UNCLASSIFIED
Mission Partner Environment(MPE) in Austere Challenge 15
Specifics
JCIDS Info
Required Action:
Support continued MPE
use case implementation activities
Schedule
ICD Approved
C4/Cyber FCB WG: 13 Aug
Sponsor: JS J6
C4/Cyber FCB: 28 Aug
ACAT: N/A
JCB: as required
JPD: JROC Interest
Next MS: N/A
Driver: JROCM 026-13
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
Comments
Supporting Documents
• FCB Memorandum, 3 April 2014
 MPE Annual Update
 US MPE JMEI Joining Instructions, 21
August 2104
•
DODI 8110.01, 25 November 2014
 Mission Partner Environment (MPE)
Information Sharing Capability
Implementation for the DoD
•
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
UNCLASSIFIED
The Mission Partner Environment
in
AUSTERE CHALLENGE 2015
John T. Nankervis
JSJ6 C5I IID
757-836-0619
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
History of MPE
AUSTERE CHALLENGE 15
DODI 8110.01 ; MPE Implementation for DOD (NOV 14)
COMBINED ENDEAVOR 14
DOTmLPF advances (MAR 13- 15)
COMBINED ENDEAVOR 13
JROCM approves 90 day study (FEB 13)
“Implement MPE Force wide”
JROCM directing MPE Study (APR 12)
AMN “FOC” (JUL 10)
ISAF OPORD directing AMN (JAN 10)
ISAF Stand-alone networks (NOV 08)
FY 09
FY 10
FY 11
FY 12
3
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
UNCLASSIFIED
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
“Our capabilities, tactics, techniques, procedures and terminology must be able to
translate across the services, the interagency and with our mission partners”
4
(Chairman’s 2nd Term Strategic
Direction to the Force)
UNCLASSIFIED
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
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE Enduring and Episodic Definitions
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
“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
6
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
JIE –DI2E – Enduring & Episodic MPE
Mission
Partner B
Mission
Partner C
Mission
Partner D
Persistent  CCDR level  US Centric 
Bi-lateral /Multi-lateral  Specified Mission Partners
West
DI2E
Enduring MPE
e.g. Federated
US BICES-X
East
e.g. Existing bi-lateral
and multi-lateral
network relationships
MN BICES, PEGASUS,
CPN, etc.
Mission
Partner A
Enduring
MPE
Enduring
MPE
Enduring
US BICES-X is an Enduring MPE
CCDR
MPE
South
CCDR
Mission
Partner E
Mission
Partner F
CCDR
MPG
JIE
Connect
Access
Share
Episodic
MPE
MPG
CJTF
MP A
MP Q
MP B
MP X
CFSOCC
MP Y
LEGEND
CFLCC
CFMCC
CFACC
MP C
MP P
National Contribution (3rd Stack); National DOTMLPF-P, IA, Security
National Classified Network (e.g. SIPRnet)
National Unclassified Network (e.g. NIPRnet)
Episodic MPE Federated Network; Commander accepts risk, sets rules
Enduring MPE Connection
7
MP Z
MP D
Temporal  CJTF level  Commander centric 
Unknown Coalition of the Willing
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
ACME – MPE Episodic/NATO FMN
ACME = Austere Challenge [15] Mission Environment
•
•
AC15 Joining Membership and Exiting Instructions
(JMEI)
Self provided National Secret
Self provided National Unclassified
Policy and TTPs: Collective agreement for AC15
Self provided Cross Domain
Information Exchange Guard
USA provided Multi-National (MN) BICES
–
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)
ACME
REL AC15
CJTF
– 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
•
CFSOCC
CFLCC
CFMCC
CFACC
Other USA
Locations
CIAV: Embedded in AC15 planning and
execution process to include “Do no harm” change
mgmt.
8
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
AC15
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
6
in SECRET NOFORN room/broadcast only on SIPR
UNCLASSIFIED
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
UNCLASSIFIED
Contacts
John T. Nankervis
JSJ6 C5I IID
757-836-0619
Bob Hartling
JSJ6 C5I IID
757-203-4807
Tom Lang
JSJ6 C5I IID Div Chief
757-836-0645
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Back Up
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
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