44617258 Operational Architecture for Individual and Small Unit Soldier Systems

Wolfpack Deliverable Competition Sensitive

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive Exponent · Booz Allen Hamilton · The Wexford Group · Charles River Analytics · Hamilton Sundstrand · Wyle Laboratories

Wolfpack Deliverable Title: Operational Architecture Document (Final) SLIN: 2BS Due Date: 24 March 2003 Agreement No: DAAD16-02-9-0002 ALIN: 0001 Wolfpack Contact: Ray Fitzgerald (706) 256-0020, Ext 103 [email protected] Disclosure Notice: Due to the competitive nature of Objective Force Warrior Phase I (Concept and Technology Development), requests for this product shall be referred to the Technology Program Manager, Natick Soldier Center, Natick, Massachusetts, 01760-5011.

ii


Contents Page

Exhibits iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations v

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Development 1

1.2 Inclusiveness 2

1.3 Purpose 3

1.4 Context 5

2. Overview 8

2.1 Mission 8

2.2 Assumptions 9

2.3 Limitations 13

2.4 Background 13

2.4.1 UA/FCS OA Products 13

2.4.2 LW OA Products 24

2.4.3 SBCT OA Products 26

2.4.4 LF OA Products 28

3. Methodology 29

3.1 Operational Architecture Development Method 29

3.2 Metrics 31

4. OFW OA Products 31

4.1 OFW OA DOTMLPF Implications 31

4.1.1 Doctrine 31

4.1.2 Organizations 32

4.1.3 Training 32

4.1.4 Materiel 32

4.1.5 Leadership and Education 36

4.1.6 Personnel 37

iii


4.1.7 Facilities 38

4.2 OFW System, SoS, and FoS, and O&O Concepts 38

4.2.1 Combined Arms Capability Concept 39

4.2.2 Missions 39

4.2.3 Tasks—OF Small Unit Mission Tasks 39

4.3 OFW OA Required Capabilities 48

4.3.1 Battle Command—Anytime, Anywhere 48

4.3.2 “Space to Mud, Factory to Foxhole” 48

4.3.3 “Linking Joint Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance” 48

4.3.4 “Every Soldier a Sensor, Shooter, and Assessor” 49

4.3.5 Networked Dismounted Elements 50

4.4 Wolfpack OA Products 51

5. Use of OA Products 52

5.1 Wolfpack OFW System of Systems Architecture 52

5.2 Wolfpack OFW System/Technical Architectures 52

5.2.1 Wolfpack OFW System Architecture 52

5.2.2 Wolfpack OFW Technical Architecture 53

6. Summary 53

Endnotes 55

Appendices contained in separate document (“Operational Architecture

Appendices”)

iv


Exhibits Page

Exhibit 1. OFW/FCS/UA Notional Soldier System 2

Exhibit 2. TRADOC OA Role 5

Exhibit 3. Director OF Task Force Briefing Extract 5

Exhibit 4. Emerging Objective Force Organizational Concepts 7

Exhibit 5. OF Tactical InfoSphere OV-1 8

Exhibit 6. OF SoS Soldier-Centric Architecture 10

Exhibit 7. Army Modernization Schedule 12

Exhibit 8. OF Fielding Schedule 12

Exhibit 9. FCS-equipped UA C4ISR Architecture Concept 14

Exhibit 10. TRADOC/FCS LSI OF UA and FCS Effort 16

Exhibit 11. UA OV1 17

Exhibit 12. UA SV141 18

Exhibit 13. FCS SoS 20

Exhibit 14. FCS ORD UA Rifle Squad OV1 21

Exhibit 15. FCS ORD Training OV1 22

Exhibit 16. LW OV1 25

Exhibit 17. LW SV1 26

Exhibit 18. OF Small Unit Task List 43

Exhibit 19. OF Infantry Platoon—9-Man Squad Based 44

Exhibit 20. OF Infantry Platoon—12-Man Squad Based 44

Exhibit 21. Objective Force Infantry Squad—9-Man Alternative 46

Exhibit 22. OF Infantry Squad—12-Man Alternative 47

v


Acronyms and Abbreviations ABCS Army Battle Command System ACE Advanced Collaborative Environment AIMD Architecture Integration and Management Directorate AKE Army Knowledge Enterprise AKM Army Knowledge Management AoA Analysis of Alternatives ASD (C3I) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,

Communications, and Intelligence AUTL Army Universal Task List AV Architecture View AW Air Warrior AWG Architectural Working Group BDA Bomb Damage Assessment BFA Battlefield Functional Area BLOS Beyond Line-of-Sight BOI Basis of Issue BOIP Basis of Issue Plan C/S/A Command, Service, and Agency C2 Command and Control C4I Command, Control, Communication, Computers, and Intelligence C4ISP Command, Control, Communications, and Computers Integrated

Support Plan C4ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,

Surveillance and Reconnaissance CAB Combined Arms Battalion CAC Combined Arms Capabilities CAD Course Administrative Data CAT Combat Applications Team CATS Combined Arms Training Strategy CBR Chemical/Biological/Radiological CCIR Commander’s Critical Information Requirements CD Concept Development CID Combat Identification CJCSI Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CS Combat Support CSS Combat Service Support CONOPS Concept of Operations COP Common Operating Picture CRD Capstone Requirements Document CROP Common Relevant Operating Picture CSA Collaborative Situational Awareness CTC Combat Training Center C/S/A Command/Service/Agency

vi


DA&I Department of Defense’s Director of Architecture and Interoperability DAS Defense Acquisition System DDE Detect, Decide, Destroy, and Evaluate DM Dominant Maneuver DoD Department of Defense DS Distributed Systems DOTMLPF Doctrine, Organizations, Training, Materiel, Leadership and

Education, Personnel, and Facilities FBCB2 Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below FCS Future Combat Systems FDP Full Dimension Protection FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards FL Focused Logistics FoS Family of Systems GIG Global Information Grid GPS Global Positioning System HLS Homeland Security HQ Headquarters IAV Interim Armored Vehicle IDM Information Data Management IER Information Exchange Requirements IF Interim Force IP Integrated Processes IPv Internet Protocol Version ISR Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance ISS Information System Services IT Information Technology ITP Individual Training Plan JCIDS Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff JFCOM Joint Forces Command JIM Joint, Inter-agency, Multi-national JMA Joint Mission Area JOA Joint Operational Architecture JROC Joint Requirements Oversight Council JTRS Joint Tactical Radio System KMS Knowledge Management Subsystem LDAP Leader Development Action Plan LF Legacy Force LOS Line of Sight LSI Lead System Integrator LTI Lead Technology Integrator LW Land Warrior LW-IC Land Warrior Initial Capability LW-SI Land Warrior System Stryker Interoperable Capability Increments

vii

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Exponent · Booz Allen Hamilton · The Wexford Group · Charles River Analytics · Hamilton Sundstrand · Wyle Laboratories

LW3 Land Warrior Block 3 MAA Mission Area Analysis MCO Major Combat Operations MDMP Military Decision Making Process MILCON Military Construction MNA Mission Needs Analysis MOC Military Operational Context MoP Measure of Performance MOS Military Occupational Specialty MOSAIC Multifunctional On-the-Move Secure Adaptive Integrated

Communications MS Milestone MT Mission Thread MW Mounted Warrior NC Netted Communications NCA National Command Authority NCO Non-Commissioned Officer NCOW Network-Centric Operations and Warfare NLOS Non-Line-of-Sight O&O Operational and Organizational O&OC Operational and Organizational Concept O&OP Operational and Organizational Plan OA Operational Architecture OC Operational Concept OE Operational Environment OF Objective Force OFW Objective Force Warrior OP Observation Post OPFAC Operational Facility ORD Operational Requirements Document OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense OV Operational View PE Precision Engagement PEO Program Executive Officer POI Program of Instruction PPE Plan, Prepare, and Execute PSA Principal Staff Assistant R&S Reconnaissance and Surveillance RDM Rapid Decision Making Recce Reconnaissance SA Situational Awareness SaaS Soldier as a System SBCT Stryker Brigade Combat Team SBU Sensitive but Unclassified SCI Special Classification Instructions

viii

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Exponent · Booz Allen Hamilton · The Wexford Group · Charles River Analytics · Hamilton Sundstrand · Wyle Laboratories

SDM Soldier Development Memoranda SECDEF Secretary of Defense SFC Sergeant First Class SITREP Situation Report SOI Signal Operating Instructions SOP Standard Operating Procedures SOF Special Operations Forces SoS System of Systems SoSA System of Systems Architecture SSC Small Scale Contingency SSG Staff Sergeant STRAP System Training Plan SU Situational Understanding SV System View TA Technical Architecture TO&E Table of Organization and Equipment TP TRADOC Pamphlet TPIO TRADOC Program Integration Office TRAC TRADOC Analysis Center TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command TS Top Secret TSP Training Support Package TTP Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures TV Technical View UA Unit of Action UAMBL Unit of Action Mounted Battlespace Lab UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UE Unit of Employment URS Unit Reference Sheet USASMDC U.S. Army Space & Missile Defense Command USD (AT&L) Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) WIN-T Warrior Information Network – Tactical WNW Wideband Networking Waveform Wolfpack Wolfpack Enterprise

1


1. Introduction

1.1 Development

The final edition of the Wolfpack Enterprise (Wolfpack) Objective Force Warrior (OFW) Operational Architecture (OA) Document1 reflects significant change from the interim edition. The change derives from continued consideration of the Wolfpack OFW System of Systems (SoS) and Operational and Organizational Concept (O&OC) documents2, and Wolfpack’s Doctrine, Organizations, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF) Use Case analyses. The changes also come from the further consideration of the results of our Quick Look and Technology Search events and, most significantly, analysis of the Training and Doctrine Command’s (TRADOC’s) architecture development process and products.

The Wolfpack OFW OA Document describes concepts and links DOTMLPF implications relevant to OA products for Objective Force (OF) organizations, especially the Unit of Action (UA) and its subordinate formations, leaders, and soldiers. The Wolfpack OFW OA Document provides a foundation for development of OA products, System Architectures (SA)3, Technical Architectures (TA)4, and System of Systems Architectures (SoSA) during Phases II and III of the OFW Program, and post-OFW development, by the OFW Lead Technology Integrator (LTI) and TRADOC schools and centers.

The Wolfpack OFW OA Document uses a variety of sources as its basis: Wolfpack’s OFW SoS and O&OC documents’5 descriptions of OFW DOTMLPF implications; concepts for OFW soldier and leader systems, SoS, and Family of Systems (FoS) from the Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept Document6; and O&OCs for OF small units, soldiers, and leaders from the Wolfpack OFW O&OC Document7. The inclusion of OFW DOTMLPF implications in the Wolfpack OFW OA, SoS, and O&OC documents, and other Phase I deliverables, embraces the synergy of parallel advances to support the development and application of advanced soldier and other technologies.

Wolfpack has taken a technical approach in the OFW OA Document to guarantee traceability to Department of Defense (DoD) processes and documents. The approach pays particular attention to the processes that govern force and materiel development and ensures the Science and Technology (S&T) choices made early in the OFW Program are centered on the thinking of the DoD and the Army. Traceability of the evolution of thinking is important because DoD processes and documents will continue to evolve as the Army wrestles with the creation of the OF. Put another way, traceability helps ensure discipline and accuracy in evolving concepts and architectures in the OFW Program.

2


1.2 Inclusiveness

OFW OA products must support development of capabilities for the OF soldier, leader, and small unit that address soldier needs for the mounted and dismounted “core soldier,” maneuver arms soldier, and maneuver support soldier and service support in support of the evolving Soldier as a System (SaaS) concept (Exhibit 1). These capabilities must be based on the common task needs of individual soldiers and the collective needs of the OF UA and its subordinate formations.

Exhibit 1. OFW/FCS/UA Notional Soldier System

The evolving SaaS concept speaks to the core capability of the OF, its soldiers, leaders, and units, and focuses on the need for all soldiers to be able to perform certain common tasks, regardless of specialization, and the commonality of the equipment to perform the tasks.

As described by Wolfpack’s OFW SoS Concept8 and O&OC documents, the most difficult DOTMLPF problems confronting the OFW Concept and Technology Development effort are well characterized by the needs of those OF soldiers who must seize and control key terrain by direct action and close with and destroy enemy forces by assault—mounted or dismounted. In particular, the most challenging, dramatically expanding—and most likely for future adversaries to exploit—environment for the OF will be complex terrains: urban, jungle, and mountain. It is in these environments that achieving the ability to see first, act first, and finish decisively becomes most difficult and in which dismounted assaults will predominate.

While stopping short of the United States Marine Corps’ notion that “…every Marine is an Infantryman…” Wolfpack embraced the idea, exemplified by recent Army decisions

Core OFW Soldier Mounted or Dismounted

Maneuver Arms Soldier

Maneuver Support Soldier

Maneuver Sustainment

Soldier

3


to create a basic officer leader course and Chief of Staff of the Army emphasis, of an OF filled with soldiers who possess the ability to close with their opponents in open, close, and complex terrain and kill them. In addition, Infantry soldiers, leaders, and small units represent the most challenging combination of physical and moral demands that should guide development of OFW common requirements for soldiers throughout the UA. Under the current design of the Maneuver UA9 the type of OF soldier most likely to conduct dismounted assaults is Infantry. Associated with the demands of assault, and related individual and collective tasks, are OF soldiers performing reconnaissance and security for command elements. Collectively, these sets of soldiers (approximately 32% of the personnel of a UA) face the most trying physical challenges within the UA. They will typically work away from Future Combat Systems (FCS) manned platforms, as opposed to those soldiers performing tasks in the platforms, without the protection provided by manned combat platforms. They will also perform air assaults and other detached missions that may take them longer distances from FCS platforms.

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of the final edition of the Wolfpack OFW OA Document is to develop the broadest possible foundation for development of the system, technical, and SoS architectures during Phases II and III of the OFW Program, and post OFW development, by the OFW LTI. In particular, the OA provides robust and holistic descriptions of concepts and linked DOTMLPF implications relevant to OA products for OF organizations, especially the UA, UA subordinate formations, and OFW equipped soldiers and leaders to help the following developers and other agencies:

• TRADOC force developers—the Architecture Integration and Management Directorate (AIMD) of Headquarters (HQ) TRADOC10, the TRADOC Program Integration Office for the Army Battle Command System (TPIO ABCS)11, and school and center proponents12—in their understanding of the architectural implications of potential OFW impacts to identify changes to existing OA products and to support future OA product development efforts for the Legacy Force (LF), Interim Force (IF), and the OF. TRADOC’s OA role is summarized below (Exhibit 2).

• Army and TRADOC analysts in their understanding of the likely operational effectiveness and costs of potential impacts of OFW on OA products to support Analyses of Alternatives (AoA) to facilitate evaluation of the feasibility of alternative solutions to OFW concepts and to provide a basis for assessing the relative merits of these solutions.13

• Army and TRADOC force developers in their understanding of the organizational implications of potential OFW impacts on OA products to identify changes to existing Unit Reference Sheets (URS) and Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO&E), and to support future organizational development efforts (Exhibit 2).

4


• TRADOC doctrine writers in their understanding of the doctrinal implications of potential OFW impacts on OA products to identify changes to existing doctrine and Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTP) and to support future doctrinal development and development of Doctrine Program Directives (DPD).

• Army and TRADOC training and leader developers in their understanding of the training and leadership and education implications of potential OFW impacts on OA products to identify changes to or development of new Individual Training Plans (ITP), System Training Plans (STRAP), Training Support Packages (TSP), Course Administrative Data (CAD), Programs of Instruction (POI), Combined Arms Training Strategies (CATS), and Leader Development Action Plans (LDAP).

• Army and TRADOC Combat/Force and materiel developers in their understanding of the materiel implications of potential OFW impacts on OA products to identify system modifications, system upgrades and “New Start” programs.

• Army and TRADOC personnel managers in their understanding of the personnel implications of potential OFW impacts on OA products to identify changes to or development of new Soldier Development Memoranda (SDM), and personnel policies and systems.

• Army and TRADOC installation planners in their understanding of the facility implications of potential OFW impacts on OA products to identify Military Construction (MILCON) requirements, and MILCON Memorandum and Funding Requests.

5


Exhibit 2. TRADOC OA Role

Current TRADOC OA products14 focus on detailed Command, Control, Communication, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) data, e.g., Core Systems and Quantities Reports from the AIMD database, set of displays presenting a pictorial TO&E views, complex files (netViz15) defining network views of architectures, and spreadsheets depicting C4I equipment for each communication node within organizations.

1.4 Context

“The Joint Forces must get C4ISR right. It is critical that they get this right. We cannot go to the battlefield and continue to put things together on the fly. Our soldiers are bright, they're wonderful, they'll ride jackasses to get to the fight, and I appreciate

that, but we've got to do better.”16

Exhibit 3. Director OF Task Force Briefing Extract OFW OA products will require almost constant modification given the evolution of strategies, guidance, policies, directives, enterprises, concepts from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) for Joint Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR), Dominant Maneuver (DM), Precision Engagement (PE), Focused Logistics (FL), Full Dimension Protection (FDP), etc.17, and changes in the Defense Acquisition System

6


(DAS) and the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)18. Perhaps most significantly:

• The Department of Defense’s Director Architecture and Interoperability (DA&I) has been directed to build the foundation for network-centric operations through policies, program oversight, resource allocation, and support. The DA&I is developing and implementing the Global Information Grid (GIG) enterprise architecture.

• The GIG enterprise architecture is to provide a description of the GIG, serve as the DoD Enterprise Architecture, and by identifying and substantiating the operational and systems requirements for Network-Centric Operations and Warfare (NCOW), describe how commands, services, and defense agencies will operate in a network-centric environment.19 The GIG architecture includes the GIG Architecture Database and architecture products derived from the database, and supports the DA&I’s decisions and recommendations concerning Information Technology (IT) requirements, planning and programming, acquisition, and policy.

• GIG and GIG Architectures:

− The GIG is a physical entity—the sum of DoD’s information capabilities, systems, services, and facilities, and associated processes and personnel. The GIG is to provide the means for warfighters, decision-makers, and policy-makers to conduct and support military operations.

− The DoD Tactical InfoSphere is a key part of the GIG and is linked to organizations and resources that will support operations outside the Army Tactical InfoSphere. The DoD Tactical InfoSphere consists of organic and dedicated sensors, a command and control (C2) system, rules for rapid distribution of information, communication nodes of tactical units organized to support accomplishment of a mission operating from reachback locations, supporting national assets, logistic organizations charged with pushing supplies forward, and training resources for the tactical units to maintain readiness while awaiting employment. The DoD Tactical InfoSphere includes any platform—on the ground, in the air, or in space—that is equipped with a radio, sensor, processor, router, or location device that participates in information gathering and distribution.

− GIG Architecture Version 1 is the current DoD IT architecture combining architectural descriptions of selected Joint Mission Areas (JMAs) and selected Principal Staff Assistant (PSA) business functions.

− GIG Architecture Version 2 is the future DoD IT architecture. It describes the enterprise aspects of NCOW, using tactical, operational, strategic, and Combined “Use Cases,” and incorporates Joint OAs20 and JMAs developed by

7


the Joint Staff, Command, Service, and Agency (C/S/A) architectures, and PSA and other OSD staff architectures. GIG Architecture developers are to build future versions of the GIG Architecture, based upon the guidance, direction, and priorities provided by the DA&I, in conjunction with other stakeholders.

• Corresponding Army strategies, guidance, policies, regulations, enterprises, and Army OF programs and concepts—particularly the Army Knowledge Management (AKM), Land Warrior (LW), OFW, and the FCS programs, and the Army Knowledge Enterprise (AKE), OF Unit of Employment (UE)21 and UA22 concepts (Exhibit 4).

Exhibit 4. Emerging Objective Force Organizational Concepts

• The Army has consolidated management of IT into AKM to develop and implement a network-centric, knowledge-based Army architecture interoperable with the joint system nested within the GIG. The Army’s concept for AKM is collaborative mission planning and execution among widely dispersed locations around the world by providing rapid and seamless flow and exchange of actionable information and knowledge.

• The AKE construct describes the Army's process to enable improved strategic and tactical information distribution and collaboration. Integration and refinement of existing Army networks is to be the first step in achieving a network-centric,

8


information-enabled force that creates efficiencies and provides secure, reliable, actionable information communications.23

• The Army Tactical Internet and the Warrior Information Network – Tactical (WIN-T) system are the core of the Army Tactical InfoSphere. The High Level Operational Concept (OC) Graphic (Operational View [OV] 1) for the OF Tactical InfoSphere is shown below in Exhibit 5.24

Exhibit 5. OF Tactical InfoSphere OV-1 25

The TRADOC OA processes and products described in Section 1.3 are responsive to DoD Enterprise Architecture processes and products. 26

2. Overview

2.1 Mission

OFW OA products must robustly and holistically address the following questions:

• How do re-organized OF UAs operate when they incorporate soldiers, leaders, and small units, re-equipped as a result of the OFW program, based from facilities provided by an improved DoD/Joint infrastructure, recruited and retained by an

9


improved Army Personnel System, schooled in an improved DoD/Joint Education System, trained in improved DoD/Joint institutional and unit individual and collective training programs, using improved Joint TTP?

• Further, do they perform their missions in a more strategically responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable fashion across the entire spectrum of military operations from Major Combat Operations (MCO) through counter-terrorism to Homeland Security (HLS) in the environments expected for the 21st Century?

• From an intra-small unit perspective, what capabilities and interactions are required for OFW-equipped soldiers, leaders, and small units to successfully perform their tasks and missions?

• Within the context of a UA company and above formation perspective, what capabilities and interactions are required for OFW-equipped soldiers, leaders, and small units to successfully perform their tasks and missions?

• How do OFW-equipped soldiers, leaders, and small units influence the Integrated Processes (IPs) and Distributed Systems (DSs) developed for the FCS and how do the FCS’s IP and DS influence OFW-equipped soldiers, leaders, and small units?

2.2 Assumptions

Exponential advances in the capabilities of soldiers, leaders, and small units will allow OF soldiers, leaders, and small units to see first, understand first, act first, finish decisively, survive and endure through all dimensions of the future battle space. The objective of the OFW Concept and Technology Development effort is to develop and demonstrate the technologies that would provide these advances through the fielding of systems to equip OF soldiers, leaders, and small units implementing the SoS Soldier-Centric Architecture for the OF as described by the Program Executive Officer (PEO) Soldier (Exhibit 6).

10


Exhibit 6. OF SoS Soldier-Centric Architecture Assumptions include:

• OF soldiers, leaders, and small units will overmatch all adversaries using enhanced, networked and collaborative organic capabilities while leveraging company, battalion, UA, UE, and Joint combat multipliers that enable the collaborative application of massed effects.

− OFW OA products must allow OF soldiers, leaders, squads, and platoons interoperability with a wide range of legacy, Joint, Inter-agency, Multi-national (JIM) communications systems and networks. The critical requirement for OF soldiers, leaders, and small units is to be able to access data from these systems so that it can be fused into information and organized into knowledge components.

− OFW OA products must be closely coordinated with the OA products being developed for the FCS program, and the UA and UE concepts. See Section 2.4.

11


− OFW OA products must consider the GIG Capstone Requirements Document (CRD) and other relevant CRDs.27

• The OF will include re-organized small units, using improved Joint TTP, trained in improved DoD/Joint institutional and unit individual and collective training programs, re-equipped as a result of the FCS, OFW, and associated DoD programs, led by Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and officers schooled in an improved DoD/Joint Education System, manned by soldiers recruited and retained by an improved Army Personnel System, and based from facilities provided by an improved DoD/Joint infrastructure that are more strategically responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable across the entire spectrum of military operations from MCO through counter-terrorism to HLS.

− OFW OA products should not be limited to only C4ISR considerations but must address all OF soldier, leader, small unit, system, SoS, and FoS requirements and DOTMLPF implications.

− OFW OA products must be broadly based on analyses that address all aspects and types of soldier and leader systems, SoS, and FoS as described in the Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept Document28, the O&OCs as described in the Wolfpack OFW O&OC Document29, and the doctrine, training, leadership, and education, personnel, and facility implications described by both documents30 that may affect OA products for the UA and other organizations that may be equipped by the OFW Concept and Technology Development effort.

• Prior to fielding of the OF, the Army will comprise small units in UAs and in other units not equipped by the FCS program (Exhibits 7 and 8). The OFW Concept and Technology Development effort will develop and demonstrate technologies that permit the fielding of advanced systems to equip all Army soldiers, leaders, and small units.

12


Exhibit 7. Army Modernization Schedule

Exhibit 8. OF Fielding Schedule

13


− OFW OA products must address OF soldier and leader systems, SoS, and FoS required capabilities relative to an “LW Block II Baseline” in Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08). OFW OA products must use OA products developed to support the LW program as their baseline.

− OFW OA products must be closely coordinated with OA products developed for the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs) and the LF. The suite of systems that currently comprises the ABCS provides an integrated, Joint C4ISR “backbone” for the digitized LF. The OFW OA must seamlessly link with the LF’s OA.

• Given the nature of the DoD, Army, and TRADOC architecture processes and products, described above, OFW OA products must not only support development of OF soldier, leader, and small unit capabilities but also related company and above UA formation capabilities.

2.3 Limitations

To date no facts or situations (U.S. public law, international law, religious laws, or treaties) have been identified that would limit the application of the OFW OA in any area of the world.

2.4 Background

2.4.1 UA/FCS OA Products

TRADOC OF OA products completed to date include a draft UE HQ design and its database. 31

TRADOC to date has not completed any OF OA products. However, the FCS-equipped UA is envisioned as a network-centric unit featuring full interactions between its systems to permit integrated operations and realize innovative Concepts of Operation (CONOPS). The system is to have no hardware, software, or information stovepipes and no hardwired features. It is to be fully integrated for information dominance and to make maximum coordinated use of the capabilities of its “warfighters,” its sensors, and its weapon systems. The warfighter is to interface with other UA systems, Joint and LFs through an integrated C2 system that leverages an open SA and modern modular, services-based design. All C2 systems are to be common to all warfighting systems and will share a common framework to achieve the goal of an integrated and interoperable system. The warfighter’s interfaces and C2 systems are to be tightly integrated into each FCS vehicle system with its subsystems through Vetronics architecture, achieving a system that is integrated top to bottom. Dismounted warfighters are envisioned as using a Joint Tactical Radio System- (JTRS-) compliant small form factor radio derived from the Small Unit Operations program and to fully participate in the wideband network – not as a appliqué or adjunct net but as a fully participating set of dismounted subnets. Ubiquitous

14


networked communications is to permit full expression of the commander’s intent at all levels of the UA (Exhibit 9).32

Exhibit 9. FCS-equipped UA C4ISR Architecture Concept33

FCS is to be designed for information superiority through an active Information Management System that makes maximum use of all information sources organic and external to the UA. Warfighters are to be presented with a synchronized and consistent Logical Database that contains a dynamically updated Common Relevant Operating Picture (CROP) to support situational awareness and C2 operations. CROP instances are to be synchronized across the UA by the active Information Management System. The system of Information Management components and Logical Databases comprise the information layer—commonly called the “InfoSphere” for the UA. The data structures of the InfoSphere are engineered to conform to the Joint Common Database so that UA situation data can be directly exported to UE, higher Army and Theater systems along with a Common Operating Picture (COP) that interoperates with the common pictures in the Theater Family of Interoperable Operating Pictures.34 As information reaches individual soldiers working within small units, the information is dramatically constrained to ensure its relevance to their situation and the tasks they must perform and those of their unit.

15


The communications backbone of the UA is to be a hierarchical, ad-hoc wideband network centered on the JTRS using its Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW). The hierarchical Internet Protocol-based network is to be coordinated by the Multifunctional On-the-Move Secure Adaptive Integrated Communications (MOSAIC) network management system to ensure scalability and efficient low overhead operation within frequency allocation constraints. JTRS is to be common to all vehicles in the UA, ensuring that communications supports completely coordinated operations with collaboration among systems and efficient transport of the required data, images, voice, and video communications data for network-centric operations.35

The UA is to be designed to be fully interoperable with other Army forces—the UE, LF, and Army forces at Theater command—and the full spectrum of Joint/Theater, National, coalition, and interagency forces. The JTRS software-defined radio is to permit direct communications over most DoD standard radio and link formats, permitting close interoperability with Navy and Air Force units and Special Operations Forces (SOF). The UA is to integrate with Theater entities of all kinds through the WIN-T system. This is to permit fully interoperable information environments and data communications at higher levels. Ordinary VHF/UHF radio voice and data formats are to be supported to permit a wide range of communications with civilian, law enforcement, and international authorities. The UA is to be engineered to link into Ethernet Local Area Networks and Wide Area Networks to allow use of civilian, federal, and DoD networks when the opportunity arises.36

The FCS Lead System Integrator (LSI) has defined IPs that span the functional requirements of FCS at a level of detail described as “appropriate for functional views” and mapped Unit of Action Mounted Battlespace Lab (UAMBL) Mission Threads (MT) to the IP. In the FCS LSI’s view, the IPs are “…enduring processes that can be applied across many MTs and scenarios. They reflect the way the warfighter thinks when preparing for and conducting operations. The IPs lend themselves to decomposition for finer views. The IPs are ‘Architecturally Significant.’ Some of the MTs are not. The MT were not written by system architects and should not be expected to be optimal for architectural views…” For the FCS Command, Control, Communications, and Computers Integrated Support Plan (C4ISP), OVs were created for MTs that illustrate the six missions from the FCS Operational Requirements Document (ORD) Appendix G—Early Entry Operations, Combined Arms Operations for Urban Warfare to Secure Portion of Major Urban Area, Rapid Advance to Enemy Center of Gravity, Mounted Formation Conducts Pursuit and Exploitation, Airmobile/Air Assault Operations, Defensive Operations.

FCS LSI, together with TRADOC and UAMBL, has established an Architectural Working Group (AWG) to establish direction, schedules, and to review progress for the development of UA/FCS architectures. The collaboration is reflected in Exhibit 10.37 The AWG has decomposed 19 MTs resulting in over 8,000 operational Information Exchange Requirements (IER) and developed a High Level OC Graphic (Exhibit 11) and a System View (SV) (Exhibit 12) for the FCS ORD. The FCS LSI and TRADOC have committed

16


to continuous collaboration during development of architectural views. Views are reviewed by the AWG and when ready are placed on the FCS Advanced Collaborative Environment (ACE) for UAMBL and TRADOC review. Upon acceptance, they are placed under Configuration Management by TRADOC.38

Exhibit 10. TRADOC/FCS LSI OF UA and FCS Effort39

17


Exhibit 11. UA OV140

18


Exhibit 12. UA SV141

Listed below are the eight FCS IPs to be used for development of the first FCS architectural views. Workshops scheduled by the UAMBL will define the detailed functionality for each IP at a level of detail below that of the O&OC. For each IP, the FCS LSI is to develop a High Level OC Graphic - OV1; an Operational Node Connectivity Description - OV2; an Operational Information Exchange Matrix - OV3; and an Operational Event/Trace Diagram (MT) - OV6. These various views collectively support a Systems Functional Description - SV4 development to validate procurement specifications and SV10c42 views:43

• Sensor Network

• Sensor Fusion

• Communications

• COP

• Netted Fires

• Battle Command

19


• Maintenance and Re-supply

• Training.

The FCS LSI has also defined eight DSs that provide the capability needed to support the OV. For the DS, each related to platforms and IP, a set of SVs is to be generated. The DSs are listed below and define the FCS’s SoS (Exhibit 13). At present, the “Weapons” DS is solely associated with a “Soldier Combat System.” Further, the FCS LSI stipulates the employment of Use Cases below the DS to allow for more detailed views.44 Also, IPs are used to define functions performed by DS.

• C2

• FCS Management

• Communications

• Sensing

• Weapons

• Vehicle Management

• Support

• Training.

20


Exhibit 13. FCS SoS45

21


Annex C of the FCS ORD provides an example of an OV1 for the UA Rifle Squad. (Refer to Exhibit 14 below.) Annex C is provided as Appendix A.

Exhibit 14. FCS ORD UA Rifle Squad OV146

22


Appendix F of the FCS ORD47 provides a Training OV1 (Exhibit 15 below).

Exhibit 15. FCS ORD Training OV1

Interoperability requirements. Annex G of the FCS ORD48 provides a robust listing of Army system interoperability requirements for FCS including LW - Block III (LW3)/OFW, which are described as an overwhelmingly lethal and survivable soldier SoS capable of dominance across the entire spectrum of operations. The annex states that LW3/OFW will be an integrated soldier and small unit SoS within the FCS equipped UA and that LW3/OFW will achieve revolutionary advances in Netted Communications/ Collaborative Situational Awareness (NC/CSA), integration with WIN-T and JTRS, netted lethality, enhanced survivability, man-portable power, soldier mobility/ sustainability, and human performance utilizing a fully integrated combat ensemble.

C4I System Requirements (Annex H of the FCS ORD49) contains the following:

• Vertical and Horizontal Integration. The annex states that C4I systems in the FCS FoS will be vertically and horizontally integrated with Army legacy and IF platforms, tactical and logistics C4I systems, individual Battlefield Functional Area (BFA) systems and SOF. Also, as a full-spectrum force, the FCS-equipped UA will be required to interoperate with Joint, U.S. Government agencies, multinational coalitions, local authorities and other non-governmental, and private volunteer organizations.

• Interoperability. The annex states that unless indicated otherwise, FCS interoperability as described in the ORD is to be achieved when FCS FoS and external system/capabilities (UA, legacy Army, UE, Joint, SOF, other Service,

23


allied, coalition, interagency, etc.) can exchange data and information. It also states that FCS and the external system will not be considered interoperable unless they can exchange data but that temporary exceptions to this may be necessary (e.g., with respect to subsets of legacy system capability needed at First Unit Equipped date).

• CRD and ORDs. The annex lists CRDs and ORDs, including the SaaS CRD (draft), the Mounted Warrior (MW) ORD (draft), the LW ORD, and the Air Warrior (AW) ORD, which it describes as applicable to FCS and identifies that the listing continues to be refined. It also states that other CRDs and ORDs that are applicable to the FCS-equipped UA will be identified and added, and that some CRDs and ORDs may be removed if Army doctrine specifies that interoperability with those systems will be achieved solely through UE systems.

• Army JIM Interoperability. The annex also provides a description of the likely Army and JIM interoperability requirements for FCS.

IER. Appendix J of the FCS ORD50 provides an IER matrix of 41 IER. The ORD states they are to describe information that is exchanged between FCS UA and the UE/Joint/Allied/Coalition elements. The matrix describes the general characteristics of the information exchanged and not specific messages, report formats, or database exchanges and that the IER are information exchanges that are so significant that if they do not occur, the warfighter mission accomplishment will be severely and adversely affected.

• Current Location of Sending and Receiving Nodes. All of the sending and receiving nodes listed in the IER are at the UA level or above except for IER #14, “Fire Mission, Clearance of Fires,” which lists “UA Sensors and Platforms” as the sending node: #15, “Targets Acquired by Sensor,” which lists “All firing platforms” as the sending node; #35, “Conduct civil affairs ops,” which lists “SOF LNO” and “SOF TM” as sending and receiving nodes; #39, “Exchange Information between designated link-up forces,” which lists “SOF TM” as a sending node; and #40, “Situation Change, Routine Rpts, Analysis Spt,” which lists “SOF LNO” as a receiving node.

• Formation of the COP. The ORD also states that the IER are used to form the COP that is derived from a series of MTs and analyses based on guidance documents and warfighter inputs, and that further analysis of these information elements to arrive at a set of lower level, discrete information elements will be done to support FCS UA ORD development. The appendix is to evolve as analysis efforts continue thru Milestone (MS) B, dependent upon Joint, UE, and other systems still in development, ultimately supporting a MS C FCS production decision.

24


2.4.2 LW OA Products

TRADOC has completed a variety of OA products for the 75th Ranger Regiment, the 82nd Airborne Division, the 172nd Light Infantry Brigade, and the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment that include LW as individual soldiers and leaders with associated equipment.

The LW ORD51 provided the OV1 for a “LW Phased Approach for TI System Interface” (Exhibit 16). The accompanying description in the ORD states:

• The high level OC Graphic presents a top-level view of the system’s interoperability requirements with other current and future systems. The Block I LW communications structure limits communications interoperability to within similarly equipped LW soldiers. Based on soldier access to all information in the LW system and the reality that not all soldiers have the requisite security clearance, the LW communications architecture must remain unclassified for platoon sergeant and below. Platoon leaders and above have communications (long range secure) and appropriate clearances. It is assumed that by Block II a combination of materiel solutions and policy resolution will enable interoperability with higher C2 SAs as well as vehicle systems operating in secret communications architecture. This is a flexible architecture. Information access is dependent on positions within the unit, i.e., rifleman, platoon sergeant, or commander.

• The approach for LW interoperability with the ABCS will follow the three phases. Although interface/interoperability between LW and ABCS is a LW Block II requirement, it will not be required in Block I due to an Army-wide problem with the lack of definition of interface between cleared and uncleared user communities, i.e., the ABCS at Secret High, and the LW system at Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU). Seamless electronic interface between generally uncleared soldiers using the LW weapons system and the ABCS C2 system is not possible under current policy guidelines. Key leadership elements of the LW community will retain legacy C2 capabilities through the use of existing secure voice equipment.

• Implementation of Phase II, limited interoperability, will be achieved through adoption of Army approved tactical guards and gateways, as defined by ongoing actions of the Communication and Electronics Command Security Architecture Working Group, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Information Systems and C4, and the Secret and Below Interoperability Committee of the National Security Agency. Full interoperability will be achieved through the implementation of LW-suitable trusted computer operating systems and multi-algorithm encryption hardware, coupled with revisions in current security policy and procedures that are supportive of tactical operations in mixed security environment.

25


Exhibit 16. LW OV152

The LW ORD53 provided an LW SV1 (Exhibit 17). The accompanying description in the ORD states:

• A capability for the timely and accurate exchange of information between sender and recipient is required. The threshold system will incorporate the information exchange capability defined below. Objective capability or capability aligned with subsequent blocks will be defined based on refining the IER of LW in the specific unit type. The Block I system established digital interoperability within the LW equipped architecture. Secure voice communications is provided by currently fielded combat net radios. Block II will establish interoperability with ABCS systems based on removal of previously stated security issues. It is expected that the LW equipped system will interface with the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) system on other vehicles or in command centers as well as systems currently comprising the operational design of the light force and Initial Brigade Combat Team Battalion Tactical Operations Center.

26


Exhibit 17. LW SV1

The LW ORD includes IER (refer to Appendix B) but only four of the 22 requirements address the individual soldier, only six of the 22 requirements address squad and below, and only 13 of the 22 address platoon and below. The ORD’s rationale is that “This information exchange set represents the expected core capability that will enable an acceptable level of operational effectiveness, suitability and survivability.”

2.4.3 SBCT OA Products

The Army and OSD appear to have recently reached an agreement that will allow the Army to field six SBCTs54. OSD had demanded that the final two SBCTs55 not simply replicate the first teams fielded. Instead, OSD wants to see a capability that looks more like an OF UA and less like a “souped up” remnant of the current force. Part of OSD’s concern is that the current development and fielding time lines of the OF and the SBCTs appear to overlap (the last SBCT is due in FY07). The Army must develop a refined SBCT design and submit it to OSD for approval. The SBCT “plus” concept would affect both the materiel and operational and organizational (O&O) aspects of the unit. It likely would include improved C4ISR capabilities. The OFW OA must seamlessly link with the both the OA of the initial four SBCTs and the OA to be developed for the final two SBCTs.

27


The Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) Stryker is the primary combat and combat support (CS) platform for the SBCTs. The Land Warrior System Stryker Interoperable (LW-SI) Capability Increments development effort is to enable SBCT LW-equipped soldiers to prepare for the dismounted fight while still mounted in the IAV by effectively developing the situation while moving mounted and giving key leaders the ability to effectively communicate and update the tactical plan. LW-SI expands upon the developmental work being completed under the Land Warrior Initial Capability (LW-IC) Other Transaction Agreement.

LW-SI Version 2.0 system is the LW-SI Version 1.0 system with additional functionality, such as FCS communication interoperability, voice control, achievement of full LW-SI system performance specification mission duration and system weight requirements, and processor/memory type improvements as part of the spiral development process with the eight required SBCT IAV vehicle variants56. TRADOC has completed a variety of OA products for the “Interim Division,” the Interim Combat Service Support (CSS) Company, 172nd Light Infantry Brigade (Separate) and the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light). Both of the latter product sets include the LW as individual soldiers and leaders with associated equipment but neither addresses the OFW.

172nd Light Infantry Brigade (Separate) OA Products:

• The “Architecture Business Rule” document states LW will be used for dismounted squad operations and that soldiers not equipped with LW will have stand-alone Combat Identification (CID) equipment.

• The “Horseblanket” document lists LW-Leader (BLK II) and LW System Soldier (BLK II) as “not TO&E supported” items, each described as including a CID Device, a computer processor, a Global Positioning System (GPS)/navigation system, a handheld display/keyboard, a helmet display, a soldier radio, and a thermal weapon sight. The LW systems are depicted down to the individual soldiers and leaders of the Combat Engineer Squad of the Engineer Company, the Fire Support teams, mortar sections, sniper teams, and rifle and weapons squads of the companies of the Infantry Battalions, and the Reconnaissance (Recce) squads of the ground troops and the Chemical/Biological/Radiological (CBR) Recce platoon of the Surveillance troop of the Reconnaissance, Surveillance Target Acquisition Squadron. The netViz document mirrors this arrangement.

• The “netViz” document top level view for the brigade depicts ten formations within the brigade down to company sized organizations, including its five battalion level formations, 16 voice and data nets, and the connectivity among the formations and nets; the battalion level view in the document depicts seven elements within the battalion, including its four company level formations, and six voice and data nets, but not their connectivity; the rifle company level view of the document depicts six elements with the company, including the three rifle platoons and the Mobile Gun System Platoon, and three voice and data nets but

28


not their connectivity; and the rifle platoon level view of the document depicts every individual leader and soldier within the platoon and three voice and data nets, but not their connectivity. In each view the nodes of each voice and data net and the equipment of each individual soldier and leader are displayed as subordinate views.

2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light):

• The “Architecture Business Rule” document that states LW nets are not depicted in the network view (netViz file) of the architecture and LW availability is uncertain but is depicted as a requirement, and lists the LW System – Leader (BLK II) and LW System Soldier (BLK II) as potential C4I equipment for the regiment.

• The “Horseblanket” document lists LW-Leader (BLK II) and LW System Soldier (BLK II) each including CID Device, a computer processor, a GPS/navigation system, a handheld display/keyboard, a helmet display, a soldier radio, and a thermal weapon sight. The LW systems are depicted down to the individual soldiers and leaders of Combat Engineer Squad of the Engineer Troop, the Fire Support teams, mortar sections, and scout squads and the CBR Recce platoon of the regiment’s squadrons.

In FY03 TRADOC plans to address OA products for 2nd Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division and the 56th Brigade 28th Infantry Division (Mechanized).

2.4.4 LF OA Products

TRADOC has completed a variety of OA products for III Corps Troops, the 1st Cavalry Division, the 75th Ranger Regiment, and the 82nd Airborne Division. Both of the latter product sets include the LW as individual soldiers and leaders with associated equipment in a similar fashion to the 172nd Light Infantry Brigade and the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light).

The 75th Regiment’s “Systems Architecture-Conceptual” document states that it reflects the current Infantry Center fielding plan for communications and automation systems available to the Ranger Regiment in the year 2004; that the LW (Block I) will be fielded and will replace all AN/PRC 126s, the Soldier Intercom System, and selected GPS devices carried by dismounted soldiers at the Ranger Regiment; and that AN/PRC-148s will integrate the LW system with the Command Net according to the system developers and that all soldiers in the regiment will receive the LW. The proposed Basis of Issue Plan (BOIP) described in the “Systems Architecture-Conceptual” document states that all leaders, Squad Leaders and above, will receive the LW, all Radio Telephone Operators will receive LW, and all other soldiers equipped with LW will receive the LW Soldier System. Finally it states that Tactical Command Nets will be voice, the LW Wireless Local Area Network will carry data, and Enhanced Position Location Radio System nets

29


will not be deployed but that Situational Awareness will be provided to the individual soldiers via LW.

3. Methodology

3.1 Operational Architecture Development Method

Given the complexities implicit in developing an OA, Wolfpack has employed a method that provides a building block approach to be performed over time in the development of a compete small unit OA down to the soldiers that make up the unit. Since the OA for the current UA is in the early stages of construction, one can only conjecture at this point about the construction of any given small unit component of the OA once completed. As the UA gains precise definition, tools such as netViz permit the development and refinement of an OA for the UA’s small units.

Wolfpack initiated Combat Applications Team (CAT) deliberations to achieve multiple goals including selection of an organizing principle for combat interactions, use of hierarchical decomposition to organize the combat processes, establishment of task-based fault trees for mission success using measures, conditions, and standards for desired end-states, and to construct integrated Use Case Threads (See Appendix G) to sequence the execution of combat processes leading to combat interactions.

CAT used a Military Operational Context (MOC) including an appropriate set of Operational Environment (OE), Military Operation, Tactical Operation, and Mission Set considerations to provide an appropriate framework for its analyses.

CAT considered the threat, terrains (open/rolling, urban, complex, restricted, jungle, mountains, and desert), seasons of the year, types of weather conditions, political situations, media situations, infrastructure, tactical situations, health conditions, industrial chemicals (toxic) and decay, mixes of non-combatants/combatants, friendly situations, and a baseline TRADOC MOC57 in defining the OE for their sessions.

The set of military operations considered by CAT included high-end Small Scale Contingencies (SSC) to restore peace and stability; major combat operations; and low-end SSC. CAT sessions produced a series of vignettes that describe the range of terrains, warfighting intensity levels, types of threats and engagements, and small unit tasks and supporting activities likely to be encountered by OF individual soldiers, leaders, and small units. CAT vignettes provide a frame of reference for high, mid, and low levels of conflict. See Wolfpack OFW O&OC Document for the vignettes.58

The set of tactical operations considered by CAT included “Combined Arms Operations for Urban Warfare to secure Portions of Major Urban Area” and “Rapid Advance to Enemy Center of Gravity.”

30


Wolfpack used “Use Cases” to provide context to its technology search and as a logical supporting document to OA products (See Appendix G).

The Use Cases assisted internal Wolfpack communication between its Concept Working Group and Technology Working Group and will be refined during OFW Phase II, particularly as OFW’s training strategy is developed.

Relationships between functional needs and technology enablers were developed through a systematic analysis. Each use case is “walked through” and potential technology enablers are identified at each “step.” Attaching technologies in this manner facilitates construction of a system design trade space where different levels of technology implementation may be assessed in light of operational need, size, weight, power, as well as cost (perceived or estimated). In many cases, the technological enablers (and their variants) are the direct result of the Wolfpack technology search process.

Technology enablers have been broken down into two classes: primary and secondary. A primary enabler provides a basic level of implementation. For example, directed fires (squad-level fire concentrated on a single target) may be achieved using conventional tools (a rifle, a means with which the squad members may see one another to coordinate targeting and fire, a weapon sighting system, as well as the possibility of a voice radio). This may impose constraints on how far apart individual squad members may be. Secondary enablers consist of tools that may enable a less conventional means of achieving an operational function. In the directed fires example, this may include remote targeting capabilities such as a laser range finder and a digital compass coupled to positioning information, a data radio capable of transmitting target coordinates across the squad, and sensory enhancements such as image intensifiers and thermal imaging systems.

The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept Document provided the conceptual basis for the Wolfpack OFW O&OC, which serves as the infrastructure and architectural basis for the Wolfpack OFW OA; when taken together, the Wolfpack OFW O&OC and OA answer questions about:

• The capabilities the systems provided by the OFW program must have and the functions they must perform, the Basis of Issue (BOI) for the systems, and the who, how, and why interaction with other systems takes place so as to achieve the needed level of JIM or intra-Army interoperability.

• The missions and tasks the individual soldiers and leaders of the OF must accomplish, the benefits or contributions these soldiers and leaders provide to the OF, the purpose for and description of key systems with which the OF’s individual soldiers and leaders will interact and interface, the typical geographical positions on the battlefield of the individual soldiers and leaders of the OF, and the types of support that the individual OF soldiers and leaders will need in order to perform their tasks and missions.

31


• The missions and tasks OF small units must accomplish, the benefits or contributions these formations provide to the OF, the purpose for and description of key systems and organizations with which the OF’s small units will interact and interface, the typical geographical position on the battlefield of OF small units, and the types of support that OF small units will need in order to perform their tasks and missions.

3.2 Metrics

The Wolfpack OA development methodology is based on the straightforward proposition that missions can be reduced to two fundamental elements: tasks (what needs to be done) and DOTMLPF (what capabilities are required to do it). Both elements have equally important roles in mission accomplishment; tasks provide requirements for DOTMLPF, and DOTMLPF provides the ability to execute the tasks. Since the ultimate goal is to achieve mission success, it is necessary to start at the top with mission utility and define success succinctly and unequivocally. Then one can work down and infer the capabilities at lower level that are required to achieve mission success. Completing this top-down process, one can then infer the DOTMLPF solutions at the levels that can best (e.g., least expensively and most quickly) meet the required capabilities. This process also implies that Wolfpack must define what constitutes operational effectiveness, then the key supporting capabilities, and then the robustness of individual soldiers and leaders, squads, and platoons which support those capabilities.

What can be modeled, but not measured, is the military effectiveness of individual OF soldiers and leaders, squads, and platoons. Therefore, Wolfpack has sought warfighter input to infer how performance forms the basis for effectiveness and what defines the military environment(s). Wolfpack initiated the CAT deliberations to compute Measures of Performance (MoP) under prescribed conditions and compare to task-based fault tree standards to determine the mission outcome of a combat process following a combat interaction, and to determine effects on other Combat Processes.

4. OFW OA Products

4.1 OFW OA DOTMLPF Implications

4.1.1 Doctrine

The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC documents provide a robust and holistic conceptual description of the DOTMLPF implications. See Wolfpack SoS and O&OC documents for a complete description of OFW doctrine implications, especially those derived from the FCS Mission Area Analysis (MAA), Mission Needs Analysis (MNA) and ORD, and the UA O&O.

32


4.1.2 Organizations

The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC documents provide a description of OFW organizational implications, especially those derived from the FCS MAA, MNA and ORD, and the UA O&O.

4.1.3 Training

OF Infantry squad members must be cross-trained in all the positions and weapons within the squad.

In the future, “information and knowledge soldiers” will be required at every echelon. These soldiers will need to be multi-functional and trained to be able to:

• Understand sensor capabilities and operations, synchronize and integrate non-organic and coalition sensors with organic ones

• Assist leaders in setting profiles and filters for specified applications, recommend appropriate sensor mix to users of sensor information, establish and follow reporting criteria

• Assist leaders with adversary information interpretation and establish procedures to provide only the information required at the point of decision.

The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC document provide a robust and holistic conceptual description of the DOTMLPF implications. See Wolfpack SoS and O&OC documents for a complete description of OFW training implications, especially those derived from the FCS MAA, MNA and ORD, and the UA O&O.

4.1.4 Materiel

The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC document provide a description of OFW materiel implications, especially those derived from the FCS MAA, MNA and ORD, and the UA O&O. A list of the materiel elements of the Wolfpack proposed OFW Family of Lethality, Mobility, Training, Task Directed and Organized, Situational Awareness, Sustainment and Survivability Systems examined in the Wolfpack’s Quick Look and Technology Search Events and to be evaluated in the OFW program’s Concept and Technology Development Phase I Culminating Demonstration is described in detail in Wolfpack’s SoS Concept Document.

Supported by the WIN-T, OF information systems will enable leaders to create collaborative teams operating across echelons, functional areas, commercial/military sectors, and national/language boundaries so leaders can transcend the limitations of personal knowledge and physical location. In so doing, leaders will achieve virtual presence at key points on the battlefield, access to global information, and collaborative execution. WIN-T employs the JTRS to allow elements at brigade and below to access

33


the GIG. WIN-T will support the warfighter’s requirement for mobile communications by leveraging the integrated and/or embedded JTRS elements in the FCS platforms, legacy wide-band digital radios, and wireless LAN technologies. WIN-T and JTRS will be used to effectively create a single transmission network from home station installation to the deployed individual soldier.59

Network operations at brigade and below must not be segmented from those above brigade. For this reason, UA and UE network concepts and solutions must be closely aligned to form a single GIG-compliant network. 60

The system must be secure but must also simplify the user and management processes required for implementing security. Keying/re-keying must be performed automatically and remotely with minimal or no operator intervention. The system must accommodate access to all security levels, complying with GIG guidance to enable “one terminal with multiple security modes, ‘colorless’ backbone, data labeling, allied/coalition, unclassified through Top Secret (TS)/Special Classification Instructions (SCI).” This drives us toward adoption of an application-based security structure in which the need to encrypt network traffic is removed.61

Self-configuring, automatic reconfiguration, guided by network specialists, will be especially fluid at tactical echelons where the shape of the battlefield and flow of the fight may change very significantly very quickly. 62

Information Data Management (IDM) is the technical means for providing the correct information to the correct person or system at the necessary time and in the proper format. It addresses the awareness, access, and delivery of information, ensuring management of information flow to users in accordance with the commander’s information policy. IDM will sort and filter information as specified in a preprogrammed user profile. IDM is not a separate stand-alone system, but rather a set of integrated information tools, applications, processes and services residing on all GIG-enabled systems. These tools must address the following IDM issues: timely distribution of time-critical information, delivering information in ways that optimize the use of GIG resources, packaging, storing, and “advertising” information so it is accessible to a widely dispersed community of users with a variety of needs; implementation of individual user and system “profiles” so information can be intelligently and automatically pushed or pulled; dynamic methods to allow flexible updating of user profiles as the situation changes; and restricting access to classified information to ensure information security is maintained. The OF Battle Command System facilitates adequate protection of information in accordance with security policy for information at different classification levels and provides for the secure exchange of information between networks at different classification levels. It must accommodate access to all security levels, enabling one terminal with multiple security modes that will support a “colorless” backbone, data labeling, and allied/coalition access. The objective is adoption of an application-based security structure in which the need to encrypt network traffic is removed. 63

34


In order to meet operational requirements, the COP must provide the following:

• A near-real-time continuous graphical representation of the current situation within the land Area of Operation to include all friendly and enemy (known and suspected) locations, identification, and unit status in a way directly useful to the echelon at which the COP is being presented. At a small unit level, the representation becomes necessarily simple to match the information needs of soldiers with relevant and useful information available with higher systems.

• The situation should be displayed over topographic details selected by the user from a menu of available mapping features. The user will tailor the detail and scale of the display. In general, the tailoring options will be extremely simple.

• On-demand synthesized graphical display of the civil considerations within the battlespace specified by the user. Generally this information would only be available to users with a need.

• Near-real-time graphical representation of the weather and weather effects. Again, while soldiers and small units will have strong interest in weather, the presentation of weather information and its effects would be necessarily simplified.

• Scaleable, three-dimensional depictions of the terrain with depiction of man-made and natural obstacles. This capability is particularly useful in mission rehearsal and training preparation.

• On-demand display of operational animations used to forecast future enemy and friendly actions and plans. This capability would likely be used by leaders at the platoon and company levels.

• Near-real-time depiction of the air situation in the battlespace specified by the user, including control measures, ballistic trajectories of large caliber artillery and missiles, and engagement capabilities for friendly air and missile defense systems. This capability would be of particular interest to fire support experts down to those in infantry squads.

Interfaces with ABCS and its successor OF system. OFW OA products will be required to address interface requirements for several versions of the ABCS and as well as the successor OF Battle Command System. Similarly, OFW OA products will have to address a mix of new and old, high- and low-tech capabilities.

• The ABCS has been developed in stages using a numbering system to describe periodic increments of functionality added to the FoS. Full fielding of ABCS Version 7.0 has been limited to the 4th Infantry Division, the 1st Cavalry Division, the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, and the SBCTs. Decisions for fully fielding

35


ABCS 7.0 to other units are pending Army assessment of transformation momentum and availability of resources.

• For the OF, the Army wants to cover all the necessary battlefield functionalities through a single battle command system, or perhaps two or three systems together. The Army is in the process of designing this OF Battle Command System in accordance with the timeline established for FCS.

• All ABCS functionality will not necessarily be migrated to the successor system. The current Army strategy is to start with a requirement for the OF and then pull in what is needed against that requirement from ABCS.

Interfaces with Quick-MEDS. OFW OA products may be required to address interface requirements for the evolving concept nicknamed Quick-MEDS to deliver critical medical supplies to battlefield wounded through the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) as couriers.

• The Army is considering whether to expand the traditional mission of the UAV—reconnaissance and surveillance (R&S)—to include the often-perilous job of medical resupply.

• Under an operational scenario developed for the concept, soldiers forward on the battlefield would call back to troops located away from the battle and request a certain set of supplies. The items would be loaded into an air-droppable pod, equipped with a deceleration device (such as a parachute), stabilizing fins, a crushable nose and, if required, a guidance system. The pods would be inserted into special holders that, due to the aerodynamics of the Shadow airframe (the current system being tested is the Shadow 2000 Tactical UAV but other unmanned vehicles, such as a rotorcraft or ground system, also are under consideration), likely would be located under the wings. Soldiers would pre-program Quick-MEDS with GPS coordinates for the forward unit and launch the air vehicle. Upon arrival at a waypoint near the troops in need of resupply, the Quick-MEDS GPS trigger would release the individual pods; the fins and guidance system would help steer the pods during the final leg.

• Crucial triage items that could be transported include blood, fibrin bandages, fluid infusion sets, ceramic oxygen generators, emergency airway supplies, burn packs, the Critical Care System for Trauma and Transport, vaccines and other pharmaceuticals such as anti-venom, and medical CBR defense materiel.

Protocol Addresses. OFW OA products may be required to address Internet interface requirements for OFW soldiers and leaders, and small units.

• DoD is planning to roll out an advanced version of the Internet that would allow commanders to give every weapon system its own protocol address.

36


• DoD expects to complete a new policy within the next few months that would set a “roll out” date to begin implementing “Internet Protocol Version 6,” or IPv6. The 128-bit protocol would be a giant leap beyond the current 32-bit version, IPv4. DoD plans department-wide implementation of IPv6 to enhance functionality of its suite of protocols.

Urban Warfare Master Plan. OFW OA products may be required to address the implications of the DoD Urban Warfare Master Plan and Joint Publication 3-06, Doctrine for Joint Operations for OFW soldiers and leaders, squads and platoons.

• The draft master plan contains a DoD-wide strategy with MSs for enhancing joint urban capabilities. The plan contains direction for Defense agencies and the services, and describes in detail how to achieve the vision for joint urban operations outlined in an already completed road map for that mission. The road map states that DoD must address the following issues: policy; coordination with other U.S. Government agencies and U.S. allies; research, development and acquisition; concept development (CD) and experimentation; the development of modeling and simulation capabilities; military operations on urban terrain training and experimentation facilities; and the development of joint doctrine.

• The master plan includes timelines and MSs for achieving certain goals, such as operating in cities with fewer casualties and less infrastructure damage, the key to which is enhanced C4ISR capabilities. Exploring C4ISR opportunities will be at the top of the Center for Joint Urban Operations’ agenda. Improved C4ISR in urban environments could give U.S. forces better means to engage enemies and deny them sanctuary—using both lethal and non-lethal “precision effects”—and identify their critical vulnerabilities, officials say. An important aspect of operating more successfully in cities will be a better understanding of a given location's geography, infrastructure and culture, and looking at the city as if it is something like a living organism.

• Among the potential capabilities the Master Plan says should be investigated include: sensors that look through walls and that “tag” target individuals or vehicles, and three-dimensional maps that include an urban area’s subterranean structures, as well as the interiors of key buildings, and activity levels.

4.1.5 Leadership and Education

OF leaders will be required to employ a Rapid Decision Making (RDM) approach to battlefield decision-making and management. The current Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) will not survive the pace of OF operations. In place of the linear and time-consuming MDMP approach, leaders will have to employ a type of RDM that employs a rapid situational assessment and corresponding response. This type of decision-making will demand early and frequent decision-making conditioning for new leaders. Instead of using the Plan, Prepare, and Execute (PPE) format for framing the OE, the leader must rely on the Detect, Decide, Destroy, and Evaluate (DDE) format. The

37


OFW leader will not have the luxury of time to study and prepare for the next action. The OFW operational requirement for “continuous operation” will dictate that the leader responds in a “gunfighter” reflex-response pattern.64 When we consider MDMP applicability by echelon, we may be better served by emphasizing troop leading procedures at units below brigade level for most operations rather than a rigid adherence to MDMP.65

The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC documents provide a description of OFW leadership and educational implications, especially those derived from the FCS MAA, MNA and ORD, and the UA O&O.

4.1.6 Personnel

Unit Manning. OFW OA products must address the impacts of the current Army Personnel System’s manning policies and may be required to address the implications of a new manning configuration. The centerpiece of the Army’s Personnel Transformation is a comprehensive effort focused on a potential Army-wide implementation of unit manning and unit rotation. The Army is examining the feasibility of a unit manning and rotation system that would better support the new national defense strategy, improve cohesion and combat readiness within the operational Army, provide highly cohesive well-trained units to Combatant Commanders, and improve well-being for families by providing greater stability and predictability in assignments. The Army currently uses unit rotations in support of operational missions in the Balkans, Sinai, and Afghanistan. The Army is studying the use of unit rotations for other locations and in the war on terrorism.

In August 2002 the Army established a task force to explore how such a unit manning system might work. The Army Staff is to identify a brigade as a “pilot” program to help prepare the Army for the switch and begin moving other brigades to unit manning before the program is completed over the next three years. Based on current schedules, senior Army leadership decisions are to be made for unit manning and unit rotation in July 2003.

A unit rotation based manning system has the potential to create the biggest cultural change in the Army in decades. Such a system would have significant second and third order effects across the force—training and leader development, recruiting and retention, how the Army assigns and deploys soldiers and units, unit readiness levels, promotions, command assignments, and total Army end-strength, among others.

The Army is considering various potential “unit rotation options” both with regard to the level of rotation—brigade, battalion or lower levels—and the types of units to be rotated.

A unit rotation based manning policy may, in fact, facilitate implementation of the OFW OA. A key issue is how well, and in what ways, the members of a unit are personally known and connected to each other. This is the classic level of social network analysis, where strong personal ties, often ones that rest on close friendship or bonding

38


experiences, ensure high degrees of personal trust and loyalty. To function well, networks seem to require higher degrees of interpersonal trust than do other forms of organization, like hierarchies. This traditional level remains important in the information age.66 The brigades would be filled with soldiers straight out of advanced individual training, other soldiers and NCOs who would transfer to the unit in permanent-change-of-station moves, lieutenants fresh from officer basic course, and captains straight from the captain’s career course. Once fully manned, the unit would go through an intensive training period that probably would last six to eight months, then the brigade would conduct a major readiness exercise — a combat training center (CTC) rotation, or perhaps an externally evaluated home station exercise — in order to be certified as “mission-ready.” The brigade would spend the next two years training and would be available for deployments. The soldiers would stay with the unit for its entire three-year life cycle. At the end of the three years, the unit would stand down, and the process would begin all over again. The biggest advantage of a unit manning system is that it ensures that a unit going to war will be made up of soldiers and leaders who have had time to form cohesive teams.

The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC document provide a robust and holistic conceptual description of the DOTMLPF implications. See Wolfpack SoS and O&OC documents for a complete description of OFW personnel implications, especially those derived from the FCS MAA, MNA and ORD, and the UA O&O.

4.1.7 Facilities

The FCS ORD states that the ability for the FCS to conduct fully embedded training across the UA in an interactive and constructive environment will bring a new dimension to facility support. The reliance on separate training devices will be for the most part eliminated. This will place additional demands on the use of the base system for individual, crew and collective training events. To support the use of the OFW in this mode, security and frequency management issues in a home-station environment will drive a need to provide electronic connectivity to each OFW system, SoS, and FoS without requiring organic power or using organic communications (emissions) systems by plugging into a Local Area Network-like system.

The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC document provide a description of OFW facilities implications, especially those derived from the FCS MAA, MNA and ORD, and the UA O&O.

4.2 OFW System, SoS, and FoS, and O&O Concepts

The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC documents provide descriptions of O&O concepts for OF small units, soldiers and leaders. The most significant concepts to the OFW are outlined below.

39


4.2.1 Combined Arms Capability Concept

An underpinning conceptual notion for development of the OFW small unit OCs and the technology to enable them is the creation of a micro-variant of the Combined Arms Capabilities (CAC) resident in the Combined Arms Battalion (CAB).

Such a capability becomes essential when the UA is engaging in large scale operations in urban or other restricted terrain in which UE and UA sensors are limited in their ability to penetrate the environment or limited in their availability to cover aspects of ongoing combat operations. Moreover, if the sensors are unable to penetrate the environment, netted fires may not be applied with the rapidity with which they would perform in more open terrain. Early analytical work by TRADOC in examining UA designs has begun to identify the difficulties some kinds of terrain pose for UA sensors and netted fires operations. These difficulties must be addressed and are resolvable in our opinion through the introduction of technology and other changes:

• In environments involving restricted terrain, it would not be surprising to find that in most, if not all, situations, the enemy sees friendly forces first, initiates fire first, and dominates local action.

• Additionally, early analytical work will tend to play netted fires with a limitless amount of ammunition and without the necessary realities of time and space relationships (relevance of shooter-target equation to the need of forces on the ground in contact particularly in restricted terrain).

• While embracing the power of sensors to see most of the battlefield and netted fires to attack many if not most targets in open terrain, the Wolfpack concepts and associated technology approach takes on the difficulties of restricted terrain, which historically has provided a central need for Infantry in combat over the past 50 years.

4.2.2 Missions

The following OF Small Unit Mission statement was created by the Wolfpack CAT:

“OFW small units conduct violent close combat across the spectrum of conflict under any conditions of light, weather or geography at the direction of the unit of action and in support of the Joint or combined force commander.”

4.2.3 Tasks—OF Small Unit Mission Tasks

The Small Unit tasks shown in Exhibit 18 must be conducted under the following conditions:

a. Limited Visibility (Night, Fog, Dust, Smoke, Pollutants)

40


b. All types of chemical/biological/radiological environments

c. All types of weather (extreme cold, heat, wet, dry, windy, high altitude)

DEVELOP INTELLIGENCE

No. Task Offense Defense Stability Support 1 Report Tactical Information X X X X 2 Conduct an Area or Zone Reconnaissance X X X 3 Conduct a Route Reconnaissance X X X X 4 Reconnoiter a Built-up Area X X X X 5 Operate in an Electronic Warfare Environment X X X 6 Establish an Observation Post (OP) X X X X 7 Develop and Exploit Combat Information X X X 8 Process Captured Documents and Equipment X X X 9 Handle Enemy Prisoners of War or Detainees X X X X

DEPLOY/CONDUCT MANEUVER

No. Task Offense Defense Stability Support 10 Breach an Obstacle X X X 11 Conduct a Passage of Lines as the Stationary Unit X X 12 Take Action on Contact X X X 13 Conduct a Screen X X X 14 Conduct Tactical Movement in a Built up Area X X X X 15 React to Snipers X X X 16 Conduct a Movement to Contact X X X 17 Conduct a Raid X X X 18 Conduct an Ambush X X X 19 Attack a Facility X X X 20 Attack a Bunker X X X 21 Clear a Trench Line X X 22 Conduct Stay Behind Operations X X 23 Conduct a Strong Point Defense of a Building X X 24 Conduct a Delay X X 25 Conduct a Tactical Road March X X X X 26 Cross a Water Obstacle X X X X 27 Conduct Actions at Danger Areas X X X 28 Conduct an Infiltration or Exfiltration X X X

29 Conduct Operations with Armored or Mechanized Vehicles in an Urban Environment X X X X

41


30 Employ Protective Obstacles X X X X 31 Attack by Fire X X X 32 Conduct a Passage of Lines as the Passing Unit X X X 33 Conduct Convoy Escort X X X X 34 Conduct Combat Patrol X X X 35 Conduct a Presence Patrol X X 36 Conduct a Search X X X 37 Employ Obscurants X X X 38 Conduct an Anti-Armor Ambush X X X 39 React to Civil Disturbance X X 40 Establish a Check Point X X X X 41 Secure Lines of Communications X X X 42 Search a Building X X 43 Perform Deployment or Redeployment Activities X X X X 44 Prepare Vehicles for Deployment or Redeployment X X X X 45 Assault an Objective X X 46 Conduct a Link-up X X X X 47 Perform Air Assault Operations X X X X 48 Conduct Tactical Movement X X X X 49 Conduct a Relief in Place X X X X 50 Conduct a Bypass X X X 51 Conduct Detention of Civilians and Non-hostile Personnel X X X X

42


PROTECT THE FORCE

No. Task Offense Defense Stability Support 52 Maintain Operations Security X X X X 53 Establish and Maintain Small Unit Camouflage X X X 54 Establish and Maintain Small Unit Communication (Internal/External) X X X X 55 Establish and Maintain Anti-Fratricide Measures X X X 56 Conduct Passive Air Defense Measures X X X 57 Conduct Active Air Defense Measures Against Hostile Aircraft X X X

PERFORM CSS AND SUSTAINMENT

No. Task Offense Defense Stability Support 58 Secure Civilians During Operations X X X X 59 Destroy Enemy Vehicles and Equipment X X X 60 Perform Re-supply Operations X X X X 61 Treat and Evacuate Casualties X X X X 62 Conduct Equipment Maintenance Operations X X X X

EXERCISE COMMAND AND CONTROL

No. Task Offense Defense Stability Support 63 Establish and Maintain Redundant Communications X X X X 64 Conduct Consolidation and Reorganization X X X 65 Prepare for Combat X X X 66 Conduct Troop-Leading Procedures X X X X 67 Occupy an Assembly Area X X X X 68 Conduct a Rehearsal X X X X 69 Mark Friendly Unit Positions X X X 70 Mark Enemy Positions X X X

DEFEND

71 Conduct Defense Offense Defense Stability Support a. Hasty X X X b. Deliberate X c. Built Up Area X X d. Battle Position X e. Sector X 72 Break Contact X X 73 Disengage Enemy Forces X X X

43


No. Task Offense Defense Stability Support 75 Call For and Adjust Fires X X X a. Mortars X X X b. Artillery X X X c. Naval Gun Fire X X X d. Aviation Assets X X X e. Fixed Wing CAS X X X f. UAV X X X 76 Provide Terminal Guidance for Laser Guided Smart Munitions X X X 77 Plan Fires to Support the Offense (Squad Organic Assets) X X X 78 Plan Fires to Support the Defense (Squad Organic Assets) X X X 79 Plan Fires to Support Urban Operations X X X 80 Plan for Area Denial Munitions X

Exhibit 18. OF Small Unit Task List OF Infantry squads and platoons should be focused primarily on offensive operations, with defensive operations as secondary missions and must be capable of separate67, distributed68 and pulsed69 operations.

OF Infantry squads and platoons require on-demand logistics support to ensure rapid response or the units will outrun logistics arrangements as practiced in the LF.

OF Infantry squad can perform all missions of a LF Infantry platoon in all conditions but the capabilities resident at the LF Infantry platoon level will have to be pushed down to the OF Infantry squad level. This direction is being implemented in the Infantry rifle squads of the SBCTs.

OF Infantry squads must have the means to perform some missions currently performed by the LF Infantry platoon. These missions include attack, ambush, and raid. The size and complexity of some targets or objectives will necessitate the combining of OF Infantry squads into a platoon formation to overwhelm the enemy.

OF Infantry squads must be designed to carry out missions separated from other units in space and time and or separated from the platoon (or its higher HQ).

Wolfpack identified two sets of potential OF Infantry platoon designs:

• The first set comprises a 44-man OF Infantry platoon (Exhibit 19) for OF Infantry organizations not equipped with FCS manned platforms and a 53-man OF Infantry platoon for OF Infantry organizations equipped with FCS manned platforms (versus the 49-man UA O&O design). The difference between the two CAT types of platoons within the set is nine vehicle drivers70 (the platoon HQ is transported in a FCS manned platform and each squad is transported in two FCS manned platforms in Infantry organizations equipped with FCS manned platforms).

44


• The second set comprises a 56-man OF Infantry platoon (Exhibit 20) for OF Infantry organizations not equipped with FCS manned platforms and a 65-man OF Infantry platoon for OF Infantry organizations equipped with FCS manned platforms (versus the 49-man UA O&O design). The difference between the two CAT types of platoons is nine vehicle drivers (the platoon HQ is transported in an FCS manned platform and each squad is transported in two FCS manned platforms in Infantry organizations equipped with FCS manned platforms).

Exhibit 19. OF Infantry Platoon—9-Man Squad Based

Exhibit 20. OF Infantry Platoon—12-Man Squad Based

OFW Platoon Commander (CPT) SC 11 Platoon Deputy Commander (2LT/1LT) SC 11 Platoon Sergeant (SFC) MOS 11X4 Asst Platoon Sergeant (SSG) MOS 11X3

OFW

5 NCO/4 EM

2 OFF/ 24 NCO/ 18 EM Total: 44

5 NCO/ 4 EM

OFW

5 NCO/4 EM

OFW

5 NCO/ 4 EM

OFW

OFW Sniper

2 NCO/2EM

45


Both alternative sets have four man sniper squads. The snipers would be transported, in OF Infantry organizations equipped with FCS manned platforms, either with the platoon HQ’s manned platform or one or more of the FCS manned platforms for the squads.

The first set of CAT alternative OF Infantry platoons optimally would provide a 44-man dismounted strength versus the typical 40-man dismounted strength of the UA O&O design—a 10% increase. The second set of CAT alternative OF Infantry platoons optimally would provide a 56-man dismounted strength versus the typical 40-man dismounted strength of the UA O&O design—a 25% increase.

Wolfpack identified two potential OF Infantry squad design alternatives:

• The first alternative (Exhibit 21) is very similar to the UA O&O design, but comprises four nine-man squads that subsume the LF and UA O&O rifle and weapons squads’ capabilities and functions. The CAT recommended OF Infantry squad organization contains a Sergeant First Class/ Staff Sergeant (SFC/SSG) squad leader, weapons (direct and indirect), communications, fire support, medical, sapper and sniper capabilities.

• The second alternative (refer to Exhibit 22) comprises four 12-man squads (versus the four nine-man squads proposed by the UA O&O design), which also subsume the LF and UA O&O rifle and weapons squads’ capabilities and functions. The CAT-recommended OF Infantry squad organization contains an SFC/SSG Squad Leader, an SSG Deputy Squad Commander/Intelligence Sergeant, communications, fire support, medical, sapper, sniper, and enhanced and weapons (direct and indirect) capabilities.

46


Exhibit 21. Objective Force Infantry Squad—9-Man Alternative

Squad Leader SFC/SSG MOS 11X3/4

Senior Infantry Weapons Sergeant SSG MOS 11X3

Senior Infantry Communication/Terminal Guidance Sergeant SGT/CPL MOS 11X2

Senior Infantry Breacher SGT/CPL MOS 11X2

Junior Infantry Breacher CPL-PVT MOS 11X1

Senior Infantry Close Combat Lifesaver Specialist SGT/CPL MOS 11X2

Junior Infantry Close Combat Lifesaver Specialist CPL-PVT MOS 11X1

Junior Infantry Weapons Specialist CPL-PVT MOS 11X1

Junior Infantry Communication/Terminal Guidance Sergeant CPL-PVT MOS 11X1

47


Exhibit 22. OF Infantry Squad—12-Man Alternative The Wolfpack approach to OFW has been to define capabilities at the small unit level, which is enabled by a modular and distributed approach. This enables the small unit to configure itself across the spectrum of perceived need, from the very specialized to the very broad, minimizing the need to “leave capabilities behind.”

The Wolfpack designs assume two robotic multi-functional vehicles per OF Infantry squad.

Squad Commander SFC/SSG MOS 11X3/4

Deputy Squad Commander/Intelligence Sergeant SSG MOS 11X3

Senior Infantry Communications/Terminal Guidance Sergeant SGT/CPL MOS 11X2

Junior Infantry Communications/ Terminal Guidance CPL-PVT MOS 11X1

Senior Infantry Breacher SGT/CPL MOS 11X2

Junior Infantry Breacher CPL-PVT MOS 11X1

Senior Infantry Close Combat Lifesaver SGT/CPL MOS 11X2

Junior Infantry Close Combat Lifesaver CPL-PVT MOS 11X1

Senior Infantry Weapons Sergeant SSG MOS 11X3

Junior Infantry Weapons Specialists CPL-PVT MOS 11X1

48


Neither Wolfpack OF Infantry squad has hierarchical teams; rather, the Wolfpack OF Infantry squads are capable of task organization into assault, support, and security teams as required by mission, providing a more flexible team organization for combat to allow task organization into assault, support, or security elements as required. The Wolfpack OF Infantry squads continue fire-and-movement and fire-and-maneuver as foundation capabilities. The Wolfpack OF Infantry squad design creates patrolling, reconnaissance, and surveillance capabilities for the squad.

4.3 OFW OA Required Capabilities

OF soldiers, leaders, and small units must have the agility to deal with the variety of conditions they will encounter on the non-contiguous, complex battlefield. They must be able to seamlessly transition from vertical maneuver, to mounted operations, to foot movement in any environment with a level of redundancy necessary for information assurance. This demands C4ISR systems that are vertically and horizontally layered and integrated from the strategic to the tactical level across all systems. Drawing information and tailored intelligence products, updated in near-real time, from a wide variety of automated and human sources will provide a knowledge backbone that can revolutionize and expedite the decision-action cycle. This architecture will provide the means for small units to achieve situational understanding (SU), and establish, maintain, and distribute a COP tailored to unit and mission.

4.3.1 Battle Command—Anytime, Anywhere

OF small unit leaders must be able to command from LF, SBCT, and FCS C2 or combat vehicles, or dismounted. When dismounted OF Infantry squad and platoon leaders must maintain connectivity to the network to integrate ISR, maneuver, and fires.

4.3.2 “Space to Mud, Factory to Foxhole”

The Army is following an enterprise strategy that supports digitization by implementing an integrated IT architecture and Horizontal Technology Integration. This strategy incorporates a “Space to Mud” C4ISR approach.

The OF will employ combined arms at lower tactical levels to maximize versatility and agility and improve capabilities for the close fight. OF units are being designed with functional capabilities that currently reside in higher echelons.

4.3.3 “Linking Joint Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance”

The OF is to employ advanced technologies coupled with an array of networked ground, air, and space sensors. Together, these offer the squad and platoon commander an unprecedented picture of the battlefield. Sensors, reconnaissance formations, and data fusion systems, like the Joint GIG, coupled with innovative leader training, will enable OF small units to view a synthesized, CROP of the battlefield. This CROP will provide near-real-time status and locations of friendly forces. This will enable small units to

49


develop and evaluate effective offensive and defensive courses of action while minimizing fratricide. The CROP will also enable small units to know enemy locations and strengths, ascertain his intentions, and defeat him decisively. The CROP is to allow small units to understand what the enemy is doing, better anticipate his intentions, and proactively respond to his initiatives. Leaders down to the squad level will observe the CROP and simultaneously analyze and share assessments through a collaborative planning process enabled by ITs.

4.3.4 “Every Soldier a Sensor, Shooter, and Assessor”

The Army regards the individual soldier as possessing the ability to become the ultimate sensor for the UA. A soldier observes, listens, feels, and processes information. He analyzes, judges, thinks, prioritizes, decides, and communicates what he knows and does so in real time. The soldier is a shooter, who designates, directs, or calls for PE. He does this from inches away to the limit of his technology—enhanced Line of Sight (LOS) with his eyes, laser, or gun sight on the target, in all weather conditions and terrain sets. Most importantly, he is disciplined and trained, understands purpose and intent, and can assess, firsthand, the battle damage and the effects of PE. In effect, the soldier on the ground is the ultimate precision weapon.

Through programs like OFW the Army intends to make every Infantry soldier a shooter in his own right and capable of providing a decisive component of an assault but also a sensor, shooter, and assessor for the full range of Joint Fires, and to provide the means and methods to master future military operations.

The OFW fusion architecture, operating over integrated communications networks, must be capable of accepting data from all Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) sources (organic and external). This includes sensors on board combat vehicles and soldiers, organic manned and unmanned R&S platforms, and external sensor constellations. Three distinct links must be supported by fusion for OF soldiers, leaders, and small units. These are sensor to shooter, sensor to decider and maneuver, and sensor to analysis node.

The OFW ISR architecture needs to fuse artificial and human intelligence coming from many sources in such a way that it is fused at the source and provided directly to the action agent. It is required to provide data directly to weapon systems with tight sensor-to-shooter links, satisfy Commander’s Critical Information Requirements (CCIRs), and empower squads and platoons with responsiveness, agility, and an ability to operate with greater competence, confidence, and purpose.

At each echelon, from soldier to platoon to the UA, information must be processed and fused to contribute to a localized and relevant COP. A series of intelligent agents, profiles, and filters built into the processors and modified to suit specific situations during pre-combat preparations ensures actionable information reaches the proper points of fusion at other echelons.

50


4.3.5 Networked Dismounted Elements71

Networked dismounted elements equipped with OFW like capabilities are to integrate support from mounted elements and from battalion and brigade fires, achieving a dismounted overmatch at tactical standoff.

Brigade and battalion capabilities are to be responsive to squads and platoons in contact. Sensor coverage is to be maintained throughout an assault to see enemy reactions, exploit enemy vulnerabilities, and confirm Battle Damage Assessment (BDA).

Squads and platoons in contact are to provide spot reports, which are immediately shared with adjacent units and higher commanders. Platoons, and squads are to be able to conduct decentralized execution of mission orders to finish engagements.

Squads and platoons are to operate as lethal teams and prepared to respond against enemy engagement from hide positions. Dismounted squads and platoons are to maintain overwatch with precision fires within the building as they enter and clear rooms. Additionally, squads and platoons in the building are to receive mutual support by precise Beyond Line-of-Sight (BLOS) fires. The network must ensure that LOS, BLOS, and external and internal Non Line-of-Sight (NLOS) fires as well as close support by RAH 66 are available on demand to support the squads and platoons as they move through the objective. Force cohesion is to be maintained through a reliable network that provides C4ISR communications within the building and in the subterranean spaces below the building and streets where squads and platoons may need to maneuver.

As commanders collaborate and decide on a course of action, they immediately disseminate their intent down to the squad level, affording maximum time for subordinate commands to conduct requisite troop leading procedures. Squads and platoons disseminate combat information from troops in contact to higher echelons and horizontally to other units that need the information to the level of fidelity needed.

Squads and platoons are to operate as lethal teams and prepared to respond against enemy engagement from hide positions. Dismounted squads and platoons maintain are to overwatch with precision fires within the building as they enter and clear rooms. Additionally, squads and platoons in the building are to receive mutual support by precise BLOS fires. The network must ensure that LOS, BLOS, and external and internal NLOS fires as well as close support by RAH 66 are available on demand to support the squads and platoons as they move through the objective. Force cohesion is to be maintained through a reliable network that provides C4ISR communications within the building and in the subterranean spaces below the building and streets where squads and platoons may need to maneuver.

Squads and platoons focus on most dangerous targets, using networked external and organic fires and determine CID to prevent fratricide. The combination of situational awareness, organic sensors, and forward presence by squads and platoons leaders enables them to make CID decisions.

51


Squads and platoons BLOS and NLOS systems permit mutual support between squads and platoons operating on dispersed axes; the network enables fire control and distribution between separated units.

The integration of sensors down to the squad level with precision LOS, BLOS, and NLOS fires enables immediate reaction to surprise fire from the enemy.

The UA’s aviation detachment and other supporting Army and joint aviation can communicate with and collaborate with UA squads and platoons.

Networked squads and platoons use massed effects to create lethal overmatch.

The C4ISR architecture must include embedded training from individual soldier and leader to collective (squads and platoons). Training implications include: Software to support training must be “as capable” as how to fight doctrine—very adaptable and updateable; the training model must support combinations of virtual, constructive, and live training; and training to order—a National Simulation Center capable of providing scenario, threat, terrain, weather—full spectrum.

4.4 Wolfpack OA Products

Wolfpack Operational Architecture documents provided in the Appendices include the following:

• AV 1 Overview and Summary Information – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see Appendix C

• OV 1 High-Level OC Graphic – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see Appendix D

• OV 2 Operational Node Connectivity Description – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see Appendix E

• OV3 Operational IER Matrix – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see Appendix F

• Wolfpack Use Cases – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see Appendix G

• OV 4 Organizational Relationship Chart – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see Appendix H

• OV 5 Activity Model – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see Appendix I

• OV6 Operational Event/Trace Diagram (Mission Thread) – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see Appendix J.

52


5. Use of OA Products

5.1 Wolfpack OFW System of Systems Architecture

The Wolfpack OFW OA is the defining foundation of the Wolfpack OFW SoSA because it characterizes the capabilities the SoSA must provide. This capabilities-based focus is not based on specific technologies, providing an opportunity for innovation unrestricted by technology biases.

The Wolfpack approach to OFW has been to define capabilities at the small unit level, which is enabled by a modular and distributed approach. This enables the small unit to configure itself across the spectrum of perceived need, from the very specialized to the very broad, minimizing the need to “leave capabilities behind.” This perspective allows for analysis and definition of which systems must interact to achieve the given operational function. This level of analysis will effectively provide architecture of systems required to perform given functions. It will become clear that certain technologies/systems become critical across multiple areas of combat function. Beyond the identification of relationships between systems/subsystems, this analysis potentially enables a quantification of the increased combat effectiveness provided by the given SoS.

SoSs provide increased capabilities due to their synergistic interactions. Systems and subsystems act in concert, enabling a completely new function. A unique differentiation from a system is that SoSs tend to avert catastrophic failures and retain a base level of function represented by the individual functions of the core components.

The Wolfpack SoS Architecture identifies the systems required to achieve the functional needs described in the Wolfpack SoS Concept and O&O Concept documents, as well as their relation to one another.

5.2 Wolfpack OFW System/Technical Architectures

As noted in the recent OSD Acquisition guidance, the OFW SV and TV must characterize available technology and systems functionality in response to the OFW OV and identify the kinds of systems and integration needed to achieve the desired operational capability.

5.2.1 Wolfpack OFW System Architecture

The Information System Services (ISS) infrastructure, the five major subsystems (Knowledge Management Subsystem [KMS], NC Subsystem, Squad Ensemble Subsystem, Force Application Subsystem, and Non-Organic Subsystems), and the interfaces described by the Wolfpack SA also respond to the capability needs derived from Wolfpack’s description of the missions, tasks, and capabilities of OF soldiers and leaders, and small units in the OE described in the Wolfpack SoS Concept and O&OC documents.

53


The flexibility embedded in the architecture reflects the demands of the various configuration needs, tactical functions, and tasks suggested by the variety of soldier, leader, and small unit concepts described in those documents and supports the requisite collaboration demanded during the separate72, distributed,73and pulsed74 operations by OF soldiers, leaders, and small units.

5.2.2 Wolfpack OFW Technical Architecture

The Wolfpack TA provides a coordinating framework and a top-level definition of the OFW system partition and functional allocation. These govern the specification and design of the subsystems and components that will operate together to provide the force multiplication and reach required to ensure success in OF small unit operations. In the context of that top-level structure, the Wolfpack TA will provide a coherent set of governing standards that ensure that OFW subsystems and components operate effectively with the soldiers who rely on them, and with each other, and that OFW will operate successfully with other elements of the UA. The TA is specific to the needs of the OFW concepts and is focused to address its particular needs and provide the specific capabilities envisioned by the OFW OA. The interfaces and interactions it seeks to control are based on the capability needs derived from Wolfpack’s description of the missions, tasks, and capabilities of OF soldiers, leaders, and small units in the OE.

6. Summary The Wolfpack OA Document provides an unambiguous DOTMLPF basis for completion of the Concept and Technology Development phase of the OFW program. It, however, only represents a first step in an iterative development process integral to the spiral development of OFW system concepts and designs, and corresponding TRADOC products.

OFW OA product refinement, via the TRADOC OA development process, database, and tools must be expanded to accommodate not only maturation of proposed OFW program technologies, but also the contextual influences of the other concepts, plans and architectures, the external programmatic and technological influences of Army and Joint programs, and evolving changes to the DoD DAS and JCIDS.

The evolving DoD DAS guidance concerning concept and technology development efforts requires in-depth analysis of the implications described by Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) Memorandum, Defense Acquisition, Attachment 2, Operation of the DAS, 30 October 2002 about development of joint integrated architectures by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) (USD [AT&L]), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD [C3I]), the Joint Staff, the Military Departments, the Defense Agencies, the Combatant Commanders, and other appropriate DoD Components for capability areas agreed to by the Joint Staff especially concerning the OV.

54


Perhaps more significantly, the parallel evolution of the DoD JCIDS requires a in-depth analysis of the potential impact of Joint Staff changes to Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3170.01C concerning JOA/integrated architectures, and reviews and analyses of capabilities/requirements in the context of these integrated architectures.

Development of a closer relationship to the FCS LSI and Program Management Office (PMO) and TRADOC OA product effort appears key to success for the OFW program. Access by the OFW LTI to the FCS ACE and other databases, and sharing of work completed by the FCS LSI and PMO and TRADOC should be leveraged to provide OFW program acceleration and cost savings. It is clear that the functional decomposition work and architecture work performed to date in the FCS program requires detailed interaction with the OFW CD effort. A key concern is that the FCS system, including its supporting communications network, is still in the process of being defined and detailed designs are not scheduled to be finalized until FY05. Therefore, it will be necessary to closely monitor future FCS developments to ensure interoperability between OFW and FCS. Finally, representatives of the OFW program must actively participate in FCS working groups and IPTs to ensure that the overall FCS SoS will serve the needs of the OFW equipped soldiers, leaders, squads, and platoons.

Similarly, development of a relationship to the LW-SI development effort appears key to success for the OFW program. Access by the OFW LTI to the LW-SI effort and databases, and sharing of OA product work completed by TRADOC, should also be leveraged to provide OFW program acceleration and cost savings.

55


Endnotes 1 Wolfpack Enterprise (Wolfpack) Operational Architecture (OA) Document (Interim),

SLIN 2BR, 27 January 2003. 2 Wolfpack System of Systems (SoS) Concept Document (Interim) (Revision 1), SLIN

2AB, 16 December 2002 and Operational and Organizational Concept (O&OC) Document (Final) SLIN 2AF, 24 February 2003.

3 Included, to a degree, as elements of TRADOC OA products. 4 Ibid. 5 Wolfpack SoS Concept Document (Interim) (Revision 1), SLIN 2AB, 16 December

2002 and O&OC Document (Final) SLIN 2AF, 24 February 2003. 6 Wolfpack SoS Concept Document (Interim) (Revision 1), SLIN 2AB, 16 December

2002. 7 Wolfpack O&OC Document (Final) SLIN 2AF, 24 February 2003. 8 Wolfpack SoS Concept Document (Interim) (Revision 1), SLIN 2AB, 16 December

2002. 9 TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-90/O&O, Operational and Organizational Plan (O&OP) for

Maneuver Unit of Action (UA), Change 1, 25 November 2002. 10 TRADOC’s Architecture Integration and Management Directorate (AIMD) is

responsible for producing architecture plans and managing architecture development resources, and is TRADOC's agent for the Army and Army component segments of Joint and Coalition architectures. The AIMD has overall architecture responsibility for policy, procedures, resourcing, and prioritization, and serves as the single point of entry for Joint and Department of the Army directed/requested architecture support from TRADOC.

AIMD-South at Fort Gordon (http://aipc.gordon.army.mil) is responsible for overall integration of all architectural views and types of architectures for the Objective Force (OF), Interim Force (IF), and Legacy Force (LF), and operates and maintains TRADOC's architecture repository and tools to ensure consistent application of architecture information to institutional processes and architecture efforts. AIMD currently supports the development of the following DoD Architecture products:

56


a. AV (Architecture View) 1 – “Overview and Summary Information” – Described

as: Initially a planning document, sets the viewpoint, scope and purpose of the architecture, describes how the architecture was built, identifies roles and responsibilities, provides common lexicons, and focuses capability areas.

Describes: Architecture context, summary, scope, purpose, products and tool sets, environment, analytical findings, and who did/will build the architecture products.

Level of detail: Two levels - plan and summary. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)

b. AV2 - “Integrated Dictionary” – Provides common lexicons and facilitates

common understanding. Describes: All terms in the architecture.

Level of detail: Al acronyms and new conceptual terms not considered common knowledge. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)

c. OV1: “High level Operational Concept Graphic” – Described as an OA product for Concept Exploration/Decision Making. Shows how the user plans to employ available forces and assets on the battlefield to accomplish the mission. Consists of one or more sets of illustration and accompanying text that describe, as a minimum, mission, high-level operations, organizations, and geographical distribution of assets. Level of detail: One per Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E), system, or Battlefield Functional Area (BFA). For the UA: one overarching for the brigade and one for each separate TO&E organization. For FCS: one per BFA/functional area within each of the architectures. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)

d. OV2: “Operational Node Connectivity Description” – Described as an OA product for Concept Exploration/Decision Making. Describes operational elements (OEs), organizations and units that are required to exchange information directly with each other. Describes requirements for OEs to exchange information directly, both internal and external connectivity, and rollups of multiple individual information exchanges sufficient for OV representation. Level of detail: One per TO&E organization or BFA/function, all operational nodes to platform or individual system level to National Command Authority (NCA),

57


interagency level are to be described. For the UA: down to Operational Facility (OPFAC) level. All nodal connectivity will be identified in the database. Summary/rollup sufficient for OV representation. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)

e. OV3: “Operational Information Exchange Matrix” – Described as an OA product for Concept Exploration/Decision Making. Depicts information exchanged between operational nodes/elements and the relevant attributes of that exchange. Describes: Requirements for OEs to exchange information directly, relevant attributes of Information Exchange Requirement (IER), supporting warfighter tasks and activities, and at a minimum Capstone Requirement Document (CRD)/Operational Requirements Document (ORD) required fields. Level of detail: One per TO&E organization or BFA/function, and individual exchanges for operational nodes to platform or individual system level to NCA, interagency level. For the UA: down to OPFAC level. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)

f. OV4: “Organizational Relationship Chart” – Described as an OA product for Concept Exploration/Decision Making. Depiction of OEs involved in a process and the lines of command, control and coordination/relationships among those OEs. Describes: OEs and relationships between OEs. Level of detail: One per TO&E organization. For the UA: down to section/team level. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)

g. OV5: “Activity Model” – Described as an OA product for Concept Exploration/Decision Making. Describes: The hierarchical relationships between activities, the inputs, outputs, controls and mechanisms associated with each activity, graphical and textual description of the activities performed by/within an organization or system, activities performed in the process and their Inputs, Controls, Outputs, and Mechanisms, Task/activity decomposition, Activity Based Costing metrics, and, at a minimum, output(s) and control(s) for each activity. Level of detail: Army Universal Task List (AUTL) tasks down 3-5 levels of detail, Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Pub 183 standards, inputs and outputs to Interface Exchange Requirement (IER) level, and mechanisms to system or OPFAC level. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)

58


h. OV6: “Operational Event/Trace Diagram (Mission Thread)” – Described as an OA for Concept Exploration/Decision Making. Describes: The sequencing of functions or information flows, the user’s operational activity sequence and timing, and actions in a scenario or critical sequence of events required for mission accomplishment. Level of detail: One per mission/function down to operational node and IER level. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)

i. OV7: No title or description identified by AIMD. j. SV1: ”System Interface Description.” Described as linking together the

operational and systems AVs by depicting the assignments of systems and their interfaces to the nodes and needlines described in the Operational Node Connectivity Description. Describes interface requirements between systems and system hardware and software. Level of detail: Internal and external links down to system/subsystem and platform level. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)

k. SV2: “System Communication Description.” Described as representing the specific communications systems pathways or networks and the details of their configurations through which the physical nodes and systems interface. This product focuses on the physical aspects of the Operational Node Connectivity Description and also depicts pertinent information about communications elements and services (e.g., the kind of processing performed onboard a satellite, the locations of network switches or routers, etc.). Describes: communications paths and networks, physical links, and waveforms. Level of detail: Network, platform and system level, and user nodes. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)

l. SV3: “System-to-System Matrix.” Described as describing the inter-system relationships identified in the inter-nodal and intra-nodal perspectives of the System Interface description. Describes: system to system interface requirements, when the interface is required, and type and/or medium used for the interface – physical and data link level.

59


Level of detail: System/subsystem, and physical and data links. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002)

m. SV4: “Systems Functional Description” – No title or description identified by AIMD.

n. SV5: “Op Activity to System Function Matrix.” Identifies the transformation of an

operational need into a purposeful action performed by a system component. Describes: The relationship between the OA and SA views by depicting the mapping of operational activities to system functions, OA to SA traceability, and proposed system solutions. Level of detail: Operational tasks and system software functions. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)

o. SV6: “System Information Exchange Matrix.” Depicts how information will be physically exchanged between operational nodes/elements and the relevant attributes of that exchange. Describes: Physical attributes of, quantitative parameters, and detailed system solutions to IER. Level of Detail: Nodes, OEs, OPFACs; AUTL/Universal Joint Task List (UJTL) activity; message set/data exchange; system/software; and network. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)

p. SV11: “Data Base Schema” – No title or description identified by AIMD. q. TV1: “Technical Architecture Profile.” The profile is time-phased to facilitate a

structured, disciplined process of system development and evolution. Time phasing also promotes the consideration of emerging technologies and the likelihood of current technologies and standards becoming obsolete. Describes: Standards/building codes the architecture is based on and emerging technologies. Level of detail: Varies; provides interface standards, Military Standards, and data interchanges. (Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)

11 The TRADOC Program Integration Office for the Army Battle Command System

(TPIO-ABCS) defines and integrates all battle command requirements and

60


responsibilities from the theater Army to the individual soldier or platform across the entire spectrum of Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF) domains for TRADOC.

12 TRADOC proponent schools and centers are responsible for producing OA products. 13 Per the requirements identified in Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) Memorandum,

Defense Acquisition, Attachment 2, Operation of the DAS, 30 October 2002. 14 For example, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) and Legacy Force (LF)

architectures listed below. The AIMD Product Area web site hosts the architecture repository - a variety of architecture products developed by AIMD, the TPIO ABCS, TRADOC proponent centers and schools, and other support agencies. Products available for download, may either be in initial, draft, or final stages of development. All information and products available on the web site is considered sensitive in nature and not releasable to the general public. Access to the TRADOC architecture repository is password protected and requires AIMD approval. No products downloaded from the web site can be placed on any other web site without the written consent of the AIMD. The products available on the AIMD web site include:

OF Architectures:

1. Draft OF Unit of Employment (UE) Headquarters (HQ) Design OA, 13 Dec 2002 2. OF UE HQ Design Database, Dec 2002

U.S. Army Space & Missile Defense Command (USASMDC):

1. 1st Space Battalion System View (SV) – 1, Version (V) 1.0 8, Jan. 2003 2. 1st Space Battalion Horseblanket, V1.5, 23 Jan. 2003

IF Architectures:

1. Interim Division Band, V1.0 2. Interim Division Base Support Battalion V1.0 3. Interim Division Air Cavalry Support Battalion, V1.0 4. Interim Division Maneuver Sustainment Brigade, V 1.0 5. Interim Division Troops Support Battalion, V 1.0 6. Interim Division Engineer Regiment, V 1.0 7. Interim Division Long Range Surveillance Detachment, V 1.0 8. Interim Division Military Intelligence Battalion, V 1.0 9. Interim Division Military Intelligence Company, V 1.0 10. Interim Division Military Police Company, V 1.0 11. Interim Division Signal Battalion, V1.0

SBCT Architectures:

1. Interim Combat Service Support Company, V2.0 netViz 2. Interim Combat Service Support Company Horseblanket V2.0, 2 May 2001

61


3. SBCT - 3 (172d Light Infantry Brigade (Separate)) Approved Operational Facility

Rules (OPFAC), V2.0 4. SBCT –3 (172d Light Infantry Brigade (Separate)) Horseblanket, V2.0 5. SBCT - 3 (172d Light Infantry Brigade (Separate)) Component and System

Rollup Report, V2.0 6. SBCT - 3 (172d Light Infantry Brigade (Separate)) Database V2.0 7. SBCT – 3 (172d Light Infantry Brigade (Separate)) netViz V2.01 8. Combat Service Support Company-3 (172d Light Infantry Brigade (Separate))

V2.0, 28 January 2002 9. SBCT- 4 (2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light)) Horseblanket V1.5, 7 October

2002 10. SBCT- 4 (2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light)) Business Rules V1.5, 8

October 2002 LF Architectures:

1. ADA Brigade V2.0 netViz, 4 Nov. 2002 2. Civil Affairs Brigade V2.0 netViz, 4 Nov. 2002 3. Field Artillery V2.0 netViz, 4 Nov. 2002 4. Psychological Operations Battalion V2.0 netViz, 4 Nov. 2002 5. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment V2.0 netViz, 11 June 2002 6. 75th Ranger Regiment netViz V2.0, 28 Mar. 2002 7. 75th Ranger Regiment V2.0, 28 Mar. 2002 8. 82nd Airborne Division netViz V1.5, 20 May 2002 9. 82nd Airborne Division Horseblanket V1.5, 18 June 2002 10. 82nd Airborne Division Business Rules and Issues V1.5, 16 Oct. 2002 11. 1st Cavalry Division

Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) AIMD products are to include:

1. SBCT-5 2. SBCT-6 3. XVIIIth Airborne Corps 4. 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) 5. 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized)

15 “NetViz” is hierarchical “visual database” software provided by the “netViz

Corporation” (www.netViz.com). 16 LTG Johnny Riggs, Director Objective Force (OF) Task Force, Briefing at the Space

and Missile Defense Symposium in El Paso, Texas, 11 December 2002. 17 Joint Force Command (JFCOM) is to develop an integrated interoperability plan to

address the following interoperability priorities: Standard operating procedures and deployable joint command and control processes, organizations, and systems for the

62


Standing Joint Force Headquarters, a common relevant operational picture (CROP) for joint forces, enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, selected sensor-to-shooter linkages prioritized by contribution to the Joint Operating Concept (JOC), reachback capabilities that provide global information access, and adaptive mission planning, rehearsal, and joint training linked with C4ISR. (Draft DOD Transformation Planning Guidance, 20 February 2003.)

18 CJCSI 3170.01C, Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), 20

January 2003 (Draft). 19 The goal is to produce military forces capable of the following types of operations by

the end of the decade, e.g., US forces are to leverage asymmetric advantages to the fullest extent possible, drawing upon unparalleled C4ISR capabilities that provide joint common relevant operational situational awareness of the battlespace, rapid and robust sensor-to-shooter targeting, reachback and other necessary prerequisites for network-centric warfare. Combined arms forces armed with superior situational awareness will maneuver more easily around the battlefield and force the enemy to mass where PE capabilities may be used to maximum effect. (Draft DOD Transformation Planning Guidance, 20 February 2003.)

20 Integrated architectures describe in greater detail the relationship between the tasks

and activities that generate effects on enemy forces and supporting operations. They identify where operations intersect and overlap and provide details on interoperability requirements. The architectures will include not just materiel solutions but also doctrine, organization, and training requirements. Using these architectures, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) will be responsible for prioritization of associated requirements based on analysis of their contribution to realization of the Joint Operational Concepts. (Draft DOD Transformation Planning Guidance, 20 February 2003.)

21 TP 525-3-92, OF UE Concept, 27 September 2002. 22 TP 525-3-90/O&O, O&OP for Maneuver UA, Change 1, 25 November 2002. 23 Adapting Future Wireless Technologies, Army Science Board (ASB) – 2001 Ad Hoc

Study, January 2002. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.

63


26 27 Per TP 71-9 and CJCSI 3170.01B, the Army must determine if an Operational

Requirements Document (ORD) falls under an existing Capstone Requirements Document (CRD).

28 Wolfpack SoS Concept Document (Interim) (Revision 1), SLIN 2AB, 16 December

2002. 29 Wolfpack O&OC Document (Final), SLIN 2AF, 24 February 2003. 30 Wolfpack SoS Concept Document (Interim) (Revision 1), SLIN 2AB, 16 December

2002 and O&OC Document (Final), SLIN 2AF, 24 February 2003. 31 For updates go to http://aipc.gordon.army.mil. Access to the TRADOC architecture

repository is password protected and requires AIMD approval. No products downloaded from the web site can be placed on any other web site without the written consent of the AIMD.

32 Mr. John Schroeder, FCS LSI, Briefing, “Development Approach for FCS

Architecture Products, 12 November 2002. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid.

64


35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 ORD for the FCS, Change 2, 22 January 2003. 41 Ibid. 42 “Systems Event-Trace Description” The Systems Event-Trace Description provides a

time-ordered examination of the systems data exchanges between participating systems nodes as a result of a particular scenario. Each event trace diagram should have an accompanying description that defines the particular scenario or situation. The Systems Event-Trace Description in the systems view may reflect system-specific aspects or refinements of critical sequences of events described in the OV.

43 Mr. John Schroeder, FCS LSI, Briefing, “Development Approach for FCS

Architecture Products, 12 November 2002. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 ORD for the FCS, Change 2, 22 January 2003. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 51 ORD for LW, 31 October 2001. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid.

65


54 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, 172nd Light

Infantry Brigade (Separate), 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light), 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, and 56th Brigade 28th Infantry Division (Mechanized).

55 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light) and 56th Brigade 28th Infantry Division

(Mechanized). 56 Infantry Combat Vehicle (ICV), Reconnaissance Vehicle (RV), Commander’s Vehicle

(CV), Engineer Squad Vehicle (ESV), Mortar Carrier Vehicle (MC), Fire Support Vehicle (FSV), Medical Evacuation Vehicle (MEV), and NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV).

57 TP 525-X, The Future Operational Environment and World, A View of the World in

2020, 15 June 2002. 58 Wolfpack O&OC Document (Final) SLIN 2AF, 24 February 2003. 59 TP 525-3-0.1 (Coordinating Draft), Objective Force Battle Command (C4ISR)

Concept, 31 October 2002. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 TRAC TR, TRAC-F-TR-03-007, FCS MNA, TRAC-Fort Leavenworth, November

2002. Also, per Brigadier General (Retired) Pat O’Neal’s (one of the MNA authors) oral statement, the MNA data is based on a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) study commissioned by the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) (the core of the study of over 13,000 mid grade officers can be found in “The Future of the Army Profession,” Don M. Snider and Gayle L. Watkins, The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2000), papers by General (Retired) Paul Gorman and Brigadier General (Retired) Huba Wass de Czege, and several monographs from the School for Advanced Military Study (SAMS) library.

65 TP 525-3-0.1 (Coordinating Draft), Objective Force Battle Command (C4ISR)

Concept, 31 October 2002. 66 “Swarming and the Future of Conflict,” RAND, National Security Research Division,

September 2001.

66


67 Performing a mission apart from the parent platoon. 68 Performing missions under platoon control but at geographically separate locations. 70 Vehicle drivers are “Mobility Specialists.” 71 TP 525-3-90/O&O, O&O Plan for Maneuver Units of Action (UA), Change 1, 25

November 2002. 72 Performing a mission apart from the parent platoon. 73 Performing missions under platoon control but at geographically separate locations. 74 Performing a mission from a forward operating base or operational support base, and

recovering to the base to refit and prepare for follow on missions.