1. MPE – Enabling ALL to securely SEE, DECIDE, ACT MPE - Highlights  Establish Core Implementation Working Group  Build Joining, Membership, and Exiting Instruction Templates  Sustain an Interoperability, Assurance and Validation Capability  Leverage US BICES-X  Define MPE Governance  Continue NATO, FVEY & Mission Partner Coordination  Implement in Training Venues  Define Material Enablers  Ensure MPE is linked to JIE UNCLASSIFIED Implementation Actions MPE:  Is not a new program of record  Requires Operator Ownership and Involvement  Leverages Lessons Learned  Uses Existing Mission Threads  Addresses Cyber Imperatives  Takes a DOTMLPF Approach  Emphasizes Joint Information Environment (JIE) attributes  Includes Mission Partners  Leverages existing Technology & Processes; APAN, CMNT, TNE Pegasus & CIAV  Underscores Operational Efficiencies MPE Teaming with:  Combatant Commanders  Services  NATO  Other Mission Partners Vision Experience and lessons learned from a decade of global military operations confirms the need for the US to work in concert with Allies, coalition members, and other mission partners. MPE provides the ability for US joint forces to plan, prepare, and execute C4ISR at the same releasability and classification level as mission partners. MPE provides the means to clearly communicate commander’s intent for desired operational effects to all mission partners. Established to mission partner agreed-to frameworks, MPE is consistent across all CCDRs/US CJTF HQs; individual nations are resourced and equipped independently, each contributing their own equipment and resources. MPE is not about a new network; it is about shaping already existing DOTMLPF-P capabilities to address a commander’s need for unity of effort and speed of command within a coalition force. Background During the 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan, the primary use of SIPRNET constrained the commander‘s ability to combine and tailor Allied and coalition forces to realize their full warfighting potential. The inability to speak with immediacy to all mission partners inhibited the commander’s ability to rapidly direct US and Allied task forces, increasing military risk to the mission and forces. The need to reduce risk and increase mission effectiveness spurred the development of the Afghan Mission Network (AMN). AMN is a federation of networks linked to a NATO provided “Releasable to ISAF” core network complying to NATO security and information assurance (IA) policies. AMN put all ISAF users in a “Releasable to ISAF” work environment to achieve operational imperatives. By May 2011, there were 48 ISAF partner nations successfully operating within the AMN. With the AMN experience providing the backdrop, on 26 August 2011, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saw the need to “Evolve the Future Mission Network (FMN).” Objective MPE enables commanders to establish mission network environments in which required training and operations may be conducted from Phase 0 through Phase V with any network contributing mission partner at any time while operating at an information releasability level appropriate to a specific set of coalition mission partners. A US MPE contribution to a coalition federation of networks will leverage and replicate key attributes of the emerging Joint Information Environment (JIE) IT infrastructure, enterprise services and architectures, to provide seamless application of the same DOTMLPF by warfighters regardless of mission environment in which they are operating. Actions Completed Capability Gap Assessment (Oct 2011) Terms of Reference (Nov 2011) CONOPS/ICD (April 2012) JROCM for Follow-on 90 Day Study (June-August 2012) FMN 90-Day Study Completed/Staffed (Sep 2012) FMN 90-Day Study Results briefed to C4/Cyber FCB (Nov 2012) FMN 90-Day Study and Name Change Approved by JROC (Jan 2013) JROCM assigns JS J6 lead for MPE Implementation (Feb 2013) Implementation Working Group established (Mar 2013) Mission Partner Environment (MPE) [formerly FMN] as of 18 June 2013 QUICK LOOK Joint Staff, Director for Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber Department of Defense, Chief Information Officer