Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

ALLIED COMMAND TRANSFORMATION JOINT WARFARE CENTRE Mr Ivan Vianello Chief Team A CAX Support Branch Simulation Modelling & C4 Division JTLS at JWC [12.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "ALLIED COMMAND TRANSFORMATION JOINT WARFARE CENTRE Mr Ivan Vianello Chief Team A CAX Support Branch Simulation Modelling & C4 Division JTLS at JWC [12."— Presentation transcript:

1 ALLIED COMMAND TRANSFORMATION JOINT WARFARE CENTRE Mr Ivan Vianello Chief Team A CAX Support Branch Simulation Modelling & C4 Division JTLS at JWC [12 Dec 2012]

2 New NATO’s Military Structure HQ AIRCOMM Ramstein HQ MARCOMM Northwood HQ LANDCOM izmir JFC Brunssum JFC Naples Military Committee SHAPE HQ-SACT NC3A NCST ACO ACT JWC JFTC JALLC 2 CAOCs EUROCORPS ARRC NRDC-GE/NL NRDC-T NRDC-I NRDC-S NCIA FRRCORP LCC Heidelberg HQ Madrid JC Lisbon MCC Naples NRDC : NATO’s Rapid Deployable Corps ; ARRC : Allies Rapid Reac Corps

3 JWC Mission JWC plans, conducts and executes operational training; conducts and supports collective training of joint and combined staffs of the NATO Command Structure (NCS) and NATO Force Structure (NFS) for Major Joint Operations (MJOs) and Small Joint Operations (SJOs) SIMULATION, MODELING & C4 DIVISION (SMC4) is responsible for the planning, management and provision of Computer Assisted Exercises (CAX) and the C4 and CIS environments related to the JWC Programme of Work (POW). CAX SUPPORT BRANCH is responsible for providing appropriate modeling and simulation support to deliver CAX capabilities for training events.

4 Joint Force Command Brunssum Joint Force Command Naples SHAPE MCC Northwood ACC Ramstein LCC Izmir JWC Customers: Joint Warfare Centre

5 Models in JWC JTLS + VBS2 to support NRF (Nato Response Force ) Exercises 2 Main Events per year 1 JFC and 3 HQ’s involved (1200 people) - Distributed Exercise Control 400 people - centralized in JWC JWC CAX Specialist Team 9 People (Core Team). Additional Support from Contractors, R&A, M&S COE (2 people) VBS2 to support ISAF HQ Training Event Live Stream is definitely a TA requirement but at today : -Multiple streams are not possible -max 3/4 vignettes per day (manpower demanding) - difficulties to support TA last minute requests for streaming outside the MEL MIL (MSEL) plan.Going towards Kinetic (Article V) scenarios this requirement may rise more frequently. TA can take initiative not only React.

6 2012 a Challenging Year Steadfast Joist 12  Moving to New Building The Complete infrastructure is Virtualized JWC Staff use Thin client for daily job During the Execution JTLS is running on VM : Two Pools : 1 for Server (JTLS Services), 1 for Clients (Whips). In Total 5 full Games Running 1 JWC CAX Technician prepare and look after the entire CAX Infrastructure

7 2012 a Challenging Year Steadfast Juncture 12  New Scenario (towards Article V) Settings (GEO – DB) : 52 national Boundaries 17 Countries Around targets (46520 Bridges, Facilities, 3040 Runways, 9789 Tunnels etc etc ) 8 Sides 6345 Flight Corridor for Civilian flights Civilians Flights per day over the exercise Area Orbat : Alliance, Sitfor, OPFOR (new concept), built with JOBE

8 JTLS in JWC Flexible ( easy to Rerun and deploy the model) Manageable - no complex Architecture key Size of the Game has impact on crash procedures i.e. CEP start time.(example of Next exercise)

9 “ Keep the CAX Architecture as Simple as possible” -Scenario Size implications Reduce Complexity of Setup / Crash - Recover procedures Game Start up time -Only CAX tools considered Critical for a specific Event are added in the event CAX Architecture. -CAX Environment has to be easily reproducible after the exercise with minimum manpower and resources -Minimize the possibility that required Architecture updates, can prevent a new model version to be used for an event. Current Approach fits with JWC IT (VM) Environment and available Manpower JTLS in JWC

10 Considerations 1.Mission requirements 2.Security 3.Feasibility 4.Usability 5.Coherence 6.Robustness 7.Affordability 8.Sustainability 9.Modularity 10.Cohesiveness 11.Connectivity 12.Economy 13.Extensibility All design are technically feasible but the question is how do they fit with these 13 considerations and within your organizations ?

11 SFJE12 EXPERIENCE JTLS to play a Cyber Attack incident JTLS for EXCON “next day preview” in support of a Kinetic Incident. JTLS information’s combined with Mel Mil (MSEL) layer and UAV Stream on a NATO C2 System

12 CYBER ATTACK with JTLS One of the goals of Cyber Attacks is to discredit the “trust” in the IT systems used. However, from training perspective, such an effect could be intentionally planned to achieve a specific training Objective.

13 CYBER ATTACK with JTLS During the Execution of SFJE12 Mel Mil (MSEL) Team planned a specific Cyber Incident One of the two C2 systems (MCCIS) used had to be “attacked” : Additional enemy tracks were supposed to appear in the RMP. The goal was to have a mismatch in the Training Audience C2 systems. MCCIS showing “enemy tracks detected” AIR and Land C2 with no information's about the incoming threat

14 CYBER ATTACK with JTLS A Specific side was selected as temporary source for the “fake” tracks. Copies of enemies ships were created from the chosen side. In JTOI the Naval update for the “fake tracks” side was Filtered out in order to prevent Air C2 system to be stimulated (potentially it could receive Ship updates as well) TPFDD in

15 Fake Ships were then Magic Moved and ordered to start sailing Unit intel was passed to Training Audience Side to force detection Fake Ships started getting reported only in 1 C2 system (MCCIS) No DSA in the area Air Cell were role playing “no detection” from air asset in the area (fake tracks were still appearing in the WHIP) CYBER ATTACK with JTLS

16

17 ”The day after” Requirements : An MEL MIL (MSEL) Incident triggered the Training Audience Decision to conduct an Amphibious Attack during the Night. (No 24 hrs manning). Mel Mil team needed the “next day “ situation for a possible contingency plan. Solution : CAX team implemented the Amphibious in Run Ahead game Runahed was fast forwarded until the next morning with the TRIPP connected. During the Evening MEL MIL Sync meeting, Mel Mil team intensively used the TRIPP to analyze the situation.

18 Experiment : C2 as UDOP From Theatre : UDOP (User Defined Operational Picture). The goal was to optimize the information flow and access within the HQ itself. The key was to reuse tools available in NATO (ICC) without starting new projects. ICC clients have been fed with different KML files : “Incidents” and “Actions” pulled from JEMM (MSEL tool) Simulation data’s updated in real time from JTLS. (KOI) JOC WATCH information's (Training Audience perception of incidents) VBS2 Stream Hyperlink within the KML “info bubble” the pointed operator to directly to the Live feed (As in real Life)

19 Looking into BBW capabilities for the future exercises JTLS TBMD Stimulation Capabilities next exercise TBMD will be Main TO NATO new Air C2 systems (ICC 2.8.2) has embedded a TBMD “COP” tool that will be stimulated by JTLS JWC WAY AHEAD

20 Questions “……Clearly the value of JTLS to an operational-level exercise is enormous. If we were not able to maintain “white truth” via JTLS, the exercise would not only be unmanageable but the entire exercise would fall apart. ……JTLS set conditions for the execution of a revolutionary exercise in numerous way to include : cyber play, incorporating kinetic play as part of an operational-level exercise ….and the list goes on; I realize that we have only begun to tap into the potential for JTLS and I cannot imagine a serious exercise without it. ………” JWC Chief Mel Mil Steadfast Juncture 12 Exercise.


Download ppt "ALLIED COMMAND TRANSFORMATION JOINT WARFARE CENTRE Mr Ivan Vianello Chief Team A CAX Support Branch Simulation Modelling & C4 Division JTLS at JWC [12."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google