1. 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

2. 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>

3. 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

4. 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’>

5. 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……..

6. 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!

7. 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……………

8. 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!

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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…….

13. 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

14. 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

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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.

19. Read slide

20. through
Independent Thought

21. Questions ?