportunity to employ new, more responsive approaches to C2 But…………. Gotta train for it! – Now!

NEC Wish-list NEC Tenets Information is shared All users have an awareness of each other’s perception of the battle-space Decisions are made collaboratively Effects within the battle-space are synchronised Also, Please bear in mind this is a wish-list…….. “People” (DARPA, AFRL Rome, Boeing, DSTL, QiniteQ, Lockheed Martin, MITRE Corp, MIT, etc) looking at issues: Different cultures, doctrines, and languages Limited models for coalition force operations Cannot assume interoperability, reliability or availability of different nations systems

Training Shortfalls - Op Allied Force “Operation Allied Force validated the need for joint, integrated training among the Services to enhance their ability to execute both joint and coalition operations.” “Operation Allied Force underscores the criticality of joint doctrine, interoperability training, and supporting Service doctrine, tactics, techniques and procedures. Greater emphasis must be placed on interoperability training among our own forces, with those of our allies, other nations, and partners, as well as on interagency training within our Government.” Read Slide Common Threads Lack of joint/interoperability training Lack of system(s) compatibility

Training Shortfalls - Op TELIC “UK personnel must be better prepared for their C2 appointments.” “Training the people who are going to conduct the operation in as realistic an environment as possible with the equipment and procedures that they will be using is worth the effort and cost.” “UK forces must train as they expect to fight.” “UK staff deployed to US HQs must be completely familiar with the procedures and applications in use” Read Slide Common threads, eh?......... Common Threads Lack of joint/interoperability training Lack of system(s) compatibility

One possible solution: Not ‘rocket’ science………. Re-visit how we train/design training Model ‘system of systems’ Exercise ‘system of systems’ Individual Team Collective Read slide……. TNA is part of CADMID (UK procurement cycle) – so training issuesshould be addressed from start But – training (and the associated TNA) often seen as an engineering issue Usually addresses operator and maintainer individual training at this point Need to raise our eyes…….

Training Environment Individual Team Collective Define: Individual, team and collective training Building up to Full Mission rehearsal – training for NEC Nothing wrong with this – up to a point, but still often single-Service (‘stove-pipes’ again!) at individual/team level Let’s look at it from different perspective…. Full Mission Rehearsal

Training Environment Government Policy Individual Team Mission Lists Collective Previous approach ‘bottom – up’ What about ‘top – down’ ? <do build> Explain Mission Lists & MECs What does war-fighter need to fulfil his/her particular mission? Leadership skills? Situational awareness? Resource mgt skills ? This approach being developed – especially in US Now can train for individual/team & collective – in MEC terms – for NEC How?......... Mission Essential Competencies Full Mission Rehearsal

Individual Training: Self-Learn Books ? Obviously self-study has it place…………

Training Environment Player Types Individual Team Collective Live Virtual Man in the Loop Constructive Computer generated forces Individual Collective Team Problems – cost, difficulties collecting ‘players’ together - lack of platforms for training, over-stretch Perhaps train for NEC is cyber-space ? MTDS – Look for Live-Synthetic balance Here’s one I made earlier…………. Full Mission Rehearsal

Last Words: Training counts We don’t count training Capability is as dependent upon the proficiency of people as it is upon the hardware with which they fight. We need training superiority as much as we need technical superiority. We don’t count training We measure process, not proficiency, and what you don’t measure or report, you can ignore. Read slide

What you don’t measure or report, you can ignore Last Words: What you don’t measure or report, you can ignore Read slide Do we ignore capability? Do we ignore proficiency? Possibly not – but it not easy to measure/report and will – with best will in the world – often be ignored.

Read slide

through Independent Thought

Questions ?