Guide for the Joint C2 Consumer

Written by Tom Marlowe

Integration center combines user reports
and expert evaluations to determine if
systems are meeting warfighter needs.

“I’m always struck by the fact that if you buy the Consumer Reports automotive issue, the fact that Consumer Reports doesn’t take advertising always adds a different spin to their analysis,” Monti said of the well-known product-review magazine published by the Consumers Union. “Another part that is very interesting to me is that much of the data that they produce and publish is actually from the customers themselves.”

The publication sends surveys to the customers and solicits feedback on their cars, while a team of experts evaluates the cars in many different areas. Combining the information provides an extremely useful report, Monti observed.

“I kind of see us in the same vein,” Monti remarked. “We look at command and control systems after the fact, once they are fielded. We actually go out to the customers and ask them through surveys whether or not the command and control systems that have been fielded are meeting their needs. We report back to the customer.

“We report on whether or not the warfighter thinks their system is meeting their needs. Because I am institutionally funded, I see us as being able to act as the honest broker in looking at whether these fielded systems are meeting the warfighter’s needs after the fact,” he said.

Customers of JSIC can include program managers, military services or combatant commands. They turn to the center to evaluate the effectiveness and interoperability of their C2 systems to assess whether or not they will work well together.

For example, JSIC recently took a look at the Command Post of the Future (CPOF), a COTS-based system in use by the Army to provide a decision support environment where commanders can make use of collaborative information to determine an appropriate course of action.

On a trip to Afghanistan, Marine Corps General James Mattis, commander of USJFCOM, noted that the CPOF had been in use with joint task forces (JTF), which were also using a collaboration tool called Adobe Connect. On returning to headquarters in Norfolk, Va., he asked if those systems would work together in a joint environment. “We grabbed those systems and brought them into the laboratory,” Monti recalled. “We looked for any kind of conflict that may exist. We also asked the warfighters what they thought of the systems and whether or not they had any issues working with these two systems together in the JTF environment.”

UNIQUE ENVIRONMENT

The JSIC has four primary mission areas: interoperability assessments and demonstrations, warfighter utility assessments, technology assessment and integration, and joint capability portfolio analysis and assessment, the newest of its missions.

“JSIC provides the unique laboratory environment where program managers and engineers are brought together with operators and analysts to identify and in some cases fix C2 interoperability issues,” Monti said.

JSIC makes use of its rapidly configurable laboratory facilities to replicate core JTF architectures. Its researchers use highly repeatable scientific methodology to identify problems and then to develop solutions. JSIC doesn’t certify systems, however, but rather identifies interoperability discrepancies using operational scenarios and operators. The results of JSIC assessments may be used to support certifications from the Joint Interoperability Test Command.

“Missions are put into an operational context using joint mission threads that reflect the reality of today’s JTF operations,” Monti described. “We also have the capability to line up and evaluate one C2 system with another. In an architecture world, many times these systems are created by the services, and the program managers deliver them, but they have never been placed in a common JTF environment before. In some cases, you don’t know what the impact of one system will be on another.”

The acquisition community gains a great deal of value from evaluations by JSIC, which generally conducts interoperability and capability assessments between Milestone B and Milestone C in the acquisition process. The capability assessment examines whether a new capability is actually meeting the needs of the warfighter, while the interoperability assessment determines how well the capability operates and interacts with other systems in a JTF environment.

JSIC pays for the costs of all demonstration cases, thereby eliminating any appearance of influence within its test results, Monti asserted.

BASELINE ASSESSMENT

JSIC also is responsible for the Joint Systems Baseline Assessment (JSBA), a series of interoperability assessments focused on improving communications and dataflow between C2 and intelligence systems. The Joint Intelligence Interoperability Board (JIIB), which is co-chaired by the joint staff J2 and the USJFCOM Intelligence Directorates J2, serves as the primary sponsor of JSBA.

“Each JSBA tackles interoperability issues that combatant commanders such as U.S. Central Command have brought to the joint staff, some of which are the province of the JIIB,” Monti stated. “JSBA will find causes of the JIIB’s prioritized interoperability problems and pass those to the system owners, who can then address the system problems and field the fixes for the warfighter.”

The joint staff established the JIIB in 1997 to promote cooperation and interoperability among the joint and service information systems typically deployed at the combatant commands. The JIIB charter included JSIC as an associate member to perform interoperability and functional testing of the identified intelligence systems. JSIC has set the sharing of information and data between ISR and C2 systems of record primarily at the JTF level.

Each of the JSBA reports, which date back to 1999, includes the results, estimated impact and recommendations of the assessment.

“For JSBA ‘08, our efforts found that system interoperability between C2 and intelligence improved, but pointed out that more work is necessary. It makes sense because our efforts follow developments on the battlefield, which are dynamic,” Monti noted.

Each JSBA produces a report that addresses five areas of interest between the battlespace awareness and the C2 communities: joint targeting, distributed common ground systems, C2 collection management, cross-domain services and geospatial Web services. JSBA 2008 included those five objectives.

“In the joint targeting objective, we collected data in a major theater war exercise and found that targeting automation was improved, but that different and sometimes incompatible systems were needed for joint forces commanders to conduct both deliberate and dynamic targeting,” Monti recalled.

“In the C2-to-intel objective, operators were able to get the data they wanted from intel databases of multiple services— including the Marines Corps, Army and Air Force. But considerable additional work was needed to get that data displayed to people on an op center watch floor,” he continued. “What happens then is that findings are passed to the program management and joint program offices that develop and maintain these systems, and then the warfighters will benefit as the fixes are applied and fielded.”

JSIC systems engineering teams analyze interoperability issues to isolate the causes of technical, software or procedural deficiencies, Monti reported.

JSBA 2008 used the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency’s Empire Challenge 2008 exercise as the operational context for one of the interoperability assessments. Two of the systems offices that participated in the exercise were the Distributed Common Ground Systems and Global Command and Control System. JSIC delivered its findings and recommendations directly to the program offices as direct feedback for improvements to their interoperability issues.

For joint targeting, JSIC discovered that some of the joint targeting systems, although very accurate when used in conventional war fighting, were not accurate when tracking irregular targets.

“Another objective was to assess the interoperability between collection management systems services and joint C2 system databases. We were able to help improve some of the Web services between PRISM, which is a collection management system, and the Joint Targeting Toolbox,” Monti said.

The military components usually do not respond to JSBA findings, Monti added, although combatant commands or JTFs will contact JSIC to see where potential improvements lie. “It’s up to the system program offices to take action on our findings and work with JSIC to resolve interoperability gaps that come out of our JSBA exercise,” he noted.

JSIC HISTORY

The story of JSIC really began in October 1996, with the chartering of the original Joint Battle Center (JBC) by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who controlled the JBC directly. A year later, the chairman assigned the JBC to the commander of U.S. Atlantic Command, which ultimately evolved into USJFCOM.

In September 2004, the JFCOM commander redesignated the JBC as JSIC. The goal of the new name was to capture the essence of what the organization does while appropriately identifying it as a command.

“We are focused on improving the warfighter’s ability to plan and execute operations by driving resolution of C2 interoperability problems and providing unbiased evaluations of current and emerging C2 systems.

In other words, we can help solve C2 problems that hamper our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines while they are operating in the field,” Monti stated.

The services put forward candidates to serve as the JSIC commander. The Marines nominated Monti in 2006, and he became the first from his service to command it.

JSIC falls under the USJFCOM Joint Capability Development Directorate (J8), currently headed by Air Force Major General Kevin Kennedy. The center comprises about 15 active duty servicemembers, 30 government civilians and a contractor work force.

“We are very aggressive about maintaining our relationships with the combatant commands in trying to uncover any issues they might have,” Monti commented. “The formal process starts inside of JSIC,” he said. “Once we are made aware of some problem, I bring my team together and we analyze the problem to see if we are the right agency to help solve the problem. If we are not, then I’ll try to pass it along to someone who can help. I’m a small organization— very powerful for a small organization—so I have to make sure that if I’m looking at something that it’s within the scope of what I can really do.”

JSIC talks constantly with CENTCOM as well as U.S. Northern Command. It also has a unique relationship with Joint Special Operations Command, which it is helping look at emerging technologies that can assist irregular warfare fighters in the field. JSIC also is assisting the Defense Information Systems Agency in examining new generations of the Global Broadcast System.

MULTINATIONAL MISSION

JSIC’s mission is changing with the needs of the military. “We are actually extending much of the analysis that we do not just in the area of short-term interoperability, but also in looking at what the JTF architecture will look like in 2012 or 2014,” Monti revealed. “We are involved in what is called an Operational Capability Mix Study right now, which involves JFCOM, the joint staff, and the folks at [the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information Integration)]. That’s going to be part of the work that we do.”

In addition, about half of the JSIC staff supported the Coalition Warrior Interoperability Demonstration 2009 exercise, sponsored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In the near-term future, JSIC will look at collaborative tools presently used in the current theater. For example, it will explore the use of the Internet relay chat (IRC) architecture and the potential of using new technologies that are more secure and safe, such as the extensible messaging and presence protocol (XMPP).

As time passes, Monti anticipates JSIC will look more and more at the technologies of other nations involved in military coalitions with U.S. forces.

“We see the future of JSIC heading toward the multinational and interagency environment. We have learned over the years that we are never going to go it alone. My boss has said many times that in the next conflict, we are always going to be fighting with coalition partners and interagency. And there has not been much work done on C2 interoperability in that environment. We see that as the future,” Monti said.

The multinational coalition and interagency environments present an entirely new set of challenges that must be addressed as U.S. forces continue to work closely with multinational forces, he observed.

Last year, Monti traveled to the NATO Consultation Command and Control Agency to engage NATO partners in interoperability discussions.

“We are exploring the potential for an organizational partnership to conduct interoperability assessments between U.S. and NATO systems that support time-sensitive targeting. This potential future collaboration effort may prove to be particularly beneficial in finding and implementing multinational interoperability solutions,” Monti reflected. “I see that as just the start. There are many areas that we can look at with our coalition partners to improve C2 interoperability.” ♦

Back to Top