77th MORSS
US Army Command and General Staff College
Fort Leavenworth, KS
16-18 June 2009
Composite Group B
C4ISR and Net-Centric Operations
WG 6, WG 7, WG 8, WG 9 , WG 10
WG 6 - Battle Management/Command and Control
CHAIR:
Dwayne T. Hill, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, 703-681-2749, dwayne.thomas.hill@us.army.mil
CO-CHAIRS:
Terence Peterson, 703-998-0660, terence.peterson.ctr@osd.mil
Steven L. Forsythe, 937-912-5601, Steven.Forsythe@jhuapl.edu
ADVISOR:
Peggy Gravitz, AEgis Technologies Group, 407-383-9192 , pgravitz@aegistg.com
Command and Control (C2)/Battle Management is one of the six joint functions that enable the conduct of joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational tasks across the range of military operations. Joint Publication 3-0 states that command and control is “the authority and responsibility for effectively using available resources and for planning employing, organizing, directing, coordinating, controlling, and protecting military forces for the achievement of assigned missions.” For the past several years, the United States has been required to command and control joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational forces during offensive, defensive and stability operations in locations around the world. From these operations, analysts have been involved in not only helping plan and support these operations, but responsible for identifying and providing solutions to real-time battlefield issues.
The execution of command and control (C2) in current and future operations will require the development and implementation of structures, systems, and procedures. With the advent of asymmetric warfare, operations in urban environments, collaboration with joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational entities, as well as changes in technology, the development and implementation of structures, systems and procedures are becoming more and more complex. As a result, the need for analysts in helping determine the C2 capabilities needed, modeling and simulating all aspects of urban warfare, predicting and assessing C2 performance, predicting friendly and neutral casualties and attrition, estimating logistics requirements, and identifying timely strategies and options for the commander is increasing.
In addition, the commencement of the Global Information Grid (GIG) and the concept of Net-centric Warfare present major challenges for the analyst. In order to achieve the capabilities envisioned by the GIG and Net-centric Warfare - to expand the ability of the military commander to plan operations, assess their progress and quickly effect changes that appropriately respond to developments on the battlefield - analysts at every level will be vital in developing and evaluating the necessary and sufficient C2 solutions.
Working Group 6 invites papers and discussions regarding the current and future analysis of C2 issues, systems, architectures, investment strategies and processes as well as educational programs, training programs and tools that support the continued growth and development of analysis skills and expertise. Presentations may include completed studies or work-in-progress.
WG 07 - ISR and Intelligence Analysis
CHAIR:
Tim Elder, Lockheed-Martin, 858-922-5651, tim.elder@lmco.com
CO-CHAIRS:
Dr. Ronald Tuttle, USAF Institute of Technology, 937-255-3636 ext 4536, Ronald.Tuttle@afit.edu
CDR Eric Law, USN, OPNAV N81, 703-614-0271, eric.law@navy.mil
Mr. Bryan Tollefson, USN, Surveillance Systems, CODE 56370, 619-553-7634, bryan.tollefson@navy.mil
Mr. Scott Schoeb, USA, ISR Branch, CIMCAD Division, USAMSAA, 410-278-6450, scott.schoeb@us.army.mil
Mr. James Fink, US Army Intelligence Center, RDD, 520-538-2279, james.fink@us.army.mil
ADVISOR:
Don Timian, Army Test and Evaluation Command, 703-681-2745, donald.timian@atec.army.mil
For the foreseeable future, the United States will maintain the technological edge in "battlefield awareness" and precision-guided weaponry. However, in the decades to come, we will face three types of threats: Asymmetric threats in which state and non-state adversaries avoid direct engagements with the US military but devise strategies, tactics, and weapons to minimize US strengths and exploit perceived weaknesses; Strategic threats, including mobile missile and submarine threats, in which Russia, China, and probably North Korea, Syria , Iran, will have the capability to strike the United States or their allies; and Regional military threats in which a few countries maintain large military forces with a mix of Cold War and post-Cold War concepts and technologies. Many of these potential adversaries are undertaking increasingly sophisticated Cover, Concealment, Camouflage, Denial and Deception (C3D2). These efforts are designed to hide key activities, facilities, and capabilities (e.g. mobilization or attack preparations, WMD programs, advanced weapons systems developments, treaty noncompliance, etc.) from US intelligence; to manipulate US perceptions and assessments of those programs; and to protect key capabilities from US precision strike platforms. With the increase in dynamic targeting, smaller yield weapons, a desire for reduced collateral damage and a large and growing inventory of coordinate-seeking weapons, special emphasis will be placed on the ability of intelligence assets to provide accurate Target Location Accuracy. Foreign knowledge of U.S. intelligence and military operations capabilities is essential to effective C3D2. Advances in indications and warning capabilities; the growing availability of camouflage, concealment, deception, and obscurant materials; advanced technology for and experience with building underground facilities; and the growing use of fiber optics and encryption will increase the C3D2 challenge.
The 2004 Intelligence and Terrorism Prevention Act calls for actionable intelligence tailored to the threats of the 21 st century. Key to producing actionable intelligence from raw information is having highly trained and skilled professionals, who comprehend advanced analytical techniques. We must continue to evolve and advance analytical training with interactive high fidelity tools and modeling and simulation data when real world data is not available. Papers that explore multidisciplinary themes are highly desired. Papers are also solicited in the areas of foreign use of Operations Research (OR) to support intelligence, OR support to joint and coalition intelligence, and the use of new or nontraditional methodologies/sciences in support of the intelligence community. Presentations may include completed studies or work-in-progress.
WG 08 - Information Operations (IO)
CHAIR:
Stephen R. Orr IV, 706-791-5496, srorr2@mi.army.mil
CO-CHAIRS:
Col Robert A. Morris, USAF/(8 th AF) Cyber Command, 240-373-2866, robert.morris@us.af.mil
Dr. Christopher Degni, SAIC, 240-373-1782, degnic@saic.com
Maj Kenneth Stoni, USAF/SOCOM, 813-828-7928, Kenneth.stoni@socom.mil
Maj Todd Hamill, USAF/STRATCOM, 404-294-3479, hamillj@stratcom.mil
ADVISOR:
Charles Chellis, NSA/NTOC, 240-373-1787, cschell@nsa.gov
The 76th MORS Symposium theme is “Responding Globally, Leading Analytically.” Information Operations (IO) is a very broad field, requiring a wide range of disciplines to support its analytical, operational, planning, testing, training, and experimentation applications. From social network analysis to digital signal processing, from individual bits to transnational populations, IO requires an interdisciplinary approach to both define and solve its tough problems. Of crucial importance is the ability to demonstrate the impact of IO capabilities during peace, crisis, war, or operations other than war. The IO Working Group seeks to showcase analyses and associated papers that provide insight into these important areas, regardless of the IO technique or capability used. Specifically, WG 8 seeks analyses demonstrating the impact of IO and information strategies upon adversary, friendly, and neutral organizations. Results of actual analyses and exercises represent the working group’s (WG) primary focus, but actionable decision support techniques applied to IO are also welcome.
The WG will use as its starting point the Department of Defense (DoD) definition of IO as defined by DoD Directive O-3600.01 on August 14, 2006: “Information Operations (IO). The integrated employment of the core capabilities of Electronic Warfare (EW), Computer Network Operations (CNO), Psychological Operations (PSYOP), Military Deception (MILDEC), and Operations Security (OPSEC), in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own.” The WG also recognizes that IO efforts must also be globally integrated with actions taken by other instruments of national power, and as such must also consider Interagency, non-governmental, and Coalition partners, as well as potential opponent and neutrals across the full spectrum of conflict. Moreover, the heavy reliance upon information technologies and ensuing global integration has increased the importance of information and information superiority to the point that information technologies and information are becoming a critical objective for future conflicts.
The IO WG encourages you to submit analyses and associated papers relevant to the IO areas outlined below. The submission may be finished work, work in progress, or ideas and concepts.
-
Activities and analyses that demonstrate the integration of IO capabilities at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war to produce effective US Government (USG) responses, through the use of DoD IO capabilities;
-
Real-world applications of IO tools or techniques;
-
Multidisciplinary approaches to defining and solving IO problems;
-
Analyses of network operations that demonstrate the impact of information attack, defense, exploitation and assurance as well as on attack detection, and/or restoration across the spectrum of conflict;
-
Studies using tools applied to any of the IO core competencies described above;
-
Studies that examine the effects of IO attack, defense, and influence operations on friendly, adversarial, and/or neutral organizations;
-
Studies that provide insight into the use of offensive, defensive, and local and global influence information strategies during conflict and stability operations, and their resulting successes and failures;
-
Studies that deal with the interaction of IO in dealing with the terrorist threat;
-
Symposia, games, experiments or acquisition testing that involved IO, emphasizing the vulnerabilities of information-dependent organizations.
Papers that describe development of IO analysis tools, techniques, measures of effectiveness, battle damage indicators and battle damage assessment methods—or the refinement of existing ones—are welcome. Note that all presentations and discussions must be kept at the Secret level or lower. We look forward to hearing from you!
WG 09 - Countermeasures (CM)
CHAIR:
Tuyen V. Tran, Northrop Grumman Corporation, 410-471-7555, tuyen.tran@ngc.com
CO-CHAIRS:
Maj Nate Grauvogel, 412 EWG/OL-AB, 817-763-4390, nathanael.grauvogel@dcma.mil
Clyde “Max” Shook, HQ AFSOC, 18FLTS/DOA, 850-884-2758, max.shook@hurlburt.af.mil
ADVISOR:
Nathanael Mosley, Jacobs Technology, Inc., 850-882-8504, nathanael.mosley@eglin.af.mil
Electronic Warfare (EW) & Countermeasures (CM) are battle-proven, core contributors to force survivability that are helping save lives in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The CM community is constantly seeking better ways to secure freedom in our world. In many arenas, CM technology and tactics provide a secure space for warfighters and civilians. Historically, this has been true in the struggle for air superiority. In the present, we see the need for countermeasures to protect against asymmetric attacks in the form of mortars and IEDs. We also see the race for missile defense systems to protect against long-range missile attacks from rogue nations. Technology transfer, especially from former allies to current threats, has resulted in a "next generation" advance almost across the board for threat/potential threat systems. The Missile Defense Agency and the Joint Services must anticipate and respond to whole new classes of EW/CM techniques and technologies.
The theme of the 77th MORSS "Responding Globally, Leading Analytically" describes the focus for Working Group 9 papers. Operations research has led the advancement of the tools utilized in the EW/CM environments and we are therefore seeking papers which address operations research studies, methodologies, models and simulations, and other analysis tools that support the following areas of interest: intelligence identification and collection of threat data; electro-magnetic pulse weapons and countermeasures; EW flagging models; foreign materiel exploitation; EW hardware, software, and mission data requirements and development; EW test and evaluation; EW reprogramming and supporting databases; EW effectiveness and reliability assessment programs and readiness reporting; Joint tactics, techniques, and procedures for the integration and command and control of EW self protection and lethal and non-lethal suppression of enemy defenses assets; conveying the military worth of EW to senior decision makers; range systems, simulations, and testing methodologies; countermeasures and counter-countermeasures for the full range of the electronic spectrum; chemical & biological countermeasures and cyber security.
Papers are encouraged from all service and joint organizations as well as defense and technology companies on completed projects, works in progress, or mission activities supporting Electronics Warfare & Countermeasures. Note that all presentations and discussions must be kept at the Secret level or lower.
WG 10 - Operational Contributions of Space Systems
CHAIR:
Lynda Liptak, Applied Research Associates, Inc., (505) 883-3636, lliptak@ara.com
CO-CHAIRS:
Tom DeLaCruz, SCITOR, (719) 637-6624, TDeLaCruz@scitor.com
Thomas H. Jacobs, Air Force Research Laboratory, (937) 904-6520, Thomas.Jacobs@wpafb.af.mil
Milt Johnson, AFSPC/A9FA, (719) 556-3712, Milton.Johnson@peterson.af.mil
Dr. Lee Lehmkuhl, MITRE, (719) 572-8307, LeeL@mitre.org
Monica Montoya, AFRL/VSES, (505) 853-6196, Monica.Montoya@kirtland.af.mil
Paul Page, Army Space & Missile Defense Command, (256) 955-1618, Paul.Page@us.army.mil
Michael Tedeschi, Air Force Space Command, (719) 554-8107, Michael.Tedeschi@peterson.af.mil
Dr. Steve Carr, JHU/APL, (240) 228-8586, Stephen.Carr@jhuapl.edu
ADVISOR:
Mark Reid, MITRE, (719) 572.8255, Mark.Reid@mitre.org
Working Group 10 (WG 10) focuses on efforts that help our nation “secure the high ground”. The presentations will demonstrate applied OR techniques that help our nation acquire and operate Space Systems by assessing their operational contributions (real or projected). Presentations will further our understanding of space capabilities incorporating this years’ theme: Responding Globally, Leading Analytically.
Leveraging space provides the most global perspective possible allowing for enhanced security, protection of lives, movement of information, and improves the warfighter’s operational environment. As nations around the world gain increased access to the space domain, we are challenged to focus Space Control efforts to hold the high ground, allowing us continuous access. A “loss of ground” in space can have profound effects on every operational domain. This WG discusses the analytical challenges and solutions that engender unrestricted use of space, enabling our military and intelligence communities to effectively decide, detect, and deliver on a global scale.
We are seeking presentations on operational contributions of space systems, space families of systems, or space architectures whether in the concept, R&D, acquisition, or operational phases. Presentations may also address innovative analytical processes, methodologies, or techniques as they are applied to space systems. Submissions should show an operational research technique, whether unique or traditional, and may be completed or a work in progress. It is the intent of this WG to obtain a variety of topics to ensure an interesting exchange of approaches, interests, and ideas among the OR space community.
Composite Group A • Composite Group B • Composite Group C
Composite Group D • Composite Group E • Composite Group F