1. ACGU Training Integration and Interoperability Work Group September hrs Worldwide Joint Training & Scheduling Conference
UNCLASSIFIED

2. 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

3. ACGU WG Update/Actions/Issue Refocus Col Walrond

4. WG Update & Actions WJTSC 10-1 Highlights:
Closed original 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. ACGU WG Charter Col Walrond

8. ACGU WG Partner Issues / Training Requirements Col Walrond

9. BREAK

10. USCENTCOM CENTRIXS-ISAF Training Mr. Michael Kontodiakos

11. ACGU WG Technical Update Mr. Dominguez

12. 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?

13. Joint Training Enterprise Network (JTEN)
Enabling the Joint Training Environment

14. Petersen AFB (NORTHCOM)
48 - Persistent sites + other networks
5 - JTEN 1.0 sites awaiting install
1 – JTEN 1.0 site awaiting relocation
3 – FY10 JTEN 2.0 sites installed (in parallel)
2 - FY11 JTEN 2.0 sites awaiting install
Current JTEN Sites
DTEN
5 sites
CF-JTEN
22 sites
Suffolk HUB
(NOSC, JWFC, JATTL, JFL )
Keesler AFB
HUB
Ft Leavenworth
Barksdale AFB
Little Rock AFB
MacDill AFB (CENTCOM & SOCOM)
Ft Hood
Quantico
Offutt (STRATCOM)
Schriever AFB
Ft Polk
Hurlburt 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 HUB
JMCTC)
WPC
(EUCOM)
Hanscom Field (ESC)
Petersen AFB (NORTHCOM)
Ft Belvoir (NCR Node)
Ft Drum
Ft Sam Houston (SAR Node)
Kirtland AFB
HUB and DMOC
Cp Roberts
Yuma MCAS
Cp Pendleton
Ford Island HI
PACOM HUB
Ft Lewis
Eielson AFB
Pt Loma (TTGP)
29 Palms (MCAGCC)
Ft Irwin (NTC)
Nellis AFB
Davis-Monthan AFB
Ft Bliss
NAS Fallon
Schofield
Barracks
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 Riley
LangleyAFB
NCTE
40 sites
DMON
32 sites
SDREN
23 sites
SIPRNet
USAREUR
FON
60 sites
ARCnet
JMETC
34 sites
STEN
9 sites
JMNIAN
7 sites
Key
Regional communications hub
Army site (18)
Joint site (12)
Navy site (4)
Coalition site
USMC site (6)
JTEN 2.0 site
Air Force site (13)
UNCLASSIFIED
Non-JTEN secure network
As of 1 July 2010 14

15. 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”

16. 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

17. U.S. + Coalition Partner: Real World (We will never operate alone)
Rules allow sharing of Operational U.S. Classified Information
Rules allow sharing of Operational Partner Classified Information US
Operational Realm
(J2, 3, 6 Real World)
Coalition (NATO)
Operational Realm
(J2, 3, 6 Real World) C2 C2 C2 C2 C2
COP
Guard
COP C2
Sensor Inputs
Sensor Inputs
Conflict
Sensor Inputs
Conflict
Sensor Inputs
Sensor Inputs
Sensor Inputs
U.S.
Coalition Partner

18. U.S. + Coalition Partner; Training World (We should not train alone)
Rules allow sharing of Operational U.S. Classified Information
Rules allow sharing of Operational Partner Classified Information
GUARD
COP
COP
COALITION PARTNER
OPERATIONAL REALM
(J2,3, 6 REAL WORLD)
US OPERATIONAL REALM
(J2,3, 6 REAL WORLD) C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2
COALITION
OPERATIONAL NETWORK
(i.e. NATO SECRET)
IA Controls
IA Controls
SIPRNET
The Curtain
US TRAINING NETWORKS
JTEN, NCTE, DMON, ETC.
COALITION TRAINING NETWORKS
(i.e. SNOW LEOPARD)
Sensor Inputs
Sensor Inputs
Federated
LVC
Conflict
Coalition
Federated
LVC Conflict
Sensor Inputs
Sensor Inputs
Sensor Inputs
Sensor Inputs
PROBLEM STATEMENT: DOD Enterprise cross domain information sharing (CDIS) solution(s) do not exist for training
Current policy/procedures are not responsive to the dynamic training requirement
Accreditation and Certification processes lack the agility to meet dynamic JTE CDIS JELC
Re-use of accredited systems, mobile systems, and Type accreditation are not supported
Training solutions carry low priority
Interpretation and application of current policy and guidance is Inconsistent
A common JTE CDIS Requirement Document does not exist
DOD must operate at multiple classification levels each with one or more releasability requirements with coalition partners
Current point/disparate solutions do not satisfy the requirements for the Joint Training Enterprise
Current point/disparate solutions do not adequately support integrated C2 across multiple security domains for operational and tactical level LVC training
An enterprise solution does not exist for multiple, multilateral, and bilateral environments operating simultaneously
There is no JTE standard for sharing voice communications or video across classification boundaries
There is no JTE standard for tools of a common collaborative architecture
There is no JTE consolidated data exchange database or operational standard for cross domain collaboration
GUARD
US TRAINING ENVIRONMENT
J7 LVC WORLD
COALITION TRAINING ENVIRONMENT
J7 LVC WORLD
The Problem! 18

19. Most Trusted Mission Partners share the highest fidelity information
Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and United States Training Environment
Most Trusted Mission Partners share the highest fidelity information

20. JTEN ACGU Training Environment As it Evolved
JTEN Client Site
JTEN Client Site
JTEN Client Site
DMZ
DMZ
DMZ
JTEN
DMZ
DMZ
DMZ
Dam Neck
DMZ
Kirtland
JWFC
DMON
NCTE
DMOC
DMZ
DMZ
DMZ
DMZ
SIPR
The JTEN ACGU Training Environment will allow us to establish a set of Rel DMZ services that does not now exist and make them available to all partners.
AUS
(DTEN)
GBR
(JMINIAN)
CAN
(CFXNet) 20

21. JTEN ACGU Training Environment November 2011
JTEN Client Site
JTEN Client Site
JTEN Client Site
DMZ
DMZ
DMZ
JTEN
DMZ
DMZ
DMZ
Dam Neck
DMZ
JWFC
Kirtland
DMON
NCTE
DMOC
DMZ
Provides an additional degree of separation and reduces management within JTEN
DMZ
SIPR
Provides an independent 4 Eyes training environment
The JTEN ACGU Training Environment will allow us to establish a set of Rel DMZ services that does not now exist and make them available to all partners.
JTEN ACGU Training Environment
DMZ
DMZ
DMZ
GBR
(JMINIAN)
CAN
(CFXNet)
AUS
(DTEN) 21

22. Afghanistan Mission Network … Possibilities

23. The New Norm 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

24. Desired Capability So, how does CX-I/AMN interface with ACGU?
“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?
Core Services provided on the ISAF Secret Network
Cross Border Services: Active Directory, , WEB Portal, Voice
Other Core Services: Video, GCCS, CPOF, CIDNE, CHAT,
NATO Services: IGeoSIT, ICC, WISE, JOCWATCH, NITB/ANB, CORSOM/EVE

25. 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

26. 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?

27. Questions?

28. ACGU WG Enhancing ACGU Forum Open Discussion Col Walrond

29. Closing / Wrap Up Col Walrond