1. Mission Partner Environment(MPE) in Austere Challenge 15
UNCLASSIFIED
JCIDS Info
Required Action: Support continued MPE use case implementation activities
ICD Approved
Sponsor: JS J6
ACAT: N/A
JPD: JROC Interest
Next MS: N/A
Driver: JROCM
Specifics
First major Joint Training event for MPE use case as C2 construct in a Geographic Combatant Command
Austere Challenge Mission Environment (ACME) = MPE Episodic/NATO FMN) implementation. Two equal NCMPs: USA and LTU. JIE Infrastructure used as transport for tunneling ACME between US locations.
USAREUR provided USA ACME basic services to other Service components and CJTF HQ.
Positive impact on operations/mission support activities
Schedule
C4/Cyber FCB WG: 13 Aug
C4/Cyber FCB: 28 Aug
JCB: as required
Supporting Documents
FCB Memorandum, 3 April 2014
MPE Annual Update
US MPE JMEI Joining Instructions, 21 August 2104
DODI , 25 November 2014
Mission Partner Environment (MPE) Information Sharing Capability Implementation for the DoD
Comments
Plan and practice MPE use case with partners in realistic training environments
Sustain CIAV assessment methodologies
Evolve MPE governance within DoD
Emphasize CCMD US BICES-X implementation coupled to non-materiel capabilities: TTP, policy, standards and training
RECOMMENDATION: If expected to operate as a peer in a coalition, be prepared to establish, manage and maintain an MPE contribution as primary C2 use case for US DOTMLPF and TTP
UNCLASSIFIED

2. The Mission Partner Environment in AUSTERE CHALLENGE 2015
UNCLASSIFIED
The Mission Partner Environment in AUSTERE CHALLENGE 2015
John T. Nankervis
JSJ6 C5I IID
UNCLASSIFIED

3. History of MPE AUSTERE CHALLENGE 15
UNCLASSIFIED
AUSTERE CHALLENGE 15
DODI ; MPE Implementation for DOD (NOV 14)
COMBINED ENDEAVOR 14
DOTmLPF advances (MAR )
COMBINED ENDEAVOR 13
JROCM approves 90 day study (FEB 13) “Implement MPE Force wide”
JROCM directing MPE Study (APR 12)
AMN “FOC” (JUL 10)
AMN was the model / precursor for the Future Mission Network (FMN) Requirement
Future Mission Network ICD and CONOPS – Approved JROCM 31 May 12
JROC Memorandum, 5 Feb Approved 90 Day study recommendations, but changed the name to Mission Partner Environment (MPE)
Chairman’s Capstone Concept of Joint Operations (CCJO): Joint Force 2020
Globally integrated operations, increasing the overall adaptability of a multinational force to cope with uncertainty, complexity and rapid change. CCJO is a pillar in Army Mission Command (MC) Strategy and Capstone Concept.
Joint Information Environment (JIE) DoD’s emerging information technology (IT) capability
Army Chief of Staff Memo 21 Mar 2013 to CJCS
Aligns Army Corps and Division HQs to Geographical CCMDs for Joint Warfighting Exercises
Prepares Corps/Division HQs to function as Core JTF or JFLCC
Chairman’s High Interest Training Items (HITI): CJCS Notice , 10 Oct 2014
Joint Force Integration with Mission Partners
MPE Doctrine Activity
MPE language entered into revisions of JP 4.0, 2.0, and 3.16 (MNO)
Currently working MPE language for JP 3.0, 5.0, 6.0
DODI (MPE Information Sharing Capability for the DoD) 25 NOV 2014
“The MPE will serve as the framework for operational information sharing between DoD Components and Mission partners.”
ISAF OPORD directing AMN (JAN 10)
ISAF Stand-alone networks (NOV 08)
FY 09
FY 10
FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
UNCLASSIFIED

4. MPE Operational Context
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE Operational Context
Lesson Learned: U.S. use of SIPRNET during mission partner operations generates strategic, operational and tactical limitations:
[Lack of] Flexibility to combine US, Allied and coalition forces (Afghanistan)
US norm of coordinating ops on SIPR (Afghanistan & Libya)
Unclassified (Releasable) C4ISR capability needed to rapidly and seamlessly direct HA / DR operations with wide array of mission partners
Forces on different networks with inadequate cross-domain solutions resulted in poor ops, planning and intelligence information exchange between U.S. and NATO ISAF forces
Non-materiel DOTMLPF and Policy solutions as or MORE important than materiel solutions
Need for strategic to tactical human-to-human information exchange in a common language on same security and releasability level in real time
Mission partner operational environment (C4ISR) must be in place to support both persistent and episodic (mission specific) operations
MPE leverages a “federation of sovereign C2 networks” which all mission partners may operate as peers within a single information environment
MPE addresses the limitations of US forces operating only on SIPRNet in a mission or event with mission partners that do not have access to SIPRNet.
MPE is a Mission Commander's capability; whether US , NATO, FVEY or another nations’ or organizations, the mission partners shape the operational objectives and the supporting requirements for joining and exiting instructions.
MPE Tier 1 (persistent) is “As Is” COCOM/Component engagement with mission partners via bi and multi lateral relationships. Once a COCOM/Component Commander goes from persistent ops to mission specific ops; MPE must already be in place.
“Our capabilities, tactics, techniques, procedures and terminology must be able to
translate across the services, the interagency and with our mission partners”
(Chairman’s 2nd Term Strategic Direction to the Force)
UNCLASSIFIED

5. MPE Operational Metrics
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE Operational Metrics
MPE “What”
MPE is a federation of networks and national systems composed of policy, transport, systems, applications, a concept of operations and agreed upon joining instructions across nations and CCMDs to achieve unity of effort
MPE “So What”
Clearly communicate commander’s intent for desired operational effects with all mission partners
Moves the fight off SIPR; allowing US and non-US formations, information, and data to operate in the same battlespace
Greater flexibility in mission and task organizing to fight more effectively
US and partners fight with the equipment they own and train with
Addresses CCMD persistent info sharing requirements and JTF episodic events
Elevates mission partners to peers and recognizes their sovereignty
Defines the level of trust & addresses cyber vulnerabilities upfront
Mission Partner Advance Planning, Training, versus Crisis Reaction
UNCLASSIFIED

6. MPE Enduring and Episodic Definitions
UNCLASSIFIED
Application of MPE Principles and Network characteristics differ
(known steady state structure vs. unknown operationally shaped coalition structure)
MPE Enduring: Strategic Level (information sharing & planning)
Asynchronous and non-real time information sharing
Persistent – time not a factor
Specified Mission Partners (bilateral or multi-lateral “Communities of Interest)
Combatant Command (CCMD) HQ capabilities for Mission Partner engagement/planning
Technologically dependent
Integrated with and enabled by Joint Information Environment (JIE)
MPE Episodic: Operational to Tactical Level (Conduct Operations)
Synchronous and near-real-time or real-time conduct of operational mission tasks
Episodic – time to establish always a factor
Mission Focused (exercise or contingency operation)
Unknown mission partners, emergent mission; unknown duration
JTF and component capabilities for peer to peer Mission Partner operations
US may not be lead; but must leverage JIE to contribute US DOTMLPF to coalition
Politicians create coalitions whether long term or mission/event specific. Military and/or DOTMLPF compatibility is not a requirement to become a member of a coalition.
MPE is a Mission Commander capability for operational planning and execution with Mission Partners
Tier I is US centric, a CCMD HQs capability enabled by JIE in required day to day mission partner planning. Mission Partners are already known operating within pre-determined agreements and COIs.
Tier II is episodic and may or may not be US led. Mission Partners could be the same or different than those in Tier I. A JTF Commander will leverage JIE transport and infrastructure attributes to achieve his operational objectives.
US forces bring same DOTMLPF capabilities to the fight whether the lead or in a supporting role.
Practice and more practice is tried and true method of increasing trust among mission partners and reducing time to implement trusted network-enabled information sharing arrangements.
“US and Mission Partners collaborate in Mission Partner Environment (MPE) Enduring environments day to day with the capability to transition to conducting operations within a MPE Episodic for any operation”
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

7. JIE –DI2E – Enduring & Episodic MPE
UNCLASSIFIED
JIE –DI2E – Enduring & Episodic MPE
Persistent  CCDR level  US Centric 
Bi-lateral /Multi-lateral  Specified Mission Partners
e.g. Existing bi-lateral and multi-lateral network relationships
MN BICES, PEGASUS, CPN, etc.
Mission Partner B
Mission Partner C
Mission Partner A
Enduring
MPE
Enduring
MPE
Mission Partner D
Enduring MPE
e.g. Federated
US BICES-X
West
East
South
US BICES-X is an Enduring MPE
Enduring
MPE
DI2E
CCDR
CCDR
Mission Partner F
Mission Partner E
CCDR
MPG
JIE
Connect
Access
Share
Episodic
MPE
CJTF
CFACC
CFLCC
CFMCC
CFSOCC
MPG
MP A
US BICES-X is an Enduring MPE. Federation within USA of US HQs is of interest to partners as it facilitates consistent connection by partners from more than one geographic location. US BICES-X is solely a US owned and operated environment, partners are not part of internal US decision-making. It is NOT related to MN BICES.
Briefing point. MN BICES is another example of an MPE Enduring solution. MN BICES is an environment that supports intelligence information exchange and collaboration between 28 NATO nations, NATO plus seven non-NATO Nations. MN BICES is governed by a MN BICES Board of Governors. MN BICES is but one of many possible connections to US BICES-X.
This slide shows the relationship between JIE, Enduring MPE and an Episodic MPE federation of networks JIE is represented by the purple cloud. JIE enables the US joint force to connect access and share within a single security architecture.
MPE Enduring and MPE Episodic instances are complimentary, not in competition. Each instance of either type of MPE represents trusted relationships with different sets of mission partners.
The Enduring MPE supports the CCDR’s requirement to have a persistent info sharing environment for planning with mission partners. This enduring capability is US provided and will rely heavily on the infrastructure and security provided by JIE. Until the JIE matures, the, the US-BICES-X capability within the Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise is proposed as an interim enduring capability. It is depicted by highlighted in the blue triangle. This triangle represents an envisioned MPE Tier 1 federation of CCMDs, enabled by TNE technology, who can share information with mission partners not only in bi-lat relationships, but also in multi-lat relationships across CCMD boundaries.
The gray cloud represents an episodic MPE. “Hub and spoke” depictions are of relationships not network architectures. Within a coalition event federation of networks the network relationships are many to many. This environment is episodic, temporary in nature and formed to support a specific mission, at a specific mission classification and releasability. The US flag reflects a US extension from JIE into this federated environment. Note, that each nation contributes their own resources to form this federation. They may also elect to connect their own classified and unclass nets to this federated environment as depicted by the red/green lines. From the US perspective, components will be required to repurpose equipment to form “third stack” to support the US contribution to the federated network. Joining, Membership, and Exit Instructions (JMEI) describe the basic standards required for nations to join this environment.
Leveraging US DOTMLPF that has been approved for use on current mission networks (such as CENTRIXS-ISAF) the US is ready today to form a MPE Episodic instance to support any mission.
MP Q
MP X
MP B
MP Y
MP C
LEGEND
National Classified Network (e.g. SIPRnet)
National Unclassified Network (e.g. NIPRnet)
National Contribution (3rd Stack); National DOTMLPF-P, IA, Security
Enduring MPE Connection
Episodic MPE Federated Network; Commander accepts risk, sets rules
MP P
MP Z
MP D
Temporal  CJTF level  Commander centric 
Unknown Coalition of the Willing
Temporal  CJTF level  Commander centric 
Unknown Coalition of the Willing
UNCLASSIFIED

8. ACME – MPE Episodic/NATO FMN
UNCLASSIFIED
ACME = Austere Challenge [15] Mission Environment
AC15 Joining Membership and Exiting Instructions (JMEI)
Policy and TTPs: Collective agreement for AC15
Starting Point references: US MPE JMEI Joining Instructions, CE14 JMEI, NATO FMN Implementation Plan Vol 1 & draft Vol 2.
Management: AC15 NETOPS
“Third Stack”: Provided by each ACME mission network
Contributor (USA, LTU)
Piggyback arrangements follow provider governance
and protection requirements (must be a coalition
member)
Training: Per AC15 training audience and
scenario requirements
Governance: AC15 CJTF CJ6 overall,
Each ACME network contribution
governed, resourced and protected by owner
CIAV: Embedded in AC15 planning and
execution process to include “Do no harm” change mgmt.
Self provided National Secret
Self provided National Unclassified
Self provided Cross Domain Information Exchange Guard
USA provided Multi-National (MN) BICES
ACME
REL AC15
CJTF
CFACC
CFLCC
CFMCC
CFSOCC
Other USA Locations
UNCLASSIFIED

9. AC15
UNCLASSIFIED
BLUF: Positive impact of ACME on operations and mission support activities was evident in almost every AAR and FAAR slide from every reporting organization.
Austere Challenge Mission Environment (ACME)
MPE Episodic implementation - Two equal parts: USA and LTU
JIE Infrastructure was used for tunneling ACME between US DoD locations
USAREUR provided USA ACME basic services to Service components and CJTF HQ
Pros:
USAREUR planned /executed coalition OPS in ACME as a peer network contributing partner with LTU
ACME (USA part) utilized as primary C2 network for AC15 at all echelons within the Component (CFLCC)  Over 880 USA User accounts
ACME (LTU Part) utilized as primary C2 network for AC15 at all echelons within LTU MoD forces Over 180 LTU User accounts
ACME complemented by national networks (SIPRNet and NIPRNet) and MPE Enduring (MN BICES)
Cons:
Inadequate planning at CCMD (JFC)for functional mission planning and execution
Inadequate access to ACME at CJTF HQ…only 6 terminals/2 VoIP lines…all remote from JOC and directorate access.
Inadequate planning for including coalition partners in Morning Update Brief (MUB) held in SECRET NOFORN room/broadcast only on SIPR
USA contribution a combination of Virtual Desk top Interfaces (VDIs), Desktop and specific system workstations USA user accounts. LTU 180+ user accounts
VDI provided services* to CFLCC HQ (TOC) and CFLCC Fwd from a central stack plus access to COP viewing via Google Earth and Command Web. 4ID TOC majority of ACME workstations were desktops or laptops. Army Battle Command System workstations were on ACME at all CFLCC echelon locations.
* , Global Address List sharing, chat, VoIP, web browsing and portal
JIE Infrastructure was used as a common long distance transport for tunneling ACME between US DoD locations
 JIE Enterprise Operations Center handled all SIPRNet and NIPRNet related Help Desk tickets for AC15
AC15 “Exercisism”: USAREUR provided USA ACME basic services to other Service components and CJTF HQ
Service Responsibility for MPE Episodic In the MPE Episodic model each Service is expected to provide their own mission network" node and services as a contribution to a federation of mission networks for a specific mission or exercise. This is includes core collaboration services as well as specific Service warfighting capabilities and tools.
Goods
1. USAREUR planned and executed coalition OPS in a MPE Episodic contribution to Austere Challenge Mission Environment (ACME) as a peer network contributing partner with LTU
2. ACME (USA part) utilized as primary C2 network for AC15 related OPS and mission support activities at all echelons within the Component (CFLCC)
3. ACME (LTU Part) utilized as primary C2 network for AC15 related OPS and mission support activities at all echelons within LTU MoD forces
4. ACME complemented by national networks (SIPRNet and NIPRNet) and MPE Enduring (MN BICES) for AC15 related but national-only-business and dissemination of national origin intelligence products after processing for release respectively
Others
1. Inadequate planning at CCMD functioning as CJTF HQ for functional mission planning and execution info sharing requirements
Monitoring of air, ground, land COP, issuance of orders and receipt of reports, logistics/sustainment/movement support, targeting, legal, personnel recovery, personnel casualty reporting, Knowledge Management, etc.
2. Inadequate access to ACME at CJTF HQ
6 laptops/2 VoIP lines in isolated space
3. Inadequate planning for including coalition partners in Morning Update Brief (MUB) and inclusion in daily CJTF HQ battle rhythm
In effect no plan was in place by CJTF HQ staff to support a daily coalition wide forum for issuing guidance, receiving reports, and sharing status of forces updates
HQ Decision that VTCoIP on ACME was not required/desired; instructions to staff that MUB would be conducted at REL USA, AC15, NATO releasability level not issued until third day (in part forced by participation in MUB of USAREUR DCOM (a German Army Brigadier General) 6
UNCLASSIFIED

10. UNCLASSIFIED
Recommendations
If expected to operate as a peer in a coalition, be prepared to establish, manage and maintain an MPE contribution as primary C2 use case for US DOTMLPF and TTP
Plan and practice MPE Enduring and Episodic use cases with partners in realistic training environments
Sustain CIAV assessment methodologies
Evolve MPE governance within DoD
Emphasize CCMD US BICES-X implementation coupled to non-materiel capabilities: TTP, policy, standards and training
UNCLASSIFIED

11. Contacts John T. Nankervis JSJ6 C5I IID 757-836-0619 Bob Hartling
UNCLASSIFIED
Contacts
John T. Nankervis
JSJ6 C5I IID
Bob Hartling
Tom Lang
JSJ6 C5I IID Div Chief
UNCLASSIFIED

12. UNCLASSIFIED
Back Up
UNCLASSIFIED

13. Summary CCMDs 15 Star Memo to CIO (Feb 2015):
Isolated mission network moves ops off of SIPRnet
Common mission network across all CCMDs is a critical operational need
Accelerate fielding a mission network under purview of ongoing MPE and JIE efforts
CIO response to CCMDs: Lead an expedited assessment to determine the feasibility of a single fully operational MPE NLT the end FY16. In support, request CCMDs (April 2015):
capitalize on your respective FY15/16 CCMD operations and exercises to inform and subsequently expedite MPE implementation.
Identify existing network and information sharing initiatives supporting near-term MPE objectives
Describe how your Service Components are training and equipping to operate in a MPE
List activities which synchronize MPE efforts with your respective mission partners