Allied Interoperability Handbook - Combined Joint Operations from
Transcription
Allied Interoperability Handbook - Combined Joint Operations from
Allied Interoperability Handbook CJOS COE Handbook 1 10/21/2011 The Combined Joint Operations from the Sea Centre of Excellence (CJOS COE) was established in 2006 to provide a focal point for Joint Maritime Expeditionary Operations expertise for allied nations. With 13 nations represented, CJOS COE is the only Centre of Excellence in the United States and is one of 16 accredited Centers worldwide, representing a collective wealth of international experience and expertise. 2 Combined Joint Operations from the Sea Centre of Excellence Allied Interoperability Handbook A Tool to Enhance and Measure Interoperability Among NATO Allied/Coalitions and US Navy 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE 5 HOW TO USE GUIDE 8 PART I - COALITION INTEGRATION INTO US NAVY EXERCISES 11 ANNEX 1: PRE- DEPLOYMENT CHECKLIST 31 ANNEX 2: USFFC SUBORDINATE COMMANDS 33 ANNEX 3: CSG/ESG COMPOSITION 34 ANNEX 4: FRTP-TRAINING INITIATIVE 35 ANNEX 5: LOGISTICS GUIDE 36 ANNEX 6: COMMUNICATIONS GUIDE 48 PART II - INTEROPERABILITY HANDBOOK 54 ANNEX 1: COALITION INTEROPERABILITY SURVEY RESULTS 58 ANNEX 2: INTEROPERABILITY CHECKLIST 63 ANNEX 3: INTEROPERABILITY SCHEDULE OF EVENTS 80 ANNEX 4: LESSONS LEARNED DATA BASE 83 ANNEX 5: INTEROPERABILITY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 141 PART III – INTEROPERABILITY METRICS-EVALUATING ALLIED/COALITION USN INTEROPERABILITY 160 ANNEX 1: PREPAREDENESS ASSESSMENT SHEETS 173 ANNEX 2: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SHEETS 210 ANNEX 3: LESSONS LEARNED ASSESSMENT SHEETS 215 4 PREFACE 1. "No matter how large or small your navy or coast guard may be, we all face similar internal constraints like shrinking budgets, aging equipment, and populations that may not be attracted to military service. Our level of cooperation and coordination must intensify in order to adapt to our shared challenges and constraints. We have no choice in this matter, because I am convinced that nobody - no nation today - can go it alone, especially in the maritime domain.” (USN CNO ADMIRAL Michael Mullen 17th International Sea Power Symposium, 21 Sept. 2005, Newport, R.I.) 2. This quote reveals clearly that we need navies to work together efficiently in order to fulfill Joint missions. This can only be achieved through effective interoperability. 3. The Coalition arena is a challenging environment in which to operate. The sometimes ad hoc manner in which Nations come together makes standardizing doctrine, policy, or operating procedures difficult. As a result the most burdensome challenge facing Coalitions is interoperability. This can encompass a plethora of incompatibility issues - doctrine, policy, tactics, language, culture, automated weapons and information systems... the list continues. Complicating these issues are politically sensitive matters such as those that preclude one Nation from working or sharing information directly with another Nation, or sensitive material handling and releasability concerns. 4. Lack of interoperability permeates all levels of Command and Control. It can slow the speed of Command and detract from building unity of effort and purpose. Working outside a common operating environment can lead to misunderstanding of missions, missed opportunity for decisive military action, or in extremis “blue on blue” engagement. 5. Based on the above it was decided that Naval Interoperability would become one of the core tasks of The Combined Joint Operations from the Sea 5 Centre of Excellence (CJOS COE) Program of Work (POW). Thus the Centre was tasked by the Steering Committee (SC) to develop the following documents: a. The Coalition Playbook. Its purpose was to provide guidance and advice regarding the integration of Allied/Coalition ships into USN sponsored exercises by discussing, in an easy to use guide format, the following topics: i. The role of CJOS COE and USN Commands (US Fleet Forces Command – Commander Strike Force Fleet Atlantic, etc.). b. ii. The general scheme of maneuver. iii. The exercise events (Initial Planning Conference etc.). iv. The planning process. v. The use of Multilateral Agreements. vi. Carrier Air Ops Specifics and Amphibious Training Specifics vii. Information exchange in the USN. viii. Financial issues and deployment checklists. The Allied Interoperability Handbook. Its purpose was to be used by NATO Allied/Coalition Navies to overcome the most common interoperability problems. In that framework CJOS COE formed a working group aimed at studying interoperability between NATO Allied/Coalition ships involved in exercises taking place off the east coast of the United States. Over the past year, that group conducted surveys and interviews with personnel from Allied/Coalition ships as well as USN ships. The surveys and interviews revealed several interoperability challenges and concerns. Based on the aforementioned research CJOS COE developed the Handbook that included the following documentation: i. An “Interoperability Survey Questionnaire,” used as the 6 primary tool to uncover any interoperability issues. ii. An “Interoperability Lessons Learned database” which listed the Lessons Learned from the surveys and interviews conducted on board the Coalition/Allied ships. iii An “Interoperability Survey Results paper” that incorporated those areas noted as successful or noted in need of further attention and could be used as a benchmark for future operations among Allied Navies. iv. An “Interoperability Checklist” which was the distillate of all the above documents and was to be considered as a user friendly interoperability guide that approached interoperability issues from a functional area perspective (planning, operations, communications, etc.). c.. The “Interoperability Metrics” which was a tool used to further enhance and promote the interoperability, and a tool establishing best practices in the interoperability arena. CJOS COE created a system measuring Interoperability and the effectiveness of the Allied Interoperability Handbook. The tool was dealing with the “Evaluation of Allied/Coalition USN Interoperability” that outlined how CJOS COE would formalize efforts to continue improving the “Allied Interoperability Handbook” by assessing the following three aspects: i. Adherence to the Checklist – It measured how well CJOS COE, the visiting ships, the host navy, and USN Strike Groups followed the checklist for each visiting ship. This was a measure of preparedness; it quantified efforts made to address known interoperability challenges. ii. Demonstrated Interoperability – It evaluated the interoperability of visiting ships with their host Strike Groups during execution. Clear, objective standards were applied to evaluate how 7 early in an event the interoperability challenges were initially overcome, as well as recording how well interoperability efforts were maintained throughout the exercise. These were measures of effectiveness of the units. iii. Lessons Learned Again – It analyzed interoperability LL from each ship to identify reoccurring issues and determined which could be prevented through adherence to the checklist. This was another measure of effectiveness of the units but it also provided feedback on the effectiveness of the checklist. 6. Finally, to further facilitate the cooperation and collaboration among NATO Allied/Coalition ships and USN ships, it was decided to merge the 3 different interoperability products ( the Common Playbook, the Interoperability Handbook, and the Interoperability Metrics) into one document under the name “ALLIED INTEROPERABILITY HANDBOOK” that will eventually become the ultimate guide and tool for interoperability on the East Coast. How to Use Guide 7. The following 10 steps are provided to make the handbook more user- friendly: Step 1: Study the Coalition Playbook in order to understand how USN works and plans. (PART 1 of this Handbook). Step 2: Follow the Pre-deployment checklist (ANNEX 1). Step 3: Study the USFFC SUBORDINATE COMMANDS (ANNEX 2) and Carrier Strike Group /Expeditionary Strike Group Composition (ANNEX 3) and follow the training program (ANNEX 4). Step 4: Study the Interoperability Handbook (PART 2) which contains the Coalition Interoperability Survey results (ANNEX 1) which can create the first 8 impression on what are the areas that need further attention in terms of Interoperability. Step 5: Follow the Interoperability Checklist (ANNEX 2) and Schedule of Events (ANNEX 3) that will guide you safely in your preparations and to aid you in avoiding interoperability issues. Step 6: Study and take into consideration the Lessons Learned Data Base (ANNEX 4). Step 7: Study and disseminate the Survey Questionnaire to the appropriate personnel (ANNEX 5) in order to be completed during the collaboration to ensure all major interoperability issues are easily captured. Step 8: Study the Evaluation Interoperability paper (PART 3) which clearly defines what has to be done so interoperability can be measured. Step 9: Fill out the “Other Entities Commands Preparedness Sheet” prior to the start of an interoperability exercise. (ANNEX 1). Step 10: Fill out the “Lessons Learned/Identified Assessment Sheet” (ANNEX 3) accordingly. Conclusion 8. Many different projects addressed the issue of interoperability in the past. In their efforts they managed to reduce some interoperability issues but unfortunately other problems came up or some of the previous remained and the past Lessons Learned were sometimes forgotten on the shelves. 9. CJOS COE proposes a new tool, the “Allied Interoperability Handbook”, a user friendly tool and a living document continuously updated through real life surveys and interviews. 9 10. CJOS COE believes that this handbook will facilitate interoperability between Coalition forces. The “Allied Interoperability Handbook” will be there for use by any Navy, at any time. 10 PART I COALITION ELEMENT INTEGRATION INTO US NAVY EXERCISES STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 11 COALITION ELEMENT INTEGRATION INTO US NAVY EXERCISES References: A. U.S. National Maritime Strategy B. CJOS COE MOU – I & E relationships C. USFF Commander’s guidance D. USFF Fleet Training Continuum Introduction 1. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance and advice regarding the integration of NATO and other allied units into US Navy (USN) sponsored exercises. Since its establishment in 2006, the Combined Joint Operations from the Sea Centre of Excellence (CJOS COE) has played a major role in providing scheduling and planning support to NATO and allied maritime forces intending to participate in various USN sponsored exercises (either live or synthetic training events). CJOS COE, in concert with Commander, US Fleet Forces (CUSFF) and Commander Strike Force Training Atlantic (CSTFL) are prepared to support the full spectrum of maritime operations. This would include supporting single ship and aircraft operations; Joint Maritime Expeditionary Operations at the Task Group/Task Force or Battle Group level; and augmenting a Combined/Joint Maritime staff requirement for a Component Commander. For example, recent training events have included the participation of individual platforms from multiple nations and staff participation from United Kingdom Maritime Forces, (UKMARFOR), Strike NATO Forces (SFN), French Maritime Forces (FRMARFOR), and Standing Naval NATO Forces. This publication will help the Fleet Planner to understand the variety of training that can be provided for a wide spectrum of forces and serve as a guide to navigate the scheduling and planning processes. Potential participants are highly encouraged to request training assistance and exercise planning support from the Norfolk based team (i.e. CJOS COE, CSTFL) CJOS COE, CUSFF and CSTFL will help shape a plan that 12 best meets deployment schedules and addresses training objectives. The team possesses in-depth knowledge and experience in helping allied nations to fully integrate with US forces and achieve training objectives from combined operations. 2. CJOS COE and CUSFF will provide a continuous dialogue with Fleet schedules about the various training opportunities that are being planned for the Atlantic coast of the United States. This information can be obtained from the CJOS COE NATO Secret Wide Area Network (NSWAN) website. The main objective of this website is to inform, educate and facilitate the integration of the participating non-U.S. group or units by identifying training opportunities well in advance of a supporting nation’s planning requirements. At your request, CJOS COE will help to connect your Fleet planning staff with their appropriate counterparts in the various U.S. Fleet Headquarters. Acceptance and feasibility of Allied integration remains the exclusive purview of CUSFF or higher U.S. authority’s decision when warranted. Note: Any information contained in this document is meant to inform Allies on the complexities of organizing combined training and staffing exercise support requests through the US Armed Forces based in the continental US. Nothing in this document will supplant the actual rules and laws currently in effect within the US Armed Forces concerning bi-national agreements regarding US. cooperation with foreign nations. Commander US Fleet Forces reserves the right to accept or refuse training support to any unit from any country at any time as a result of national security issues or higher priority national training requirements. It is strongly recommended that any exercise support request be submitted as early as possible to CUSFF scheduling staff for consideration and development of available support. 13 Role of CJOS COE 3. The Director of CJOS COE is also the US Fleet Forces Commander, of Joint and Fleet Operations. CJOS COE was established and accredited by NATO to enhance the interoperability of Allied Maritime Forces. The CJOS COE is privileged to have direct access to US. Fleet commands assigned a specific role in training maritime forces. CJOS COE has built up extensive knowledge of the training resources and synergies that can be achieved through an experienced cadre of NATO fleet experts. Commander U.S. Fleet Forces - Role and Responsibility in Training 4. Commander US. Fleet Forces is responsible to man, train, equip, and certify Carrier Strike Groups, Amphibious Ready Groups and independently deploying units and aircraft. CUSFF forces follow a defined training and certification process. This training program provides a logical and efficient path which is designed to ensure each unit or group will achieve the appropriate level of certification ranging from Major Combat Operations Ready to tailored training packages based upon specific mission requirements. CUSFF will publish a quarterly scheduling message which will describe training events for its Fleet Units and designated Command staff in accordance with US. strategic military objectives. This message is regularly sent to NATO and other Allied Maritime Headquarters and is intended to represent a formal invitation to forces willing to participate in those training events. Commander Strike Force Training Atlantic (CSFTL) - Fleet Training, Evaluation, and Certification 5. Principal among the US Navy’s training organizations is CSFTL (located in Norfolk, VA), the executive agent for CUSFF, responsible for integrated training and certification of all deploying maritime forces. 14 CSFTL is responsible for scheduling, preparing, planning and executing most of the classroom, live and synthetic training events. They also provide mentorship to the training audience during execution and collect performance measures to evaluate progression toward final certification requirements. Tactical Training Group Atlantic (TTGL) - Classroom & Collective Fleet Synthetic Training 6. The Tactical Training Group Atlantic located in Dam Neck, VA conducts classroom and fleet synthetic training (FST) events. Initially introduced ten years ago as an experimental capability, FST events have reached a high level of technological fidelity and interoperability such that these events are now an integral step in the overall certification continuum of US maritime forces. FST events are open to coalition forces and in fact rely upon Allied participation. However, the technical requirements to enable assets to communicate and participate require modest capital investment and can present a lengthy integration process. CSFTL is charged with assessing technological issues, including the training of technical and operational support teams. Establishing a synthetic training interoperability event normally requires one to two years of planning especially if this would be initial training for the unit involved. Expeditionary Warfare Training Group Atlantic (EWTGL) - Collective Training Expeditionary Warfare (Amphibious) 7. EWGTL is located in Little Creek, Joint Expeditionary Base, Virginia and supports classroom and fleet synthetic training events in concert with TTGL. They specifically provide specialized support to Amphibious Response Group (ARG) (Navy) and Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) (Marine Corps) training. 15 General Scheme of Maneuver 8. When deciding to deploy abroad to participate in US training events a participating national military headquarters must provide a clear intention of your Fleet’s training objectives and also include the desired level of readiness certification. This information will allow US Fleet Training organizations to facilitate scheduling of appropriate resources and establish the required levels of interaction with US Forces in order to accomplish the targeted aims. Additionally, strategic level headquarters must prepare the requisite diplomatic clearances well in advance to help identify the lines of authority to coordinate future staff visits and port/airport visits. Any training event is an excellent opportunity for nations to validate or improve the interoperability of their own forces with the US naval and/or joint counterparts. However, in deploying either single units or many elements making up a Task Group, nations must also consider the mutual benefit that their forces can contribute to support US training objectives. This is a critical aspect of Fleet planning and training which if overlooked diminishes the opportunity for gaining higher level approval of your exercise support request by the US training audience. Determining the Right Training Event for Your Deploying Forces 9. Amongst the training events described in the next paragraphs, and based on the calendar of events published by CUSFF in its quarterly message, the invited nations may choose an exercise or series of exercises that best fits their training objectives. Once a decision has been taken regarding the size/type of military contingent to be committed to training, the requesting nation must forward an official intention to participate via signal : TO: COMUSFLTFORCOM NORFOLK VA and COMSTRKFORTRALANT to begin the process. 16 Identification of Participating Maritime Forces 10. The Intention to Participate message should specify the precise composition of the forces including air, surface and subsurface assets. Each confirmed unit will be expected to forward an OPSTAT UNIT as early as possible in the planning process in order to confirm operational capabilities and readiness status forecasted for the actual period of deployment. Normally the Intention to Participate must be received a minimum of six months in advance of the schedule exercise. Optimally, this message should be conveyed approximately one year in advance in order to maximize US resource effort in support of the participating nation’s training objectives. Early communication will enable CUSFF to designate and/or allocate the right command element and balance resources to support and maximize a mutually beneficial training enterprise. Coordinating Authorities 11. Nations who request training support and participation in US exercises at single unit level shall seek approval through US Fleet Forces Command. If the participating Nation desires to deploy additional forces apart from the naval component (army, air force or marines) the process may take a considerably longer time to plan and coordinate due to external requests to other services, seeking their agreement to participate. 12. If the deployed forces are numerous, entail joint expeditionary operations covering a wide spectrum of activities, or the deployment is of such unusual nature that it might require coordination of specialized US resources; the requesting Nation will be asked to forward an official letter between CNO equivalents, indicating the scope of participation and desired objectives. Additional time for the CNO staff to provide a response can be anticipated. If time is critical, nations who have accredited Military and/or Naval Attaché’s resident 17 within their Embassy in the U.S. are advised to contact them at the earliest opportunity so that they may help facilitate and expedite the request. Defining Training Objectives 13. The initial Intention to Participate message should detail as much information as possible regarding training requirements and readiness standards to be achieved. Nations are expected to initiate dialogue with CUSFF and/or CSFTL scheduling counterparts in order to amplify the training objectives and respond to questions which will help clarify the Nation’s training desires. Reference to the U.S. Universal Naval Task List provides an expeditious means for foreign planners to articulate national training standards into terminology that is more readily identified by their U.S. counterparts. CJOS COE personnel can help facilitate the interpretation of the participating maritime training objectives to ensure they align with U.S. training process and procedures. Training Events - Scheduling Conference 14. Scheduling conferences are chaired by USFF and are held in early September, December, February and May each year. The conferences are held at Norfolk or Little Creek JAB and a scheduling signal/message is produced at the conclusion of the meetings. Participating nations are welcome to attend. When it is not feasible or possible for national reps to attend, CJOS COE NATO staff officers can represent the interests of the respective sponsoring nations and other Allies when requested. Nations are invited to attend scheduling conferences and will be provided with information regarding potential exercise dates, participants and general scheme of maneuver. Warfare Commander’s Conference 18 15. The Warfare Commander’s Conference (WCC) is a two week classroom and tabletop session that marks the beginning of integrated training for the strike group or independent deployer. A variety of presentations are offered covering composite warfare commander procedures, current deployed operations, lessons learned/best practices, NATO/SFN (by CJOS COE on demand) and capabilities/limitations briefs on a variety of maritime, joint and coalition forces. Seminars are conducted to begin development of the group’s preplanned responses and specific tactics, techniques and procedures they will employ based upon their Commander’s guidance. Tabletop games are conducted to begin the integration of the warfare commanders and their capabilities into a single strike group. Most importantly, this is when relationships are first developed between leaders and their staffs of the group and the individual platforms and squadrons. Whichever live or synthetic event the allied participant intends to take part, it is highly encouraged that key members of that platform (Commanding officer, Executive officer, Operations officers and planners) take part in the WCC to fully integrate themselves within the strike group’s plans and organization at this early stage. Group Sail 16. The Group Sail is the first opportunity for a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) or AN Amphibious Raid Group/Marine Expeditionary Group (ARG/MEU) to sail together at the start of a training program. The Group Sail entails a very basiclevel training period at sea and is not ideally suited for integrating foreign units. The Schedule of Events (SOE) is deliberately kept focused on unit skill sets in order to afford ships’ Commanding Officers the opportunity to maximize their internal training requirements and align their watch and station bills. Group sails do afford foreign ships an opportunity to work out issues in their communication networks, including Link 11/16 connectivity. While focused at the Commanding Officer, Group Sail training is open to allied participation. 19 Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX or C2X) and Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 17. C2X is a 28 day live exercise at sea, with the final days dedicated to a multi-threat free play Battle Problem scenario, now called JTFEX. The first three weeks of this period are a stepped series of scenario driven events which guides the deploying staff, warfare commanders and units through the certification process integrating activities across all warfare areas. Foreign units are welcome and encouraged to integrate in all or part of this exercise activity. Allied training objectives are well accommodated in the scenario and participation as a warfare area commander is available if requests are submitted early in the scheduling and planning process. This is critical because USN units have very strict requirements in achieving specific Warfare Commanders’ Certifications (Air Defense Commander, Sea Combat Commander, etc). Foreign ships and Task Group (TG) staffs should remain cognizant that your request for exercising a specific warfare commander duty must be balanced with the US exercise goals and objectives. One or two battle problems are played out at the end of this training period which significantly raises the level of complexity for training but proves to be a rewarding experience in challenging the finely honed skills of all participants. Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) (bi-annual event) 18. The traditional form of JTFEX is a live exercise (LIVEX) at sea. It is scenario driven and mainly focuses on testing the operational planning skills of a Joint Task Force (JTF) or higher headquarters in conjunction with the embarked TG staff. The principle training audiences focus remains on the CSG and/or ARG staff. Generally unit level training requirements while considered in exercise planning will necessarily be subordinated to tactical and operational level staff training objective. This training event is well suited to units who have completed an extensive work-up or refresher prior to deploying for the exercise. 20 The traditional form JTFEX provides a unique opportunity for U.S. and Allied partners to conduct coalition style operations within a complex joint environment at sea while facing dynamic multiple threats and a variety of mission tasking (e.g. Boardings, Non-combatant Evacuation Operations, Search And Rescue etc.). JTFEX involves more players with the potential to compete for resources in an operationally constrained environment or the opportunity to work one Fleet staff against another in a RED on BLUE scenario. Potential opportunities exist for Allied commanders to fill command roles such as CFMCC, Expeditionary Strike Force Commander and warfare area commander roles. Fleet Synthetic Training (FST) 19. The FST enterprise is undergoing rapid technological development that has seen an unprecedented level of fidelity that simulates “at sea” conditions while remaining pier side across a wide spectrum of platforms within a wide variety of operational scenarios. FST provides operators, platforms and tactical staffs with controlled computer simulation in real time. Since it is a very flexible and technologically powerful system, the US Navy is now using this capability to certify its Strike Groups before deployment in order to better utilize precious training time at sea, conserve resources and simulate the latest combat conditions in theater before Strike Groups actually deploy to their forward operating areas. These exercises cover a broad range of complexity, spanning training at the unit level to full spectrum combat operations at the Joint Expeditionary Task Force level. Any allied military participation requires extensive technical commitment and involves long protracted period of time to integrate equipment and conduct training of simulation support personnel and individual operators. Many NATO commands have elected to participate on a case by case basis. 20. An all encompassing training program will involve the effective integration of live events and synthetic training events which are logically sequenced in 21 order to provide more levels of increasing complexity. This is referred to as the Fleet Training Response Plan which is covered in detail in ANNEX 4. Note: All the training events described above make use of a notional theater of operations which is entitled “Treasure Coast”. The political-military scenario is played out around a fictional group of island states which lie off of the eastern seaboard of the United States of America. The scenario is unclassified. Digital and paper chart overlays are available to plot the disposition of forces and force navigation of water space around the islands such that ships and aircraft are operating in assigned Operational Areas to conduct live firings or deploy boats or arrays. A tailored scenario will be developed for all participants to ensure operational continuity is maintained throughout the duration of the exercise. Planning Process 21. It is recommended that at least one senior officer be designated as the participating Nation primary Point of Contact (POC). This officer will be the main pillar of his Nation’s core planning team and must be available to travel to all the conferences at their various locations where his/her expertise is needed. This officer must be the primary point of contact for CJOS COE, CSFTL and should be empowered with decision making authority regarding force commitments, and exercise employment in order to meet mutual training objectives. 22. The following activities delineate the principles of the exercise planning process: a. Follow the CUSFF scheduled activity changes and identify the right training event for the envisioned forces to be deployed. b. As soon as possible, inform CUSFF and CJOS COE of your Nation’s intention to participate, for JTFEX participation. 22 c. Designate an official Point of Contact, assemble your planning team and then make arrangements to attend the CSFTL planning process including the Concept Development Conference (CDC), Initial Planning Conference (IPC), MPC Planning Conference (MPC), and Final Planning Conference (FPC). d. At the IPC: Make contact with the officer in charge at CSFTL and complete the following items: (1) provide your training objectives to the appropriate planning syndicate; (2) start examining C4I requirements and specific allied crypto/keymat requirements; conduct aviation/ship platform compatibility checks (refer to HOSTAC). e. At the MPC: confirm your participating forces and finalize training objectives for each, identify deployment dates and sail plans, identify support requirements, discuss exchange of Liaison Officers (LNO’s), obtain “Treasure Coast” scenario materials (paper/digital charts, geopolitical background notes and scenario updates). f. Two months prior to deployment: ensure official diplomatic and visit clearance requests have been sent to your respective Defense Departments and Embassy authorities to coordinate for port visits or airport service for the unit’s deployment (Provide your initial LOGREQ to the naval station, and berthing requirements at least one month in advance of your port visit with any updates not less than 72 hours in advance). All personnel who will be based ashore must receive approval on the Foreign Visit Clearance Request. h. In the final month prior to arrival confirm the dates of visit, location and names of Navy LNOs. i. In the final weeks of preparation and/or at Pre-Sail Conference confirm all kinematic data, confirm Rendezvous points, conduct face-toface briefings between Operation Officers, air crews, boarding teams, well 23 deck personnel, Replenishment at sea deck teams, Naval Boarding Party teams, etc. 23. A designated CJOS COE staff officer can assist your nation in gathering all exercise information and assisting your team at the conferences. Since CJOS COE is co-located with CUSFF and close to CSFTL, TTGL and other USN commands CJOS COE staff officers can investigate and clarify any issues with the relevant desk officer upon your request. At a mutually agreeable point, CJOS COE will withdraw from planning support in order to redirect its efforts onto other Allied requirements. If required, CJOS COE can still assist during the exercise as a relay ashore (Reach back) or in participating as a member of the Evaluation Team at sea or alongside with CSFTL staff. Bi-lateral or Multi-lateral Agreements 24. If participation in a major exercise is requested, such as JTFEX, or if specialized assets are brought to the exercise which possess unique operational capabilities, a formal bilateral or multilateral agreement between nation’s Fleet commanders would be beneficial in order to address the exceptional aspects of the cooperation. 25. As examples, the US and the U.K. signed an agreement in 2008 for HMS ILLUSTRIOUS’ participation in a major amphibious exercise where US V-22 OSPREY aircraft were authorized to land on a Royal Navy ship. The same year, France and the U.S. signed an agreement covering the integration of the French Rafale Fighters and E2-C into the Carrier Air Wing 8 for JTFEX 08-4. Establishing bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements facilitates the requisite data information regarding operational employment limitations, liability, review established international cooperation agreements and all documents and processes that would allow nations to safely employ and support unique operations. It also serves to delineate shared responsibilities, define how the parties involved will support each other, identify additional material support, 24 including payments for target services, platforms, etc. These agreements should also list all those references which will be required in an emergency situation to resolve any unexpected issue. The NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is one of the major references that should be used to address such activities. Any agreed deviation to the NATO SOFA for the framework of the designated activity shall be for instance mentioned in the bi/multi-lateral agreement. 26. Copies of past agreements can be obtained from Judge’s office in USFFC. No official template exists but the text in former Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s) or Memorandums of Agreement (MOA’s) are useful in helping your nation to prepare these instruments in advance of an exercise. It will take several months to prepare such an agreement since both nations need time in their own chain of command to circulate this document and obtain operational and legal approval prior signing. The agreement would ideally be signed at least one month ahead of the deployment to US territory. Carrier Air Operations Specifics 27. Fixed wing aircraft carrier air operations involve catapult launching and tail hook recoveries which are highly specialized capabilities that require high safety standards reflected in highly trained professional skill sets and extensive technical preparation. 28. If your nation desires an opportunity to fly carrier configured aircraft from a US CVN deck, it is mandatory to initiate the discussions with COMNAVAIRLANT staff at least 18 months in advance to research safety and operational compatibility issues. 29. Platform airworthiness and aircrew training standards must be verified in advance since the national assets will be deployed in a foreign environment. Any issue concerning any aspects of material condition, handling gear, refueling requirements (air, gas, oil, and any other fluids), power supply, air conditioning, 25 servicing, etc, that is the object of pre-flight and post-flight maintenance operations must be fully addressed in order to resolve problems. 30. Personal training qualifications and experience levels must be thoroughly discussed, from a technical and operational point of view. The discussions should cover Landing Signal Officers’ (LSO) responsibilities, individual pilot’s qualifications and training, deck and in-flight procedures, language proficiency, flight deck personnel location and responsibility, preflight briefings and flight preparation, etc. As an example of this process, in 2008 a U.S. detachment of LSOs visited the French Carrier Aircraft Group and attended a Landing program session ashore in France a few months before their deployment. The US/French team verified the compatibility of the training requirements and the level proficiency of the pilots. 31. In all cases, US Navy regulations will define the prerequisite number of day and night traps. Sufficient time must be allocated to the foreign pilot to acclimatize to his new surroundings and to become familiar with US operational procedures before moving to the carrier. Most importantly, emergency procedures must be reviewed, trained and rehearsed prior the execution of any flight to or from the carrier. All foreign pilots/aircraft will be required to conduct initial ground and flight training at NAS Oceana before transitioning to carrier operations. 32. It is likely that the Carrier Air wing Commander (CAG) assigned to the CSG will be the hosting command for the deployed squadron. As soon as possible, the foreign CAG commander should liaise with his US counterpart to discuss the integration of foreign squadrons. Amphibious Training – USMC Specifics 33. Amphibious training represents an advanced level of cooperation since it comprises at least three major stakeholders: the US Navy, the US Marine Corps 26 and the foreign navy unit. In addition another foreign armed service could be involved (Army, Air Force or Marine Corps). These exercises will require extensive preparation time due to the number of parties involved. 34. The nature of those operations involves significant risk to personnel and material, which adds greater complexity to organizing an effective training plan. The use of aircraft and sea based landing assets invokes a greater spectrum of training and safety standards that foreign military personnel must comply with and necessitates the full cooperation of the participating forces. The embarkation of foreign troops must consider all aspects of their deployment, including issues associated with accommodation, food, security and communication concerns. 35. On initiating contact with CUSFF, it is highly recommended that both nations’ senior leadership in all participating service branches meet together to agree on the general scheme of maneuver and designate authorities to subordinate commanders to plan and execute the exercise. The planning process remains similar to the one described above, with the addition of the US Marine Corps and additional specialized planning teams as appropriate. Information Exchange 36. The information exchange issues are critical factors to the success of the interoperability between the different service elements of the participating nations. Each nation is accustomed to employing its own national procedures. NATO procedures and doctrine are not always utilized during the US Navy exercises. All documentation needed for the planning and the execution of exercises must be available to all parties. The US Navy usually uses the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) for their routine activity. A coalition network (NSWAN, etc) must be formally designated as the main Communication Integration System (CIS) in use for the exercise. All Allied Key Materials and 27 crypto requirements must be requested months in advance due to lengthy staff processes. 37. The ARG/CSG staff is responsible to provide all requisite documentation to the participating units in the appropriate format. The drafting of all exercise orders, pre-ex messages, Operational Orders (OPORDERs), directives and guidance must be approved by a Foreign Disclosure Officer (FDO) in advance to avoid late delivery to the foreign units. It is highly recommended that all the messages are caveat with “REL NATO or REL NATION X.” This is an important point that is frequently missed in coalition exercises and must be addressed in a disciplined manner to promote the effective integration of coalition units. CSFTL has established improved protocols to ensure participating Nations and US Strike Groups consider all aspects of force integration in their operational planning and decision cycles. 38. The employment of LNOs will play a very significant role in coordination as this person will foster personal relationships that form the catalyst in developing clear mutual understanding of the critical planning issues. LNO’s act as an effective conduit of time sensitive information if alternate pathways are not available. LNO’s are essential in the early stages of planning an event and help to augment the usual military command relationships once they have been established. Financial Issues 39. The invited nation is responsible to cover service support expenses of its deployed units. On arrival in the US, all expenses including the cost of living, accommodation and other maintenance operations will be the responsibility of the participating nation and not the host nation. 28 40. During US Fleet scheduled exercise, provided the coalition unit uses the same infrastructure or resource services as a participating US Navy units, there will be no requirement for payment or cost sharing. However, if any resource or service is provided for the express benefit of the participating nation (without US Navy participation) the costs for deployment of those services will be recovered from the participating nation. The provision of fuel and other common fluids are covered under existing agreements and are reimbursable on a case by case basis. Any expendable materials like gunnery or missile targets/drones will have to be paid by the consuming nation. 41. Allied ships may employ a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) contract to seek dedicated service support. These requests must be drafted at least one year in advance and funded. Each Embassy will hold a list of FMS cases open for specific use. The Defense/Naval Attaché must always be involved in such a process. The Judge Advocate General (JAG) and the USFF N413 and N7 Directorates (Logistics) have extensive knowledge and experience in this process and will provide assistance and guidance to nations that seek their support. It is also convenient to try to list in the agreement, if applicable, the principles for the covering of the cost of most of the envisioned/foreseeable services. 29 ANNEXES ANNEX 1: PRE-DEPLOYMENT CHECKLIST (It should be noted that the schedules of activity will vary from that which was planned due to other operational imperatives, foul weather, re-tasking of participants, etc.) ANNEX 2: USFFC SUBORDINATE COMMANDS ANNEX 3: CSG/ESG COMPOSITION ANNEX 4: FRTP-TRAINING INITIATIVE ANNEX 5: LOGISTICS GUIDE ANNEX 6: COMMUNICATIONS GUIDE 30 ANNEX 1: PRE-DEPLOYMENT CHECK LIST TIME EVENT Year prior Identify training CUSFF SKED MSG - Before IPC REMARK opportunities Connect with CJOS COE and with CUSFF N7, CSFTL N5, - Address any outstanding characteristics of the deployment. - Attend IPC, - Connect with CSFTL lead planner, 9 months - Define forces: volume and basic training prior objectives, - Evaluate with CJOS COE the relevance of the training event Address specific issues, create dedicated timeline. If required due to - Forward Letter of Intention to Participate outstanding issues or aspects - Attend MPC, - Confirm the units designation, - Refine participation ambitions (duties or task 6 months asked) and training expectations, prior - Connect with US hosting staff, - Investigate locations of LNOs or personnel deployment, 4 months prior Investigate payment issues. JAG CUSFF, nation’s Draft the agreement reps. 31 2 months prior - Attend FPC, - Issue Foreign Visit Request and diplomatic clearance with the Embassy, - Investigate customs issues for material brought to the US, - Agreement signed by both parties and endorsed. - 1 month prior Connect with Department of HDS to discuss personnel entering US, Norfolk International not - Forward initial LOGREQ, fitted for massive arrival. - Obtain diplomatic and official Visit, See local airfield managers for assistance - Clearance Request for Personnel based ashore. One week - Attend Pre-Sail Conference, prior - Update LOGREQ for Port Visit , STARTEX TACON transfer ENDEX Hot wash-up Norfolk Port Visit preferred Often at sea No need to return to Redeploy LNOs return home and Force re-deploys Norfolk unless needed for logistic issues 32 ANNEX 2: USFFC TASK FORCE ORGANIZATION DEPUTY COMMANDER FORCE FLEET AND JOINT OPS -CTF 20 CTF Over 90,000 Sailors and Marines 4 Carrier Strike Groups -5 Amphibious Ready Groups-3 Marine Expeditionary Units 33 ANNEX 3: CSG/ESG COMPOSITION Global Force Management – Maritime Force Packages UNCLAS UNCLAS Ready Fleet … Global Reach United States Fleet Forces 34 4k ANNEX 4: FRTP-TRAINING INITIATIVE JTF-HQ MHQ-MOC (JMETL) JTFEX Sustainment Phase Strike Group CDR & Staff Warfare CDR & Staff Unit UNCLAS FST – O CERTEX FST – J / F Sustainment FST -S JTFEX – Joint Task Force Exercise C2X CERTEX – ESG-MEU Certification MISSIONIN ESSENTIAL TASK LIST TACTICAL OPERATIONAL Live, Virtual, Synthetic Training Strike Group Model AIRWING TRAINING Integrated GCT Phase RUT RUT – Realistic Urban Training GCT – Group Commander Training FST–GC R2P2 – Rapid Response Planning Workshop IAC IAC – Integrate ASW Course R2P2 FST – Fleet Synthetic Training – U (Unit) – WC (Warfare Commander) -- GC (Group Commander) -- J/F/S (Joint / Force / Sustainment) FST -WC WCC ULT Phase C2X – Composite Unit Exercise TSTA / FEP ESGINT / Group Sail WCC- Warfare Commanders Conference TSTA– Tailored Ship Training Assessment FEP – Final Evaluation Period FST -U TRAINING EVENT COMPLEXITY Schoolhouse Inport/Synthetic Live UNCLAS USMC Ready Fleet … Global Reach United States Fleet Forces 35 11 ANNEX 5: LOGISTICS GUIDE 1. Foreign ships scheduled to visit an East Coast port will be assigned a “sister” US ship at least one month prior to their arrival in the 2 nd Fleet AOR. 2. The US sister ship will act as a liaison and intermediary for any port visit issues or concerns. Any questions regarding the assignment of a partner ship is Mr. John Costello, [email protected], (757) 836-4043. 3. See the attached for any requirements/POCs for specific services. Foreign ships can also contact their US Husbanding Agent to schedule any required services. Contact Mr. Tony Nance, [email protected], (757) 4441527 at Port Operations for any issues or questions regarding required services. Refueling 4. The visiting foreign naval ship needs to coordinate with US Navy Host Ship POC, and the contracted Ship’s Agent, to schedule fuel: a. The Host Ship needs to transmit a Fueling Request Message. b. The Host Ship will assist the visiting Foreign Naval Ship with arrangements of refueling: 5. c. Draft DD Form 1149 for the fuel. d. Contact Craney Island Defense Energy Support Center (DESC): Speak with Ms. Beth Prevatte (757) 483-2569, to obtain accounting data under the Fuel Exchange Agreement. 6. Speak with Ms. Kim Steward (757) 322-9045, to schedule date/time/ type/quantity. 7. The Host Ship will contact and schedule the NAVSTA Norfolk Fire Marshall (757) 444-2324. 36 8. The Host Ship POC needs to be present at the commencement of the fueling evolution to sign for the fuel. Oil Containment Boom 9. The Ship’s Agent arranges for Oil Containment Boom to be deployed around the ship prior to commencement of fueling evolution. 10. Contact NAVFAC MIDLANT: Speak to Mr. Paul Milbourn (757) 341-0800; e-mail: [email protected] 11. Request Job Order Number, for Oil Containment Boom. 12. Provide funding for the Job Order Number. 13. The Ship’s Agent or NAVFAC MIDLANT then needs to call Environmental Service Desk (757) 341-0412. 14. Schedule Oil Containment Boom deployment or recovery. Oil Analysis 15. The visiting foreign naval ship needs to coordinate with US Navy Host Ship POC, to contact the Navy Oil Analysis Program (NOAP), Bldg. V-61, (757) 445-8818. Maintenance/Repair Support 16. If beyond the scope of husbanding support, US Navy Host Ship POC will contact Port Ops for assistance with obtaining maintenance/repair support approval from CNO via USFF. CJOS COE may also provide a Foreign Officer (if available) to support with foreign embassy coordination. Contact POCs: 37 a. Port Operations Foreign Type Desk – Tony Nance, (W) (757) 444- 1527, [email protected] b. U. S. FLEET FORCES COMMAND (N43) - LCDR Robert Blackwell, (W) (757) 836-4102, (C) (757) 650-5173, [email protected] c. NORFOLK Naval Shipyard (C1220) - Andrew (Andy) Estock (W) (757) 443-2650 ext 4209, [email protected] Pier Side Services 17. Any issues or questions relating to pier side hotel services, such as shore power, potable water, sewage, oily water / waste oil, cranes or man-lifts, etc., need to be addressed to the Waterfront Support personnel. 18. For Potable Water, Shore Power, Sewage Connection, Oily Water / Waste Oil, Steam, etc. contact: NAVFAC MIDLANT Utilities Coordinator, Mr. Paul Milbourn (757) 341- 0800, [email protected]. 19. For pier side Dumpsters, Oil Booms, Forklifts, Vehicle Rentals and etc. contact: NAVFAC MIDLANT Logistics Support, Speak with Mr. Richard Seeloff (757) 341-0803, [email protected]. 20. Pyatt Cranes / JLG’s / Lifts contact: NAVFAC MIDLANT, Speak with Mr. Marvin or Mr. Alex Holms, (757) 341-1772, [email protected] / [email protected]. An (E-7 or above) from the Host Ship must sign for the JLG. The Host Ship must provide a qualified operator. NOTE: Funding must be in place PRIOR to scheduling the Crane / JLG / Lift. The ship or ship agent will be responsible for funding the crane. 21. Customer Service: Contact NAVFAC MIDLANT Customer Service Rep. Speak with Mr. Dickie Clement or Mr. Dan Smith (757) 341-0804. 38 NOTE: Unless your country currently has an exchange program, your ship, ship’s agent or embassy will be responsible for all pier side service costs. NOTE: For additional information, Please refer to the NAVFAC MIDLANT Ship Support Office Pamphlet. Other Services 22. Any issues or questions relating to barges, brows, brow stands, mooring lines etc., need to be addressed to the Dock Master personnel 23. .Main Point of Contact: BMC Itro Duncan, (757) 444-3158 (office), (757) 438-3479 (cell); e-mail: [email protected]. 24. Port Operations Harbor Master: CWO3 Johnnie Pettaway, (757) 445-4426 (office), (757) 438-3848 (cell); e-mail: [email protected]. 25. Naval Station Norfolk Port Operations Officer in Charge: CDR Jose Sein, (757) 444-0492 (office), (757) 560-2927 (cell) e-mail: [email protected]. 26. David Naval Station Norfolk Deputy Port Operations Officer in Charge: LCDR Walker, (757) 444-7118 (office), (757) 438-3398 (cell); e-mail: [email protected]. 27. Naval Station Norfolk Port Operations Duty Officer: 24 hour duty contact: (757) 438-3839, 28. Port Operations Tower: VHF: CH 13/14/16 29. Port Control (757) 444-2351 / 1709 Pierside Flight Operations 39 30. The visiting foreign naval ship needs to coordinate with US Navy Host Ship POC, for a Flight Operations Request message to be transmitted to NAVSTA Norfolk Port Operations (NAVSTA NORFOLK VA). 31. The Host Ship needs to transmit a Flight Operations Request Message. 32. Port Operations will de-conflict the request, then request permission from the Naval Station Norfolk Commanding Officer. 33. Once permission is granted, Port Operations will coordinate with Chambers Field. 34. Once approval is granted from all required entities, Port Operations will send a Flight Operations Request Reply back to the Host Ship. 35. Prior to Lifting Off, aircraft needs to contact Chambers Field UHF 379.15. Diving Operations 36. The visiting foreign naval ship needs to coordinate with US Navy Host Ship POC, for a Diving Request message to be transmitted to NAVSTA Norfolk Port Operations (NAVSTA NORFOLK VA). 37. The Host Ship needs to transmit a Dive Request Message. 38. Port Operations will de-conflict the request and send a Dive Request Reply back to the Host Ship. 39. Diving Operations will ONLY be approved for the 0700 – 1800 time frame. NOTE: No diving is approved for after 1800 due to Sonar Ops from 1800 – 0600. Decompression Chambers: NOTE: Decompression Chambers rotate duty every month. 40 40. NAVSTA Norfolk: Code 760 NNSY Divers; (757) 444-6502; Supervisor: (757) 373-6008 41. Little Creek: MUDSU 2: (757) 462-8801; Supervisor: (757) 434-5951 Small Boat Operations 42. The visiting foreign naval ship needs to coordinate with US Navy Host Ship POC, for a Small Boat Operations Request message to be transmitted to NAVSTA Norfolk Port Operations (NAVSTA NORFOLK VA). 43. The Host Ship needs to transmit a Small Boat Operations Request Message. 44. Port Operations will de-conflict the request and send a Small Boat Operations Request Reply back to the Host Ship. Morale –Welfare 45. Any questions relating recreation, local sporting events or amusement parks need to be addressed to the on base Morale, Welfare and Recreation staff. MWR Director: Mr. Alain Berry, (757) 445-8949 (office), (757) 438-3747 (cell) email: [email protected]. NOTE: For additional information, Please refer to the Discover Magazine provided by the MWR representative. 46. Naval Ship / Base Tours or Command Visit. Any requests or questions relating to tours of any US Naval Ship, Naval Station Norfolk, or Official Command Visit, need to be addressed to the Public Affairs Office staff. Public Affairs Officer: Ms. Terri Davis, (757) 322-2576 (office), (757) 438-4245 (cell) email: [email protected]. 41 47. Naval Exchange: The Navy Exchange hours of operation M – Sat: 0900- 2100, Sun 0900-2000. Foreign Military Members need only their Active Duty Military Identification card to enter and purchase items. For any questions call (757) 440-2200. For any questions regarding providing a shuttle to and from the exchange, please contact the Operations Service Manager: Ms. Brenda Dell – (757) 440-1051; e-mail [email protected] Security 48. Any issues or questions relating security or law enforcement need to be addressed to the on base police force. a. Police Emergency: (757) 444-3333. b. Sewells Point Police Precinct (on-base). c. Waterfront Security Operations. e. Main Number, (757) 445-6577 / 6606. f. MACS Paul Montayne, (757) 322-2550. g. Security Officer LT Jeffery Eidenberger (757) 322-2500 / 2570. h. Physical Security & Antiterrorism Officer.MACS Paul Montayne. (757) 322-2550. e-mail : [email protected]. 49. Hazardous Materials disposal needs to be coordinated through the Host Ship POC and the Ship’s Agent. Host Ship needs to prepare a DD Form 13481A, for each HAZMAT item to be transferred. Contact NAVSTA HAZMAT office: (757) 445-0905, x-3012, speak with [email protected]. NOTE: Refer to HAZMAT Disposal Guide. 42 Ms. Mary Stuck, e-mail: NOTE: Do not put everything in a tri-wall container. Customs and Border Protection 50. Any customs, Immigration or Agricultural issues need to be addressed to Customs and Border Protection Host Ship needs to contact CBP Scheduling, speak with duty officer, (757) 533-4218 / 4228, fax (757) 441-6267. Provide all required information: a. What is your homeport? b. When did you leave your homeport? c. What was your last port of call? d. When was your last inport? e. How long have your been out to sea since your last inport? f. What is your next port of call? g. How many persons currently onboard? h. How many military? i. How many civilian? j. Will any persons be embarking your ship? k. Will any persons be disembarking your ship? l. Full Name. m. Military or Civilian. n. Rank or Position. o. U.S. or Foreign Citizen. 43 p. Visa / Passport Number. q. Birth Date. r. Will they be staying stateside or flying back home to a foreign country? Medical Services 51. Any medical issues or questions need to be addressed to the appropriate medical services personnel. 52. 53. Sewells Point Branch Medical Clinic a. Emergency (757) 444-3333 or 911 b. Information Tree (757) 953.9000 c. Quarterdeck (757) 953-9020 (M-F after 1500) d. Acute Care (757) 953-8760 / 8761 (M-F 0700-1900) e. Admin (757) 9538883 / 8884 (0800-1600) f. Optometry (757) 953-8996 g. Pharmacy (757) 953-8832 / 6337 (M-F 0700-1900) h. Dental (757) 953-8526 (M-F 0700-1500) i. Immunizations (757) 953-8717 (M-F 0715-1445) j. Radiology (757) 953-8767 (M-F 0700-1530) Portsmouth Naval Medical Center a. Emergency Room (757) 953-1365 b. Quarterdeck (757) 953-5000 x-3 (for various clinics) 44 c. 54. Pharmacy (757) 953-0258 Sentara Norfolk General Hospital a. Emergency Room (757) 388-3551 b. Main Number (757) 388-3000 c. Nightingale Helo (757) 388-2500 Decompression Chambers: NOTE: Decompression Chambers rotate duty every month. 55. NAVSTA Norfolk: Code 760 NNSY Divers, (757) 444-6502; Supervisor: (757) 373-6008 56. Little Creek: MODSU 2: (757) 462-8801 Supervisor: (757) 434-5951 45 SENTARA NORFOLK GENERAL HOSPITAL 46 PORTSMOUTH NAVAL HOSPITAL 47 ANNEX 6: COMMUNICATIONS GUIDE 1. Coalition maritime information exchange is a complex environment with technical solutions time consuming and costly to install. Additionally there exists a growing gap between the US and Allied countries in terms of current capability and future areas of technical development and investment. In the current global economic climate more must be done to understand and make best use of existing capabilities. The table in the end of This ANNEX lists information exchange requirements and considerations for planning purposes. The table is not exhaustive and has been kept deliberately generic in order to fit with the overall document classification. 2. Dissemination. Careful consideration should be given to the means by which Communications, Documents and Orders are disseminated throughout the Coalition. It may be advisable or even necessary to disseminate an individual Communication, Document or Order via several means to ensure receipt by all participants. Furthermore it may be necessary to employ relay or rebroadcast to overcome equipment incompatibility or range issues. Additionally primary and secondary means should be identified and secondary means tested regularly to ensure operational. Examples: a. The Combined Forces Air Component Commander (CFACC) will produce the Air TRAFFIC Order (ATO) on a daily basis detailing air activity for the following 72 hours. In order to ensure receipt by all Coalition participants it maybe necessary to disseminate via the chosen Coalition Collaboration tool and Formal Message Traffic in addition to posting to the Coalition Portal. b. Executive Command sent via Chat to be backed-up by Formal Message Traffic. Whilst Coalition Nations will generally act on Executive Commands received via Chat, many require the same command via Formal Message Traffic for accountability and archive purposes. c. Coalition Nations have not committed the same scale of investment to SatCom as the US, but have retained and continue to invest in HF capability. This will result in limited Coalition UHF SatCom voice availability requiring some voice transmissions to be relayed or rebroadcast via other means. 48 d. Virtually all Nations use voice as primary. With Chat used as primary a voice circuit should be in place as secondary means. The voice circuit should be tested regularly to ensure continually operational and available instantaneously in the event of a Chat outage. 3. Restoration Priority. A clear and concise Restoration Priority Plan should be compiled and briefed by the lead N6 and understood by all Coalition participants. This will ensure that in the event of a catastrophic communication outage all Coalition Nations work to restore systems/circuits in the agreed order of priority to restore C2 in a swift and controlled manner. The Restoration Priority Plan should also detail system and circuit priorities when operating in a satellite bandwidth denied or degraded environment, including the use of SNR. 4. Coalition Communications Capability Matrix (C3M). A detailed C3M will aid both operators and planners in understanding the communications capabilities and limitations of the Coalition. The matrix should be compiled centrally by the lead N6; disseminated and briefed throughout the Coalition. An accurate matrix will inform the development of an effective and efficient C2 structure in addition to establishing expectation management. The matrix should be compiled in advance, once Coalition participants confirmed, and used to identify common communication dissemination paths, primary and secondary, and aid the compilation of the Restoration Priority Plan. 5. Publications and Procedures. Aside from the technical aspect, interoperability can be greatly enhanced by the use of familiar tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) derived from common publications and procedures. Whilst all Nations will inevitably have their own variation on this theme, when operating as a Coalition NATO publications and procedures should be employed as common to all. 49 Ser 01 IER Non-secure voice LOS (Radio) Onboard Ship to Ship Ship to Shore Ship to Aircraft Cross Agency Medium HF VHF UHF Considerations Language barriers Procedural differences Frequency management/allocat ion Equipment compatibility Equipment capabilities 02 Secure voice LOS (Radio) Ship to Ship Ship to Shore Ship to Aircraft Cross Agency HF VHF UHF 03 Non-secure voice BLOS (Radio) Ship to Ship Ship to Shore Ship to Aircraft Cross Agency HF UHF UHF SatCom 04 Secure voice BLOS (Radio) Ship to Ship Ship to Shore Ship to Aircraft Cross Agency HF UHF UHF SatCom Crypto Language barriers Procedural differences Frequency management/allocat ion Equipment compatibility Equipment capabilities Language barriers Procedural differences Frequency management/allocat ion DAMA, Non-DAMA Equipment compatibility Equipment capabilities Crypto Language barriers Procedural differences Frequency management/allocat ion DAMA, Non-DAMA Equipment capabilities 05 Non-secure telephony Alongside Littoral Land line GSM Satellite VoIP Conference capability Cost effectiveness P2P or via National Operator 50 Remarks Onboard safety, damage control Maritime safety (IMM) (MMSI) Aviation safety SAR Boat safety STUFT coordination Port operations HADR C2 Reporting Fires Aviation coordination Amphibious operations Logistics Administration Maritime safety Aviation safety STUFT coordination C2 Reporting Fires Aviation coordination Amphibious operations Logistics Administration Maritime safety (MMSI) Port operations HADR Ser IER Underway Medium HF phone patching Considerations 06 Secure telephony Alongside Littoral Underway Broadcast Land line GSM Satellite VoIP 08 Unclassified email and attachments Ship to Ship Ship to Shore Cross Agency Internet Crypto Conference capability Cost effectiveness P2P or via National Operator Equipment compatibility Equipment capabilities Bandwidth Releasable Availability Bandwidth Priority 09 Classified email and attachments Ship to Ship Ship to Shore Cross Agency 10 Secure HF email STANAG 5066 11 Unclassified publishing/data exchange 07 VLF HF UHF HF Internet System must be available to all Coalition Training requirement Coalition installation timeline Coalition account creation timeline Use of Gateways National capabilities Equipment compatibility Crypto Releasable Portal hosting Applications 51 Remarks Welfare Logistics Administration STUFT coordination Range extension Experimentation support C2 C2 Reporting Administration Welfare HADR Administration Logistics STUFT coordination Port operations Experimentation support Coalition collaboration C2 Logistics Administration Satellite denied or restricted environment Welfare HADR Administration Logistics Port operations Ser 12 IER Classified publishing/data exchange Medium 13 Portal CAS SharePoint 14 Unclassified Web Browsing Internet 15 Classified Web Browsing 16 Chat 17 Formal Message Traffic ACP 127 Communicatio ns Instructions Tape Relay Procedures Non-secure Real time/near real time track data exchange Secure Real time/near real time track data exchange 18 19 20 Receive, transmit and display Military Message Handling Systems (MMHS) Considerations System must be available to all Coalition Portal hosting Applications Gateways Hosting Structure Management Replication Bandwidth System must be available to all Coalition Nations requiring executive commands to be backed-up via Formal Message OPTASK Chat Cross domain Chat Number of Chat rooms NATO Classifications AIS Nations policy for transmission of AIS Link Re-trans capability to accommodate nations without dual Link capabilities Link Re-trans capability to accommodate 52 Remarks Coalition collaboration Research News and weather HADR Welfare Research C2 Reporting Logistics Executive commands Logistics Administration Welfare STUFT coordination Ser 21 IER secure nonreal time track data COP RMP RAP Non-secure VTC Conference Point-to-point 22 Secure VTC Conference Point-to-point 23 FMV Receive 24 SNR Medium Aviation mounted UAV mounted HF UHF Considerations nations without dual Link capabilities OPTASK COP COP Manager Crypto National bridge (serial to IP conversion) P2P Available bandwidth Equipment compatibility Equipment capabilities National bridge (serial to IP conversion) P2P Crypto Available bandwidth Equipment compatibility Equipment capabilities Equipment compatibility Equipment capabilities Crypto National capabilities Equipment compatibility Crypto 53 Remarks HADR Briefing C2 Briefing SA PART II INTEROPERABILITY HANDBOOK 54 IDENTIFYING INTEROPERABILITY PROBLEMS 1. In order to overcome the most common interoperability problems when planning to interact with each other and especially when interacting with USN ships on the Eastern seaboard of the United States CJOS COE formed a working group aiming to study interoperability. As already addressed in the preface, over the past year, that group has conducted surveys and interviews with personnel from Allied/Coalition ships as well USN ships. The surveys and interviews have revealed several interoperability challenges and concerns; based on the aforementioned research CJOS COE developed the “Interoperability Handbook” comprised by the following documentation: a. An “Interoperability Survey Questionnaire” which is used as the tool to reveal the main areas of possible Interoperability concerns. This aims to be the main tool to uncover any hidden interoperability issues; b. An “Interoperability Lessons Learned data base” which lists the Lessons Learned from the surveys and interviews conducted on board the Coalition/Allied ships; c. An “Interoperability Survey Results paper” that incorporates those areas noted to be successful or noted to need attention and can be used as a benchmark for future operations among Allied Navies; d.. An “Interoperability Checklist” which is the distillate of all the above documents and is to be considered as a user friendly interoperability guide that approaches interoperability issues from a functional area perspective (planning, operations, communications, etc.). e. An “Interoperability Schedule Of Events” which is a general schedule on the cooperation. 55 2. As previously stated to further enhance and promote the above mentioned products, and in order to establish best practices in the interoperability arena, CJOS COE uploaded the latest version of those products in CJOS COE websites encouraging nations to review and forward those documents to those ships designated to participate in US exercises and operations. How It Works 3. Each NATO Allied / Coalition ship that has programmed a cooperation with USN on the East Coast will receive through CJOS COE the aforementioned 4 documents which are included in the “Interoperability Handbook”. In that way the ship’s staff has the opportunity and the time for the following: a. Study the Lessons Identified/learned from previous cooperations (through the LL database). b. Study the main results from the surveys conducted in previous ships. c. Be prepared for the cooperation with USN by using the detailed “Interoperability checklist”. d. Be prepared to further facilitate CJOS COE Interoperability work by filling (during the cooperation the “Survey Questionnaire” and by following the “Interoperability Schedule Of Events”). 4. Finally but maybe the most important part is the “Interview” on board the ship. Follow-on One-on-One interviews with selected personnel: Senior leaders (Ship CO, Operations officer, Marine Liaison, etc.). In-person or Teleconference as well as follow-on Group interviews with watch officers, and functional areas (examples: Air operations, Logistics, Networks, KMO, PAO, Legal/ROE). 56 Intelligence, Communications and ANNEXES ANNEX 1: COALITION INTEROPERABILITY SURVEY RESULTS ANNEX 2: INTEROPERABILITY CHECKLIST ANNEX 3: INTEROPERABILITY SCHEDULE OF EVENTS ANNEX 3: INTEROPERABILITY LESSONS LEARNED ANNEX 4: INTEROPERABILITY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 57 ANNEX 1: COALITION INTEROPERABILITY SURVEY RESULTS SEPTEMBER 2010 “Revision 1” 1. A team from the Combined Joint Operations from the Sea Centre of Excellence (CJOS COE) conducted surveys and interviews on board coalition ships which revealed several interoperability challenges and concerns; most were minor in nature and mitigated expeditiously. The information gathered provides an indication that interoperability, while generally good, may be declining in some specific areas resulting in needed attention. Opportunities for improvement in efficiencies and effectiveness have been identified but it is important to note that there were no failures in execution of operations or mission accomplishment. Areas Of Success 2. Advanced Parties and Liaison Naval Officers (LNOs): Continue to use advance parties/surveys (logistics personnel were very successful as a result of advance coordination with NAVSUPP) and robust participation at planning conferences. Continue to expand the use of LNOs as much as resources will allow. In particular, for communication systems, ship visits, workups, and personnel exchanges reap immediate and lasting interoperability results. 3. Participation: Continue, and increase, the delegation of warfare commander roles, unit missions, and staff responsibilities to coalition units and staffs through robust communication of training objectives at planning conferences. 4. Communications: Chat was both efficient and effective. CENTRIX (Combined Enterprise Regional Information Exchange System), while not a panacea, was generally regarded as an excellent capability for communicating, and gathering information and knowledge. 58 Extensive employment of Foreign Disclosure Officers (FDOs) on both ship and ashore assisted greatly in the dissemination of information; continue to address the use of FDOs early in the planning process. Areas Of Attention 5. Communications: Voice circuits (to include HF) should be used more extensively for Command and Control. CENTRIXS should be the primary classified network, and an adequate number of terminals must be installed on each ship; wider access to these coalition systems must be established by increasing user accounts. SIPRnet (Secure Internet Protocol Router) should be viewed as an alternate US only network. Senior communications planners need to understand the capability and limitations of all coalition units, and construct comms plans accordingly. Effort should be invested to ensure communications plans are a result of early collaboration, detailed planning, disseminated as well in advance of operations, and as many units as possible receive timely information. It often took 2-3 days from leaving port for all communications to be fully functional. Ensure embarked units (Ex: Marines) receive the same level of involvement in establishing communications plans. 6. Common terminology, references, and procedures: There were minor misunderstandings due to lack of common terms. NATO publications should be used as much as possible to prevent misunderstandings and provide common references. The medical community surveyed had no interoperability issues, one reason being they follow NATO publications exclusively. Some references to important exercise documents and orders were kept on national networks and not posted to coalition websites. 7. Command and Control (C2): Military cultural differences have an adverse impact on interoperability across the C2 spectrum. These differences must be explored, discussed, and detailed agreements on common C2 principles promulgated. Exercise orders (specifically TABORDS and OPTASKS) must be 59 distributed well in advance of scenario commencement to allow coalition partners the time for in depth review and understanding of the content of orders. The distribution and handling of formal orders requires coalition agreement on method of delivery; whether it is chat, email, website postings, radio messages, or voice. 8. Execution: Watch Officer training on coalition operations, and publications could be better. It often took 2-3 days into an exercise before all the warfare commanders and watch officers were “on the same page”. Specific Near Term Recommendations 9. Build an informal terminology cross reference, a small project of this type is underway. 10. Create a chronological checklist of actions to be taken to enhance operability in the preparation and planning phase of an exercise. 11. Create a functional roles based list that matches the national names/titles of watch standing positions to their generic roles. Ex: TAO (Tactical Action Officer) (US) to PWO (Principal Warfare Officer) (UK). 12. A point paper on how to approach a common ground on the dissemination of formal orders within Task Groups (TG to TG). Significant Long Term Recommendations 13. Exchange Communication specialist LNOs (at the junior enlisted level) and execute communications checks prior to sailing. If communications checks 60 cannot be executed prior to sailing, conduct them as soon as practical. Establish focused communications systems work-up periods. 14. All coalition units must agree to and invest in the communications plans (secure and unsecure) to ensure seamless and timely information. Specific attention should be paid to the limitations of all units. This may involve moving from IP based Command & Control (chat/email) to Voice Comms and record message traffic. 15. Discuss Watch Officer experience and knowledge level expectations during Final Planning Conference, and conduct dialogue between command teams. On-watch personnel will be at various levels of knowledge and experience, it is important for the more experienced watch standers to know who the less experienced watch standers are and what roles they fulfill. Use an unguarded net (or chat) to talk openly and perform command de-confliction, as well as enhance knowledge transfer. 16. Issue C2 guidance in Operational Order (OPORD) that is not covered in, or is an exception to, standards in reference material (such as NATO publications). Need more time to work out the processes of passing information and “formal orders”. Coalition participants must agree to methods of distributing “formal orders” and what constitutes a “formal order”. Obtain a common terminology book and use it. Areas to focus on: Planning horizons, timeliness of postings to websites, mission type, Tactical Control (TACON), Operational Control (OPCON), Situation Report (SITREP), Battle Rhythm, etc. 17. Determine a methodology to eliminate or reduce conflicts between planning (and execution) orders, especially Operational Tasks (OPTASKS); the coalition experienced conflicts between OPTASK ID CRIT, OPTASK ASUW, and OPTASK AAW. Establish version controls. 61 18. Investigate the opportunity for US NAVSUP to participate along with UK in the adoption of the NATO Logistic Functional Area Services (LOGFAS) system as an interoperability initiative. 62 ANNEX 2: INTEROPERABILITY CHECKLIST Line # 1. Syndicate Plans EVENT Review possession/ access/reception of/to all related/appropriate publications/documents. Review lessons learned data base from recent operations or exercises REMARK / RATIONALE Utilize LNO’s on order to receive documentation. Request those missing from Higher/Foreign appropriate authorities in accordance with National procedures. Ensure documents are releasable to all coalition. Database may not be releasable. Utilize Foreign Disclosure Officer to determine releasability of lessons learned. 2. Plans 3. Plans Determine Superior’s guidance and intent This may require a one on one briefing from the Commander to subordinates in order to clear any language or cultural barriers 4. Plans Conduct Mission Analysis 5. Plans Refine participation ambitions (duties or task asked) and training expectations. When possible, utilize an integrated combined planning team to ensure effective mission analysis in order to accurately identify tasks, limitations, COG analysis, risk assessment, and to develop Commander’s intent and guidance for the combined force. Language and culture will play a considerable role in correctly interpreting and transmitting guidance for combined forces. This will ensure exercise or operations participants understand the limitations of each navy with regards to training level, certifications, etc. 6. Plans Develop and brief C2 structure and provide reference doctrinal reference material (e.g. CWC Manual). Promulgate clear directives on C2 structure in OPORD. Briefings should include graphic depictions of geographic or functional divisions of responsibility. Provide all commanders a briefing on C2 structure to include planned changes, geographic boundaries, mission responsibilities, alternate commanders, and supporting communications structure. Brief SUPSIT doctrine as required. 63 7. Plans Generate mission or training timeline to include any limitations 8. Plans Agree, in concept, on the common set of tactics, techniques, and procedures publications used for all participants. A training or operational timeline will ensure the coalition is operating within its constraints and will ensure expectations are understood by all participants. In most cases this should be the NATO publication set. Agreement at this time provides time for the training audience to become familiar with NATO publications. Interoperability could be enhanced by using common terms, or providing a tool that relates one term to another. 9. Plans Command and Control Authorities and dissemination of orders. - Agree on command and control authority. - Document agreed to rules for disseminating orders. 10. Plans 11. Plans Investigate pre-existing OPTASKs and OPORDs for use during combined operations or exercises. Commands such as TTGL may be able to provide samples of pre-existing plans documents that can be adopted and utilized for a given exercise. BPT to develop and issue releasable OPTASKs and direct whether issued OPTASKs superseded previous OPTASKs Coalition participants must agree to methods of distributing formal orders and what constitutes a formal order. This must be documented in OPGENs, OPTASKs, and OPORDERs. In the absence of documented procedures specific to the exercise, coalition partners should use NATO standards. Orders will be mis-understood, unrecognized, or late due to no prescribed upon or agreed to rules for disseminating orders. Official orders, such as OPTASKs, Intentions messages, serial event messages, etc. should be sent via record message traffic as opposed to email. Contents may be coordinated by email but messages are the official order. Real time changes of course can me made by voice or chat communications Using standing OPTASK and OPORDs that are releasable to participating nations will reduce planning and work load for planners. Pre-existing OPTASKs and OPORDs can be modified to suit the mission, available forces and the desires of the TF/TG commander. Operators need to have common OPTASKS in which to work from. It needs to be made clear which OPTASKs will be relevant for a given exercise. 64 12. Plans Discuss limitations with regards to operational tempo. Some navies have the manning and training to operate on a rapid training tempo while others do not. It’s important to frankly discuss what a realistic training tempo is in order to establish expectations and to ensure effective training. 13. Plans Consider exercise design that simultaneously challenges multiple warfare areas Depending on the level of expertise and training requirements, it is important to design exercises that realistically reflect the challenges the participating coalition may face during actual operations. 14. Plans Integrate opportunities to share warfare responsibilities between all participating nations 15. Plans Identify standardized wording and numbering of ROE information A disseminated ROE matrix with common or standardized terminology will prevent confusion with regards to implementing ROE. 16. Plans Promulgate ROE Matrix by country in order for watch standers to understand constraints and restraints with regards to national policy Each nation will have different authorities. Operations must take advantage of the differing national rules in order to achieve the mission. It’s important for each unit to understand what missions and tasks each of the participating coalition units may conduct. For example, some nations need master’s consent before boarding, while others do not. 17. Plans Include within the Battle Rhythm when serial event TABORDS are due. Ideally TABORDs should be released NLT than 72 hours prior to the event. Identify and adhere to where TABORDS will be posted on IP Networks (e.g. CENTRIX). Releasing TABORDS in accordance with an established battle rhythm will ensure participants have adequate time to review and plan for serial event. The TABORD are not always received in standard NATO format as expected, thus making it difficult to extract relevant information and ensure that all necessary details are passed prior to a serial Building into the plan opportunities for coalition units to assume warfare commander responsibilities will ensure training opportunities are equitable and will improve interoperability in the long term. 65 18. Plans Establish integrated battle rhythm. Provide time for lower echelon units to provide feedback on higher echelon plans. 19. Plans 20. Plans Use training requirements and objectives to build a plan that rotates warfare commander duties to as many units as possible, while providing time for each unit to become proficient, and exercise interoperability. Brief details for exercise area restrictions to include ranges, air space and sea space restrictions, environmental requirements, etc. 21. Plans Conduct face to face meetings and capability briefs outside of the scheduled planning conferences. Conduct site visits with air operations, communications, logistics, surface warfare, etc. 22. Plans Verify Pre-exercise messages are received and understood by all coalition participants. To ensure effective planning and execution, an effective battle rhythm that considers coalition requirements must be established, promulgated, and adhered to in order to ensure continuity of operations. Continue to provide more and greater responsibilities to multiple nations and units. Especially warfare commander roles (AAWC) and Force commander roles (like ESF). Brief on use of exercise area. Reserve areas for events (such as helo operations). Address Risk aversion. Clear differences in Waterspace Management, environmental compliance and submarine safety procedures. Pre-exercise time in Norfolk, VA, provided an extremely valuable opportunity for ships officers and specialists to visit host nation. Discussion includes maneuvering in close company, Plane Guard duties, appreciation of CVN considerations and concerns, escort duty with CVN operations, tactical employment discussions with DESRON Air Ops, battle rhythm, and requirements from the staff for flying bids, maintenance cycles, etc. . . A pre exercise comms brief is very helpful to meet key players face to face and discuss aspects that may cause concern. Releasability issues may result in late or no release of pre exercise messages. Ensure addressing of messages include all coalition staffs and units. Refrain from labeling documents as NOFORN. Exercise and CTG/CTF staffs must understand how to disseminate information that is as freely releasable as possible (i.e.: Rel CMFC). Use NATO formats as often as possible to enhance releasability. 66 23. Plans Use document labeling to ensure widest dissemination Establish releasability guidelines and ensure coalition players are included in release groups. Refrain from using NOFORN labeling. 24. Plans LNOS Liaison Officers should be assigned at least two weeks prior to the Exercise. Both the quantity and quality (expertise) of coalition participants is the basis for the detailed interaction required. LNOS have to make planning decisions, the command structure they are embedded within is crucial. LNOs must be paired with a designated and corresponding ship POC. 25. Intel In order to protect information, all participants must understand and adhere to foreign disclosure requirements. 26. Intel Brief and describe foreign disclosure requirements and guidelines Coordinate Intelligence Preparation of the Battle space with coalition partners. 27. Intel Designate clear authority on red data base management In order to ensure the Common Operational Picture is accurate with regards to red tracks, clear lines of authority must be promulgated for data base management responsibilities. 28. Intel Designate the information system to use for intelligence products and information sharing. Maritime coalition operations should incorporate accessible means of allowing data to be transferred between units. Information system must be identified early in the planning process to allow time for acquisition, installation, training, and testing. Clearly identify and send all parties chat room names, passwords, and location of information. All chat rooms should be setup and defined prior to deployment/exercise. 29. Intel Coalition partners must have an understanding of the intelligence requirements for the commander. Additionally, each partner must be made familiar with the geography and characteristics of the Area of Operations, Assessment of the Enemy. Discuss, where possible, intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations. Intel analyst must be able to understand coalition capabilities in order to best exploit intelligence gather capabilities, which will avoid gaps and redundancies in intelligence collection 67 Develop matrix of unit Intel gathering capabilities Designate and disseminate the commander’s Priority Intelligence Requirements. Discuss Request for Information submission procedures All units must understand the commander’s intelligence priorities. 30. Intel 31. Intel Develop Enemy COAs with coalition partner input Differing cultures and experiences will enlighten the understanding of the enemy and their potential actions. 32. Ops Conduct ship and aircraft capability review. Participants/units provide capabilities, especially new or unique ones. (OPSTAT UNIT or equivalent signals should be utilized). Examples: New systems, like VDS. Standoff weapons like Exocet. Information should include current material status of weapons, sensor, propulsion, RHIBs, and helos, and impact on operations and particular warfare areas. All OPS hands must be able to understand coalition capabilities in order to best exploit them and will lead in avoidance of gaps and redundancies in operations. 33. Ops BPT conduct survey of amphibious ships for compatibility of various landing craft. 34. Ops A survey of landing craft and vehicles must be completed to determine the level of interoperability of amphibious units (e.g. can a US LCAC fit into a UK Amphib or vice versa). Identify communications terminology and acronym reference All units must be familiar and practice with common communications terminology. A single code word reference book should be identified to avoid voice communications confusion. 68 35. Ops Conduct warfare commander and watch stander discussion on differences in National policy, ROE, and safety to ensure all participants have an equal understanding of limitations, rules, safety etc. Masters Consent Boarding is one example of national policy differences, and required an understanding between units of interoperability differences. 36. Ops Establish communications doctrine for Voice and Chat circuits. Publish doctrine within OPTASK Comms and OPTASK Chat Operators need to understand what circuits will be used for the issuance of formal tactical orders. The tactical situation will dictate whether voice or chat will be the primary C2 medium. Additionally, the purpose of the circuit must be determined, whether it is to be administrative in nature, complimentary to voice communications or operationally and tactically directive. Maneuvering coalition ships is conducted exclusively over Fleet Tac UHF, in some exercises, a combination of Fleet Tac, VHF BTB and CENTRIX chat with no particular method given primacy and on occasion conflicting orders arising from each circuit. 37. Ops Develop and provide a roles/responsibility matrix that relates the name/title of each watch stander on the C2 nets to a common role. Example: TAO(US) to PWO(UK) Need to issue good C2 guidance in OPORD, or (better) use standards in reference material. 69 38. 39. Ops Ops Agree on tactical references that will be used for operations. The objective here is to create a list of the primary National, Coalition, and NATO publications used so that each participant has time to access reference documents that are not on their national systems, or request hardcopies from other nations. OCE needs to direct use of appropriate tactical pubs and where there will be exceptions. Interoperability problems can be caused due to important reference documents available, or over-classified. For some coalition units, chat is not a primary means of communication, and so the use of chat as a means for order dissemination should be clear from the beginning Brief C2 and Communications procedures. If chat is to be used as primary form of communications, then all participants must agree on the decision to do so, and voice circuits must be constantly tested as backup when chat is inoperative. Virtually all nations use voice as primary communications. 40. Ops Reinforce command and control communications doctrine. 41. Ops 42. Ops Communications and watch stander limitations must be briefed to rationalize expectations. If required, brief and discuss NSFS fire control procedures and doctrine. Identify common resources for NSFS doctrine and terminology. Example: For SITREPS, Use NATO prescribed TABORD format, informative as a stand-alone documents, and deliver via message traffic and CENTRIXS at 72 hr point. Official orders, such as OPTASKs, Intentions messages, serial event messages, etc. must be sent via record message traffic as opposed to email. Contents may be coordinated by email but messages are the official order. Real time changes of course can me made by voice or chat communications. Some units may have limited communications and available watch standers, therefore, operations must be planned around these limitations. Each participating unit may have differing procedures for the conduct of NSFS. In order to ensure safe NSFS events, each unit should agree on the appropriate references, procedures, and terminology. 70 43. Ops Each OPTASK should identify the appropriate C2 circuit for tactical execution and controller of that circuit. Brief participants. Discuss “safe to train” requirements 44. Ops 45. Ops Discuss cultural treatment of command and organization. - Come to terms in areas such as: Planning horizons, the objective of unit reports (should a SITREP be a status report, or should it provide a tactical assessment and intentions?). 46. Ops 47. Ops Where voice circuits are limited, consider assigning a single frequency for overall tactical C2. Confirm the units designations, call-signs, etc. 48. Ops Provide information on how Warfare Commander’s Roles are being performed. Briefing control of voice circuits will ensure voice radio discipline. Need to understand differences in tactics in general as well as new systems, perhaps via briefings ahead of the exercise. Especially differences in Gunnery safety rules should be clear and understandable. Nations differ in their expectations for unit actions when situations present themselves. Two examples: An expectation that when a unit is assigned to a SAU for an ASW mission, it is not necessary to issue a change in TACON for the unit to the ASWC, when in fact, it is a good practice to issue an order for clarity. Orders changing TACON or OPCON for a unit: What format should they take, and what dissemination process should be used? Only through knowing of differences can interoperability issues be mitigated. In some cases the differences cannot be solved, which is acceptable as long as they are identified. Communications and watch stander limitations of other units must be understood to ensure effective and continuous C2. Familiarize operators with call-sign conventions and unit warfare designations (e.g. AW, AX). All units must be aware of differences and limitations when warfare commander functions are hosted in a staff, versus the typical method of hosting within a ship’s operations center. Most coalition ships are not aware that a warfare commander can be hosted in a staff, there will be difficulty receiving/sending information, because a staff based warfare commander is not fully focused on the tactical situation. 71 49. Ops Timely issue of Commander’s daily intentions message (DIMs) Ensure that DIMS messages are issued in a timely manner. Releasability procedures, unduly lengthy review cycles, and improper routing and message handling can easily delay the DIMS from getting to the right audience quickly. Send DIMS by fastest means possible, typically email. 50. Ops Receipt of Orders: message traffic must be free of delays and reach all participants. Ensure proper handling or dissemination of messages Record message traffic “filters" (human and electronic) may hinder interoperability. Record message traffic may suffer because of: 1) No-one (or very few) is reviewing message traffic for relevance. 2) Messages not being forwarded 3) Information in messages was not finding its way into the relevant information 4) Routing indicators is not up to date. 51. Ops Avoid Non NATO terminology 52. Ops Use of NATO terminology should be ensured. Example: “Suspect identity” is used in NATO but some other nations don’t use it, and can cause confusion when communication contacts intentions. LNOS can play a crucial role helping monitoring email traffic from coalition ships. And can help keep host watch officers informed. 53. Ops (Data Link) Discuss and Identify Force COP Manager Identify COP management experience and link systems integration capabilities 54. Ops (Data Link) Discuss and Identify FOTC Identify FOTC management experience and link systems integration capabilities 55. Ops (Data Link) Discuss and Identify FTC Identify FOTC management experience and link systems integration capabilities 56. Ops (Data Link) Ops (Data Link) Brief and promulgate link Architecture Determine primary data link for the Common Operational Picture, Promulgate to operators to ensue familiarity 57. Create a strong relationship between LNOs and Operations watch officers There is a need to broadcast the Common Operational Picture to as many units as possible, while maximizing the capabilities of 72 keeping in mind capabilities and limitations of participating units. BPT to exchange data link LNOs. Establish, brief, and disseminate OPTASK ID matrix and symbology doctrine the best equipped units. Additionally, there is a need to prevent cluttered pictures where multiple data line broadcasts are pushed simultaneously. 58. Ops (Data Link) All units must use the same ID doctrine for their data links to avoid confusion of track IDs. Based on varying degrees of link capabilities, common ground must be found on symbology and ID criteria to ensure a Common Operational Picture. Changes to existing unit ID criteria must be determined early enough for units to train to new ID criteria. 59. Ops (Data Link) Determine Force Track Quality for each unit 60. Ops (Data Link) Provide clear direction on crypto in use, and frequency shifts. 61. Air Ops Conduct HOSTAC review Ensures HOSTAC up to date information is available to aviation planners 62. Air Ops Schedule in port flight deck inspection Permits HAC opportunity to determine caps/lims of helicopter flight decks to support flight operations planning 63. Air Ops Identify appropriate aviation publications and references Ensures all aviation capable units will have appropriate references and time to absorb and apply contents 64. Air Ops Identify primary network for ATO production (e.g. TBMCS) Some units will not have access to TBMCS as it resides on SIPR. Therefore, a common network must be identified to support ATO production Predetermined force track quality will reduce dual tracking in the Common Operational Picture The OTAD can be problematic at times when the shoreside originator becomes confused over the time difference and which day’s crypto is required. The Link 11 Data frequency might change without being promulgated on the voice net or CENTRIX. The Link SITREP should be released hourly and not when there are changes. 73 65. Air Ops Planning and coordination of Helo Flying Ops. 66. Air Ops Consider using standard NATO format (such as the ICC application) for ATO 67. Air Ops 68. Sub Ops 69. Sub Ops 70. Info Ops 71. Info Ops Sharing of C2 duties requires detailed and easily understood comms architecture for Air Operations. Develop Waterspace Management Plan and designate SUBOPAUTH Promulgate submarine safety procedures Daily DOTAH/FEEDER should be employed The lack of ready access to the DOTAH/ATO and other aviation planning information means that the majority of communication with USN is carried out via email. The usual battle rhythm employed within a NATO TG is submitting a daily DOTAH feeder and receiving a DOTAH with the next 72Hr. A standard format for the ATO for all NATO Carrier Groups (ICC) should be used. NATO use of ICC software in previous exercises with coalition assets has proved invaluable; the software is available and has been proven even if the Strike Wing’s Daily Air Plan may have be received as well as a planning aid. The key issue precluding the execution of these duties is the timely and effective distribution of material and appropriate security classification between coalition units. Sharing of ADC and Redcrown duties require consistent and robust communications architecture for the Task Group. Ensure all players are familiar with submarine operating areas Ensure all players are familiar with submarine safety procedures BPT develop common terminology and doctrine for the conduct of strategic communications. Promulgate and brief IO command and control arrangements and Common terminology will ensure a synchronized information operations plan and will support effective execution. To avoid confusion on IO C2 structure, each unit must be briefed on what the roles and responsibilities there are for IO operations. 74 authorities and responsibilities in the OPTASK IO. Key personnel must be identified and POC information disseminated (e.g. email address, voice net, IP network.) 72. Info Ops Identify Theater IO Organizations 73. Info Ops 74. Info Ops Identify theater IO goals and objectives Establish Force IO/IW Policy, including restricted frequencies, EMCON, and media policies. 75. Logistics 76. Logistics 77. Logistics Review unit capabilities and limitations in order to identify logistics infrastructure / engineering compatibility Fuel planners and logistics planners must refuel and other logistics systems (e.g. fuel line connections, pressure limitations, fuel and oil types, etc) are compatible for all participating units. Early identification of incompatibility is needed to ensure solutions are available before commencement of the exercise. 78. Logistics Investigate locations of LNOs, Forward Logistics Operating Teams and/or personnel deployment Location of forward logistics LNOs is critical to the success of operations 79. Logistics Replenishment Procedures Use of standard RAS signal formats in accordance with ATP 16 and OPTASK RAS should be ensured. 80. Logistics Understand shore power connection differences The weight of the cables and the position of the shore connection boxes may preclude the use of shore power. In effect, heavy three-core cables are used in the US that does not have the flexibility of the single-core cables used in the coalition units. Coalition units must be prepared. Some coalition vessels supply 440v whereas US shore power is nearer 480v. Determine logistics report requirements such as the daily OPREP 5 report. Identify logistics LNOs and Forward Logistics team personnel. Ensure all IO planners are familiar with theater IO chain of command Ensure all IO planners are familiar with theater IO objectives Ensure all IO planners are familiar with force IO policies. In order to conduct effective logistics planning, a common logistics format and reporting procedure must be identified. Logistics LNOs are critical to ensure personnel, parts, and supplies are available to the TG. 75 81. Logistics Establish expeditious invoicing of Services Mechanism not in place to provide timely invoices to foreign ships for payment of services prior to departing. 82. Logistics Approval to obtain repair services from US shipyards 83. Comms Identify primary command and control information network (e.g. CENTRIX). Avoid using SIPRnet which coalition ships can not access. OPNAV regulations require OPNAV approval in order for Navy shipyards to provide repair services to foreign ships. Upon approval, the repair services are only provided on a not to interfere basis with US ship commitments. USFF N4, in coordination with Port OPS and the N43 community developed a process where Port Ops would request blanket approval for the shipyards to provide repair services to foreign ships prior to their arrival. This was done for some coalition units but it appears that the Mayport shipyard is not aware that this approval can be obtained. A survey must be completed to determine which network can serve the most units. This will become the primary C2 network. Once identified all interaction should be completed on the primary network to avoid confusion and redundancy. If the focus of information flow and posting is on a national network, such as SIPRnet, Late and incomplete information, will end up posted on CENTRIXS 84. Comms A large amount of effort can be spent in achieving effective CENTRIX interoperability CENTRIX can be a single point of failure for coalition interoperability and whenever connection with the server is lost, interoperability levels plummet. Define which enclave will be used. Program Staff assistance to engineer the required frequencies and permissions. Data exchange from SIPR to CENTRIX is onerous. Ensure that websites are set up correctly to allow for posting of such documents. Emailing large documents takes a long time and frequently causes the files to become corrupt or crash the system. All in all, this process requires an inordinate amount of effort by the LNOs and Ship’s Staff. 76 85. Comms Identify appropriate crypto requirements and availability. Brief crypto roll over and loading procedures. Identify potential technical incompatibilities between various modems and crypto terminals. Brief and publish crypto terminal settings. Participants must ensure that compatible crypto is available in a timely manner. Additionally, all crypto users must be synchronized with roll over and loading times. Crypto material should be checked thoroughly well in advance. Planning should consider coalition availability. 86. Comms Identify realistic requirements for information systems to include number of required PCs, printers, etc. Identify space requirements and develop installation plan. Survey operational commanders for information systems requirements. Units may require advance notice to begin installing unique network systems (e.g. CENTRIX). Additionally, units and staffs will have to develop a comprehensive location plan for PCs and printers to ensure appropriate people have access to required information systems and that those systems are located such that they adequately support operations and planning. Where possible, co-locate new systems using CPU switches, with existing systems in order to not disrupt normal office space arrangement and seating of personnel 87. Comms Identify information systems account registration requirements. 88. Comms 89. Comms 90. Comms Personnel that need new information systems accounts normally must register in a timely manner to ensure availability of accounts. Provide information systems training to appropriate personnel to include login and passwords Ensure adequate chat rooms are available to support operations Develop and disseminate list that includes chat room names and passwords via OPTASK chat In order to ensure familiarity with newly acquired information systems, personnel must be provided with passwords and information systems training. Survey warfare commanders to determine chat room requirements Ensure all participants have access to required chat rooms. 77 91. Comms Provide comms LNOs between combined forces 92. Comms Develop communications capability MATRIX and brief operators and comms caps/lims for each unit. 93. Comms It’s important to work out communications problems in port before units begin exercising in order to maximize training at sea. 94. Comms If possible, conduct pre-exercise communications circuit testing, to include operators at their watch stations 3 days prior to commex. Use NATO crypto 95. Comms HAVEQUICK utilization. Define settings to be used and HOPRATE. USN has been able to use training settings with this HOPRATE and therefore opted not to use war settings during C2X. Coalition units are expected to use a different HOPRATE. It has been observed the use of different HOPRATEs and training cryptographic material put coalition units at a disadvantage as software limitations do not allow for training cryptographic material to be used 96. Comms Message Handling System exploitation Comms plan should address amongst others and the exploitation of MHS. 97. Comms Degrees of Confidentiality Restricted is not used by USN. 98. Comms Use of Maneuvering circuits must be well managed. 99. Medical Identify medical planning doctrine and procedures to be used during exercises. Identify and BPT exchange LNOs for all areas. 100. All Comms LNOs will ensure continuity of communications throughout the exercise by providing an immediate POC that address comms issues Operators and planners need to understand communications capabilities and limitations of other units in order to develop an effective command and control structure. It will also establish expectations between participating units. Using NATO Crypto will potentially eliminate issues that would arise if the coalition uses crypto provided by the host nation. Maneuvering nets should be clarified on order to avoid interoperability issues. Furthermore NATO signaling methods should be applied. Medical emergency plans must be compatible to ensure rapid response for injured or sick personnel. The more robust of an LNO plan there is the better likelihood of being able to rapidly resolve conflicts in tactics, doctrine, 78 communications, and logistics. LNO engagement cannot be overemphasized. It is the only method by which Coalition units will realize the complexity of the exercise. Coalition ships must provide detailed requirements during planning. 101. All 102. All 103. 104. a All All Ensure that all OPTASKs, OPGEN, TABORDS or other planning or directive messages reference only those documents that are releasable to action and info address. Identify Planning Conference Participants Units cannot reference a document they do not have access to, thus, their ability to execute assigned tasks may be inhibited. The standard format table in AXP 2C for signal formatting could be used to save confusion in signal orders Staff planners (CSG, ATG, etc.) from all participants should attend critical planning conferences. These attendees should be consistent through all planning conference, and the exercise, personnel should not be rotating to a new command in the next 8 months. C4 (command, control communications, computers) architecture design must receive primary focus during planning conferences. Releasability of orders and information. Exercise planners, and CTG/CTF staffs must create, review, and label orders and other information for maximum release. C4 architecture should be thoroughly checked and reviewed prior to the exercise; coalition must understand how to attain visibility to higher level (CFMCC, CJTF) comms and info management and flow. Experts in C4 must attend all planning phases. Verify which units will be on certain enclaves. OPTASK Comms must encompass networks, command, control, and information management. Coalition terminals must be manned. Procedures for maximum releasability must be addressed early in the planning process, and used continuously during the exercise. Examples of documents that must not be labeled NOFORN: OPTASK Comms, planning conference presentations, OPORDER 6000, Pre-exercise workups (FST-GC) information. Use NATO formatted orders. 79 ANNEX 3: INTEROPERABILITY SCHEDULE OF EVENTS (SoE) TIME Action EVENT REMARKS Prior to IPC CJOS LNO Obtain Ship’s schedule and Plan of Intended Movement (PIM) Keep CJOS COE Deputy Director informed. CJOS LNO and CJOS Interoperability Team Leader (TL) Provide Interoperability survey and checklist package to ship(s). CJOS TL Compare Ship’s schedule with USFFC (N7, N3) and CSFTL exercise schedule. Need to understand if Ship is coming “late in the game” or is integrated starting with IPC. CJOS LNO Ensure Ship participation in IPC Ensure participants have reviewed Interoperability checklist CJOS TL Identify primary reference for acronyms and terminology CJOS is developing references to cross-match terminology. CJOS TL Be prepared to publish common terminology and acronym list And/Or Prior to Ship Leaving Homeport IPC Post IPC Prior to MPC/FPC MPC/FPC Ensure the “Exercise Playbook” is provided to Ship from CSFTL. Communicate with CO and OPS, address any questions. Consider issuing a formal message through USFFC N3 or N7. A acronym & terminology list will provide operators a quick reference to avoid communications confusion CJOS LNO and CJOS TL Follow up with IPC Participant(s) Receive feedback on usefulness of checklist. CJOS LNO Ensure Ship participation in MPC/FPC Ensure participants have reviewed Interoperability checklist CJOS TL Ensure CSFTL has sent Interoperability checklist CSG/ESG staffs are the planners, and issue the OPORDS and OPTASKS. 80 and surveys to Host Nation (US) Ships/Staffs. Post MPC/FPC CJOS LNO and CJOS TL Prior to PSC/WCC CJOS LNO and CJOS TL PSC /WCC Events Schedule Face to Face meeting with Ship. Inform CJOS chain of command, including Deputy. Receive feedback on usefulness of checklist. Keep CSFTL informed, as well. CJOS TL Create Draft Mission Order (objectives) for Ship Engagement. Provides Draft Objectives for Ship’s review. Sets expectations for schedule, participation and products. Coalition Ship Provide feedback on Mission Order. If required, depends on complexity of the ship visit, such as a 2 day atsea interview evolution. CJOS TL Coordinate USFFC PAO coverage Inform PAO, possible coverage of Face-Face meeting CJOS TL Welcome package Assemble welcome package for FaceFace: CJOS brochures, mementos for CO… CJOS TL Ensure Ship’s personnel have copies of the Survey. Same for Host Nation (US) Ships and staffs; liaison with CSFTL CJOS LNO and CJOS TL Conduct meeting, report back to CJOS COE Deputy Director. Post PSC Execution Follow up with MPC/FPC Participant(s) Releasability and NATO standards must be considered. None Identified Coalition Participants CJOS LNO and CJOS TL Complete Surveys This includes identified US Ships and Staffs. These surveys will be used a guide during the interview process. a) Confirm schedule for Follow-on One-on-One interviews with follow-on visits, selected personnel: Senior leaders teleconferences, and (Ship CO, Operations officer, Marine interviews. Liaison, etc.). Follow-on Group b) Resend Mission interviews with watch officers, and Order to Ship CO/XO, functional areas (examples: Air with plan on splitting operations, Logistics, Intelligence, interviews into 81 groups. Coalition Participants Post Execution Communications and Networks, KMO, PAO, Legal/ROE). Forward completed Surveys to CJOS. CJOS TL Conduct Follow-on visits, teleconferences, and interviews. Inform PAO, CJOS COE Deputy Director. CJOS TL, Team members for Operations, Air, Logistics, C2, Comms. a) Team members review surveys. b) Team members split into groups. c) Use completed surveys or blank surveys to guide interviews. Update Lessons Identified “database”, Interoperability Checklist. One-on-One interviews with selected personnel. Group interviews with watch officers, and functional areas. CJOS TL Provide after-action report If required. CJOS TL Conduct meeting with CSFTL, USFFC N7 If required. CJOS TL CSFTL: COMMANDER, STRIKE FORCE TRAINING ATLANTIC FPC: FINAL PLANNING CONFERENCE IPC: INITIAL PLANNING CONFERENCE LNO: LIAISON OFFICER MPC: MAIN PLANNING CONFERENCE PAO: PUBLIC AFAIRS OFFICER PSC: PRE-SAIL CONFERENCE TL: TEAM LEADER (FOR INTEROPERABIL; ITY PROJECT) WCC: WARFARE COMMANDERS CONFERENCE 82 ANNEX 4: INTEROPERABILITY LESSONS LEARNED DATA BASE 1 Area Title Observation Discussion Air Helicopter Flying Operatio ns No major helicopter flying issues came up. Minor issues were with common terminology and landing procedures. Nothing was unsafe, and after working through exercises, comfort levels were increased. UK Sea King helicopters offer a great source of information which is not common knowledge to the US forces. They have a good capability with LTIDS and Link-16 which isn't fully utilized within the NATO battle group/ATG. 83 Conclusion Interoperability among aircrews is almost a nonissue. Procedures set up through normal chains have been embraced and used. Would be good to have UK Sea King operate more tactically with US/coalition forces in order to decrease common terminology and landing procedures interoperability problems. Recommendation Ensure there are updated publications readily available to all participating countries. Provide NATO aviation elements briefing and publications on CV ops (i.e. CV NATOPs brief). Get as familiar as possible with flight decks etc. prior to exercise. Use common terminology when operating. Have a common terminology publication to identify missions. Have countries share unclassified mission publications. One example would be the SAR TACAID. This would be beneficial if an actual SAR scenario took place with a multinational search. Send UK Sea King personnel to participate in Air Wing training at NSAWC. 2 Air Helicopter Flying Operatio ns Planning and Coordination of sorties was hampered by lack of information. The lack of ready access to the The NATO procedure DOTAH/ATO and other of submitting Daily aviation planning information DOTAH /FEEDER that was passed out to the wasn't employed. Battle Group meant that the majority of communication with DESRON Air Ops and HEC had to be carried out via email. The usual battle rhythm employed within a NATO TG of submitting a daily DOTAH feeder and receiving a DOTAH with the next 72Hr Intend fly was not employed. It was understood that the required information was promulgated via CENTRIX/SIPRNET WebPages that we were unable to access. 84 The use of NATO DOTAH /FEEDER procedure should be discussed prior to each exercise. 3 Air Aviation Comms, SIPR Key observation points were in the area of communications. The US tended not to use signal message and relied mainly on SIPR transmissions which are not always readily available to coalition forces. Reference material was not always readily available. Overall in the planning phases, there were no critical interoperability issues, but everything could be much easier if SIPR was easier to get, or the US used other modes of communication as their primary means. 85 No major interoperability issues were noted. Things could only work smoother if other forces had the same system to work from. Make it easier to get SIPR to the other forces. 4 Air HOSTAC HOSTAC misinformation 5 Air TBMCS US seems to only use a TBMCS system and not the ICC system when producing the ATO. This causes extra work and could cause miscommunicati on in the long run. HOSTAC states that US DDG could land a Merlin, after SQN 814 reps visited, it was determined that ship's flight deck was short by at least 1 foot and by more than 1 degree in incline Formal documentation may be dated or incorrect. Good practice identified here was a site survey to validate documentation. Get a better NATO-wide chat system. 86 6 Air 7 Air 8 Air Air Terminol ogy All terminology was not standard. Using one term for a mission in the US is not the same in the UK. Get a common terminology book and use it. Corporate knowledge is working, but could cause an issue later. Mode IV Crypto Mode IV was not loaded correctly on some aircraft All aviation units need to ensure availability and commonality of Mode IV crypto. All aviation units must be certain of the rules regarding Mode IV usage and it should be outlined in the ATO/ACO ATO Information sharing was pure due to luck of use of a NATO ICC standard format for ATO thus disabling units of charring out the RED CROWN function. NATO use of ICC software in previous exercises with coalition assets has proved invaluable; the software is available and has been proven (JOINT WARRIOR/OP MARINER/AURIGA etc.) even if the Strike Wing’s Daily Air Plan may have be received as well as a planning aid. 87 A standard format for the ATO for all NATO Carrier Groups (ICC) should be used. Use of standard format of ATO is strongly recommended in order to avoid any loss of information or inability of units to carry out the function of REDCROWN 9 Air Planning Pre-exercise meetings highly successful. Liaison by the Ship’s Flight and the FCs on board with the squadrons at Norfolk Naval Base prior to exercise start was invaluable. USN was happy to provide up to date Charts, Publications and Procedures for the exercise areas. Lynx Flight – 88 The ability to conduct face to face capability briefs and tactical employment discussions with DESRON Air Ops prior to the start of the exercise proved invaluable. During these meetings, the battle rhythm was discussed and the requirements from the staff for flying bids, maintenance cycles, etc. Without these briefings and contact details it would have proved almost impossible to integrate and operate effectively as part of the exercise. It is recommended that any non-US nation joining the exercise in the future has these face to face briefings serialized in the programmed prior to the start of the exercise. 10 Comms GRIFFEN SIPR Rel needs to be Griffen enabled for full access to Email and Chat. Griffin is an extremely useful tool, but takes a lot longer to set up than the recommend 10 days to establish a fully functioning griffin account amongst all the gateways. SIPR Rel allows capital units connectivity between US SIPR users whose accounts are not griffin enabled. To interoperate with US personnel who do not have griffin obtaining Griffin enabled UK SIPR Rel would greatly reduce time required to cross the "air gap". Because of long lead time for account creation and activation, process must start well in advance of the exercise Obtain griffin enabled CSD/CSS accounts at the early stages of planning. Teach GRIFFEN at TTGL during workups. Any USN/USAF/USMC person requiring interaction with UK units via secure email should get their SIPR accounts griffin enabled. FDO process is lengthy and must be started early for GRIFFEN users 11 Comms CENTRIX KM / IM Difficult to find and exchange information. Information exchange was at times difficult to find on CENTRIX and usually was sent via e-mail and then dispersed to required parties. Passwords to chat rooms were difficult to receive at times and had to be sent via a third party oftentimes. CENTRIX chat was confusing and took awhile to get a hang of. Maritime coalition operations, should incorporate accessible means of allowing data to be transferred amongst units. Clearly identify and send all parties chat room names, passwords, and location of information. All chat rooms should be setup and defined prior to deployment/exercise. 89 12 Comms CENTRIX systems The proper mix, configuration and accesses of the IP networks is critical to operational success. Units were able to exchange data via CENTRIX easily. A challenge with CENTRIX was the monitoring of chat…some units did not have enough terminals for frequent monitoring of chat. Some units had limited seats and monitoring was done by the CSG staff vice ships company. The number of CENTRIX and NSWAN computers were limited and inhibited effective planning and coordination CENTRIX to US units is a system comprised of 3 different enclaves (CNFC, NDITS, etc..) used at different times and for UK units CENTRIX is an all-in-one system comprised of all enclaves. Once that was established it became easy to facilitate the use of CENTRIX. 90 Interoperability will be enhanced using a robust suite of systems that support CENTRIX. CENTRIX was a great tool for communicating between units, but required great coordination and understanding between units. CENTRIX needs to be the classified network of choice during Alliance or Coalition operations /exercises. Increase the number of CENTRIX and NSWAN computers available to staffs and units. If possible, route CENTRIX and NSWAN to the required existing computers using CPU switch boxes for more efficiency 13 Comms CENTRIX systems A large amount of effort was expended in achieving effective CENTRIX interoperability Whilst it was expected to conduct the C2X as a coalition exercise on the GCTF enclave, it became apparent that the CNFC enclave was to be used. Coalition units needed CSFTL Staff assistance to engineer the required frequencies and permissions. The use of CNFC precluded some coalition ships from interacting over the main C2 net for the exercise. Whilst briefed extensively during the Pre-Ex briefs that CENTRIX would be the primary means of C2, the majority of signals and briefs were produced on SIPR and data exchange from SIPR to CENTRIX proved onerous. Often, the websites were not set up correctly to allow for posting of such documents. Emailing large documents took a long time and frequently caused the files to become corrupt or crash the system. All in all, this 91 CENTRIX was the single point of failure for coalition interoperability and whenever connection with the server was lost, interoperability levels decreased significantly. Clearly identify the proper CENTRIX enclave to be used from all coalition and US forces and clarify the rules of using its full potential in order to achieve the highest and continuous degree of cooperation process required an inordinate amount of effort by the LNOs and Ship’s Staff. 92 14 Comms Kick procedur es US units not carrying out Kick procedures on voice circuits. This was carried out on SIPRnet and CENTRIX. Carry out Kick procedure IAW APP 1C. (NATO CONF) 15 Comms Capabilitie s and Limitatio ns Too many fighting circuits were allocated I/E DD/FF equipment limitations. Using secure/non-secure voice circuits at times posed problems if there were limitations on the availability of cryptographic equipment. Some circuits did not have the ability to be used both in plain and cipher. Each unit had specific Caps/Lims on cryptographic equipment. Units compiling signal must have a better understanding of other units capabilities and limitations 93 16 Comms COP (Neutral tracks) Unable to use neutral track designation This caused problems when both TG came together. Neutral which is in APP7 was not authorized to be used by the KEARSARGE in their OPTASK ID CRIT however UK units used neutral in their OPTASK AAW and their OPTASK ASUW. Surface neutral tracks transmitted from UK units were received by US units as Suspect. 94 ID CRIT caused problems between US/UK units as each TG had different ID CRIT contained within their OPTASK’s. Interoperability suffered slightly because neutral track designations could not be used in some cases. 17 Comms COP (Dual Tracks) 18 Comms COMM Plans Dual Tracks OPTASK and TABORD issues. Some unit failed to extract important information for signals which lead to major duel tracking issues. Either some units didn't want to in house there tracks, and/or at times couldn't reach units on voice comms to pass to a unit that there dueling tracks. However when units were redirected by the FTC the issues was resolved. (Track Quality settings) . The main issue was the tactical picture, dueling of tracks and trying to coordinate to reduce the issue was a constant hit. US OPTASK Comms, lay out is different from NATOs and the naming of circuits is different. OPTASK ID supp from KEARSARGE contained references to US navy wide OTL which UK units do not hold. The TABORD were not always received in standard NATO format as would have been expected, thus making it difficult to extract the relevant information and ensure that all necessary details had been passed Non US units must be sent relevant references prior to issue of exercise signals. The standard format table in AXP 2C for signal formatting could be used to save confusion in signal orders 95 NATO format and publication must be used when operating with coalition units. prior to a serial. 19 Comms COMM Plans Lack of visibility of the OPTASK COMMS until the day before starting the exercise caused the majority of interoperability problems. It was later discovered that the OPTASK COMMS was not passed to coalition units at first as it was not releasable to non-US units Interoperability was affected by the difficulties in dissemination of OPTASK COMMS. 20 Comms COMM Plans USKAT crypto on secure circuits is an issue. When the OPTASK COMMS is re-written using NATO crypto it eliminates USKAT issues. Interoperability is hampered by the use of NON NATO Crypto material. 96 Releasability should always be addressed when operating with coalition units. Use of NATO Crypto material when coalition forces cooperate with USN. 21 Comms COMM Plans HAVEQUICK (HQII) remained an issue throughout the exercise as USN used a specific HOPRATE which coalition units can only utilize with war settings. USN was able to use training settings with this HOPRATE and therefore opted not to use war settings during C2X. Coalition units expected to use a different HOPRATE which was used in previous coalition Ops. Prior information indicated that it would be possible to establish and maintain an agile capability with USN thought-out the exercise. However, the use of different hop rate and training cryptographic material put coalition units at a disadvantage as software limitations do not allow for training cryptographic material to be used 97 Different HQ settings hampers the effective use of the devices amongst coalition units. HQ settings should be arranged in the planning process taking into consideration coalition limitations. 22 Comms Track Coordin ation 23 Comms Lack of Underst anding Coordination to reduce dual tracks was difficult General lack of knowledge and understanding of terminology, procedures, and capabilities. Some units did not want to inhouse their tracks. At times we couldn't reach units on voice comms to pass to a unit that they had dual tracks. There were issues with data loops and the tactical picture. Most units were up on multiple links with the same units, causing looping, and the picture to be cluttered and disorganized. Initial communications were hindered/difficult due to: (1) Lack of knowledge/understanding of communications messages/publications/termi nology; (2) Lack of understanding of communications procedures; (3) Lack of knowledge of units' capabilities and limitations. Interoperability difficulties were only a factor with one communications circuit. Each unit had to modify settings on their different communications equipment in order to communicate with one 98 A general understanding of the Communication capabilities and operating procedures would have helped. It is difficult to work with foreign navies due to different equipment, procedures, and mission effectiveness. All communicator's should attend a pre-planning conference and conduct a ship visit. This would give all communicator's an opportunity to t/shoot and identify any issues and clear up any misunderstandings. another. All settings did not equally apply to all units. 24 Comms Planning and Coordin ation A coalition ship was not included in several Pre-Ex signal messages Optask Comms, can depict the amount of thought spent on interoperability with non-US units. The use of US only key mat causes concern. ATO/OPTASK COMMS amends/WASEX/CTTGEX/C ard of the Day/PRE-EX signal message were not received until a week of the exercise had taken place. Again, it came to light that the issue was to do with releasability rights for these signals: it was not until the seriousness of the situation was appreciated at higher levels, that efforts were made to resolve the matter (assisted primarily by the work done by the LNOs ). There was no preexercise communications brief. This would have been helpful to meet key players face to face and discuss aspects that may cause concern. Releasability due to incorrect classification as NOFORN. 25 Comms Net owner / controlle r Not clear who was in control of some nets. Nets can get too busy. Due to limited equipment on some coalition units, some nets will become busy and even overloaded with information. Interoperability suffers when communications nets are overloaded 99 Pre exercise comms brief is crucial for the interoperability of the force. Logistics/Fuels planners need to brought into the planning process at the earliest possible stage to address these compatibility items. 26 Comms Data Links Difficulty in forwarding Link 16 COP to Link 11 ships. Difficulty in maintaining the Link16 picture, and then forward to Link 11 only capable ships. No LNO from other nation available at beginning of exercise. Not all units were always on the same page. Units were not always keeping all other participants informed when changing link structure. It was sometimes unclear what OPTASK were using. Sometimes there was information coming from multiple OPTASKS that we were using for link structure. 100 Units were not always keeping all participants informed when changing link structure. The OPTASK in use was sometimes in question. More tactical planning and communication would mitigate this issue. Forceful back up from Force Track Coordinator on maintaining the picture. Use LNO/SME cross-deck to address issues early. 27 Comms Data Links 28 Comms Comms procedur es Difficulty with Link 11 and Link 16 The OTAD was problematic at times when the shore side originator became confused over the time difference and what day’s crypto was required. At times crypto was corrupt and had to be re-transmitted (2 hours later) incurring a loss of situational awareness on Link 16. The Link 11 Data frequency would change without being promulgated on the voice net or CENTRIX: this was highly frustrating as operators would proceed to trouble shoot equipment. At regular intervals, operators would cycle through all Link data frequencies on the chirp sounder to find the Data net in use. The Link sitrep was only released on CENTRIX hourly and not when there were changes. Link coordination issues can hamper significantly interoperability. LINK procedures should be always address early enough in pursuit of the best LINK exploitation in coalition ops. UK and US TAOs used different procedures when monitoring Command Nets causing loss of UK procedure was for the TAO to switch between warfare nets depending on the scenario, whereas US units would stay up a "common" war fighting net. This would Inability to maintain voice comms on all warfare circuits may have been a result of reduced manning. This will Establish as doctrine the requirement to maintain voice comms on ALL war fighting nets, or, as an alternative establish a warfare "common" net to 101 voice communications 29 Comms Air Assets not on primary "fighting net" ASW air assets not on fighting circuit" (ASWC control net). Some air assets were on a landlaunch control frequency, exclusively. 30 Comms Communic ations workups It took 3-5 days once ships were at sea, to be able to communicate. ATO not fully integrated for cause temporary loss of voice comms Some units were not following OPTASK COMMS or ATO SPINS. Some units not following NATO procedures for air control. Units were only communicating on frequencies NOT in the OPTASK COMMS, and should have been on the ASW control net. During ASW serials, Air assets (MPA, Rotary Wing) were controlled on separate circuit to surface units, and not formally organized into an Air SAU. Air control and contact reporting were occurring on the same ASWC net. Even after ships had established good comms prior, after going into port and returning to sea for operations, it would take 3 days to become 102 have to be verified. ensure continuous voice comms. No interoperability between some air units and remainder of ASW action units. Lack of adherence to C2 and Comms procedures. Lack of understanding of air control nets in use. More robust Air control and Comm plan. Detailed instructions, such as: Contact reporting and mission orders on ASWC net, with a separate net for air control (safety, exercise, etc). Aircraft must cover BOTH nets. Interoperability would be enhanced if communications were fully operable once the ships Face to face briefings and understanding need to occur in advance of exercise. Conduct a Comms-Focused workup/certification first few days. 31 Comms Timeliness of postings to Website s SITREPS often took 8 hoursto be available on CENTRIXS. DIMS, as provided on chat or message traffic was often came much later than the posting to CENTRIXS. 32 Comms Red Databas e manage ment There lacked clear lines of responsibility for red force track management within the TG interoperable. Could have been due to maintenance periods in port. Links (11,16, etc.) did not experience this problem. leave port. period. KSG C2X US elements posting of info during the preexercise was slow to materialize, with SIPR being the first website used to publish info. Once publishing on CNFC was carried out it worked well and timely. Designate clear authority on who is responsible for red track database management 103 33 Comms C4 Architect ure 34 Comms Crypto C4 (command, control communications, computers) architecture was poorly designed and communicated. Information flow was poor for the first 4 days of the exercise. All ships did not have a good understanding of the C4 architecture. Some units were on GCTF while others were on CSMTF enclaves. OPTASK Comms was RF based, did not encompass networks, command, control, and information management. GCTF terminals on some ships were not used, or were unmanned. Only information flow between some coalition ships was the "DESRON staff" - no visibility to higher level communications. C4 architecture did not receive primary importance during all planning phases, resulting in interoperability problems. Experts in C4 must attend all planning phases. Coalition ships had incorrect Crypto Coalition ships believed that host nation provided Crypto. Unable to communicate securely for several days, while correct crypto was obtained. Must have clear communications on use of crypto during planning process. 104 35 Comms SIPRnet 36 Comms Exploitatio n of MHS 37 Comms Degrees of Confide ntiality 38 Comms Capabilitie s& limitation s of Coalition units into consider ation Coalition units unable to watch all needed comms nets 39 Culture Differences in Some units used shorter planning Coalition ships unable to access SIPRnet SIPRnet was used extensively, but coalition ships could not access. Late and incomplete information, was posted on CENTRIX. Poor information flow hindered interoperability Must use CENTRIX (or other enclave) more extensively. USN ships do not monitor MHS Although discussed prior to the exercise it was never followed by USN. Comms plan should address amongst others and the exploitation of MHS. Exploitation of MHS should always be addressed during planning conferences. USN doesn't use RES. - - Coalition units must know that USN doesn’t use RES degree of confidentiality. Caps and Lim, should always taken into consideration There was some frustration in using the daily intentions 105 Planning conferences should include a cap. Presentation as well as the OPORDER Planning Horizons 40 Culture Command and Control horizons than others. Misunderstandings between warfare commander roles message (DIMS) for changing plans. The DIMS typically looked out only 3 days; 5 to 7 days would have been appropriate. Coalition units tend to be more multi-roled and focused on composite warfare; serials that targeted training in one particular warfare sphere sometimes lacked the multidimensional warfare aspects that the number of OPFOR assets could have provided. 106 It is important to cross-map C2 organizations (CSC vs. nonCWC) and reach agreement early. 41 Culture Culture and differenc es Culture of different militaries cause interoperability issues. Nations differ in their expectations for unit actions when situations present themselves. Two examples: An expectation that when a unit is assigned to a SAU for an ASW mission, it is not necessary to issue a change in TACON for the unit to the ASWC, when in fact, it is a good practice to issue an order for clarity. Requests for information (ex: SITREP) from a unit through the units command chain were met with some questioning, when it is typically best practice to follow and inform the chain of command. Orders changing Knowledge of the difference between TACON or OPCON can mitigate interoperability issues. In some cases the differences cannot be solved, which is acceptable as long as they are identified. 107 There can be some significant differences that need to mitigated prior to starting operations that involve cultural treatment of command and organization. Need to issue good C2 guidance in OPORD, or (better) use standards in reference material. Need more time to work out the processes on working together. 42 Culture Serial start times Some units would not start actions until exactly at the designated serial start time, instead of 30-60 minutes earlier. 43 Culture Boarding and Personn el Control differenc es US can perform Masters consent Boarding, and "personnel under control", whereas other Nations cannot. When units were not task organized until just before serial start time, there was a potential for loss of coalition training time Masters Consent Boarding is one example of national policy differences, and required an understanding between units of interoperability differences 108 Interoperability was only slightly affected, the only issue was that some units were expecting to start early while other did not, and some time and efficiencies were lost. Not an Interoperability issue, but an example of how it is important to be knowledgeable of, and consider National policy differences to plan certain evolutions. 44 Culture Technolog y Progres sion Technology in the non-military organizations is often better than in the military, especially in regards to IP networks 45 Culture IO C2 Confusion existed on who was the information ops lead for the TG was and what the roles and missions were. Appropriate Networks, like GRIFFEN, need to be available to support planning requirements Determine a publish clear IO C2 guidelines via an OPTASK IO 109 46 Culture Chat Learning curve for Chat. For some coalition units, chat is not a primary means of communication, and there was some misunderstandings that could have been avoided with clearer communication. 47 Culture Warfare Comma nder Coalition not used to warfare commander being a staff function The ASWC was hosted in the CTF staff, as opposed to a ship. Coalition ships had difficulty receiving/sending information, as the staff was not fully focused on the tactical situation. Conversely, the AAWC/AADC was hosted by a ship, and there were no interoperability issues. 110 Establish a C2, or "overall coordination" chat room to work out misunderstandings. All units must be aware of differences and limitations when warfare commander functions are hosted in a staff. 48 Logistics Logistics Referen ces Restricted access to the US Navy Logistics publications and information systems limited seamless exchange of information. The UK Group Logistics Commander (GLC) could not access the NAVSUP information system. C2F N4 and USS BARRY Supply Officer provided a work around point of contact. Sharing of information and access to logistics library systems could enhance the interoperability planning tools. 49 Logistics Logistic reporting , Comms, and docume ntation NATO Logistics daily sustainment reporting system (LOGSITREP) provides limited information. At pre-deployment planning it was very clear that there were different support arrangements for each participant. The CSG GLC needed a report that tracked these differences and status. The OPREP 5 (US tool) was used for this purpose. The use of the OPREP 5 report provided a comprehensive tracking tool for the many different coalition sustainment needs. This gives the CSG Commander mission assessment and risk management info. 111 Coordinate with NAVSUP an agreement/MOU to allow NATO partners access to the NAVSUP library and information systems. Early pre-deployment discussions concerning Logistics/Sustainment reporting systems. Long term recommend NATO review of the LOGSITREP reporting systems to increase capabilities. 50 Logistics Logistics LNO/FO T Use of LNOs and Forward Operating Teams (FOT) were invaluable tools for logistics interoperability. The UK use of LNO and Forward deployed small teams in Norfolk contributed to early planning coordination and exercise operations efficiency. The FOT expedited medical RFI for cold storage during the exercise. 51 Logistics Logistics Comms Logistics communication needs were addressed early in the planning meetings. Pre-deployment logistics meetings established SOP contact by NIPR(US)/NavyStar(UK) non-secure systems compatible systems. Secondary comms by voice. Secure comms would not be possible due to limited availability and lack of experience by staff. 112 Require the early participation of Logistics LNOs and Forward Operating Teams in the planning process and during the exercise. Logistics has very limited needs for secure networks but the need will most likely expand during real world events. Support communications lessons learned and recommendations. 52 Logistics Eng Systems The AURIGA staff Maritime Engineer (ME)planned and exercised a "Battle Damage Repair" livex with ships in the CSG. This mini-exercise included US and UK ships and crews to test interoperability response to a damaged ship requiring repair crews and parts from other PN ships. 53 Logistics NATO Logistics systems R&D UK Maritime War College is studying the NATO Logistic Functional Area Services "LOGFAS" system. Using the CSG HMS Ark Royal for testing. This system appears to have several database systems paralleling US logistics systems; Database tracking, common operating picture, visibility movement and resource optimization. 113 The HMS Ark Royal ME will be releasing a report and its demonstrated interoperability lessons learned. This type of exercise should be considered in the predeployment planning. There maybe an opportunity for the US NAVSUP to participate in this effort. Providing input and experience in NATO systems that can be used in future exercises. 54 Logistics Replenish ment Procedu res Fuel was twice received successfully from USNS including at night. Email communication was frequent and effective, and use of standard RAS signal formats indicated the use of common messages. Discrepancy between USNS RAS stations in ATP16D and her OPTASK RAS. Distance line measured in feet rather than meters specified in ATP16D and in use by COALITION ships. VHF was primary comms whereas coalition uses either flashing light or flag hoists, but this was pre-warned in the OPTASK RAS as a result of manpower constraints in USNS. Lights/shapes were invoked by USNS as coalition ship was ordered to approach, whereas coalition unit hoists these once messenger line passed. 114 RAS procedures should be clarified in the planning process. 55 Logistics 56 Logistics Payment of services Shore Power Compati bility US shore power has been used by RN vessels on previous visits even though the voltage is higher than that used on board. RN vessels supply 440v whereas US shore power is nearer 480v. Due to the reasons at L3.5 shore power was not connected and therefore the ship remained powered by her own Diesel Generators. Mechanism not in place to provide timely invoices to foreign ships for payment of services prior to departing. NANSEN received fuel from both ARCTIC and KANAWHA and services from NAVSTAs Norfolk and Mayport. She only received invoices from the ARCTIC. 115 This makes it difficult closing out the books from a budget perspective if the invoices are not received prior to the end of the financial/calendar year. C2F amend its process to coordinate with services providers to provide invoices upon providing services. 57 Logistics Approval to obtain repair services from US shipyard 58 Medical Medical Doctrine While in port Mayport, NANSEN was not able to use US shipyard repair services due to a US requirement to obtain prior approval from OPNAV. OPNAV regulations require OPNAV approval in order for Navy shipyards to provide repair services to foreign ships. Upon approval, the repair services are only provided on a not to interfere basis with US ship commitments. C2F N4, in coordination with Port OPS and the N43 community developed a process where Port Ops would request blanket approval for the shipyards to provide repair services to foreign ships prior to their arrival. This was done for the DARING and the NANSEN however, it would appear that the Mayport shipyard was not aware that this approval was obtained. Amend the process to ensure that all shipyard activities are copied on the request and approval from OPNAV. Additionally, provide a copy of the approval message to the US Host Ship that is assigned to the foreign ship. The medical emergency plans and procedures were based on NATO standards and fully understood by all UK and US maritime medical personnel have been using NATO standards for many years and interoperability issues are minor terminology and civilian coordination. NATO Medical continues to review and improve their standards and interoperability with great Use the medical inoperability as a model for future planning. 116 participants. success. 59 Medical Medical Supply and Services The fuel line fittings for UK ships have a single headed hose and US used double. 60 Orders Distribution of formal orders Some units not comfortable with power point slides, email, website posts, and chat as methods to issue orders. Orders provided via formal (radio) message traffic have been the standard in he past. No common understanding of what constitutes formal orders. Ambiguity exists in the understanding of a formal order. Should chat directions be used as a formal order? NATO has standard procedures and formats for orders, some units did not follow these standards. Power point briefs were used a few times as formal direction or orders. 61 Orders OPTASKs Uncertainty in which OPTASKS were in effect. OPTASKs were not generated early enough to There was confusion on occasion when it was unknown what OPTASKS were in use. 117 Review NATO technical standards for fueling. Logistics/Fuels planners need to be brought into the planning process at the earliest possible stage to address these compatibility items. Some orders were mis-understood, unrecognized, or late due to no prescribed upon or agreed to rules for disseminating orders. Interoperability within the C2 structure was affected. Coalition participants must agree to methods of distributing formal orders and what constitutes a formal order. This must be documented in OPGENs, OPTASKs, OPORDERs. In the absence of documented procedures specific to the exercise, coalition partners should use NATO standards. Power point slides should never be used for orders or formal direction. Generate OPTASK early enough into the planning process to ensure units have an opportunity to practice new procedures enable units to review and adjust 62 Orders NOFORN orders and informati on Orders, messages, and presentations were issued as NOFORN, preventing timely information to coalition participants. OPTASK Comms revisions were not releasable to coalition partners. Presenters at planning conferences used mostly NOFORN presentations. OPORDER 6000 was not releasable. Pre-exercise workups (FST-GC) had vital information that was not releasable. NATO formatted orders were used infrequently. Exercise planners, and CTG/CTF staffs did not create, review, and label orders and other information for maximum release. Interoperability was hindered due to lack of information. 63 Orders DIMS Daily Intentions Messages (DIMS) worked "just OK" for interoperability. The DIMS format and content were useful to coalition ships in understanding tasking, and for planning. However, these messages were not issued in a timely manner to coalition. Messages must be issued (posted) on coalition networks in a more timely manner. 64 Orders Receipt of Orders Appeared there was no proper handling or dissemination of messages from some coalition Record message traffic from some coalition ships had several issues: 1) No-one (or very few) was reviewing message traffic for relevance, 2) messages Record message traffic "filters" (human and electronic) hindered interoperability. 118 Exercise and CTG/CTF staffs must understand how to disseminate information that is as freely releasable as possible (i.e.: Rel CMFC). Use NATO formats as often as possible to enhance releasability. ships. were not being forwarded, 3) information in messages was not finding its way into the relevant information channels (C2), 4) Routing indicators were not up to date. 65 Orders Overlappin g ways of order dissemin ation . There were issues in receiving orders via chat and email, VHF, UHF, CENTRIX, even through presentations. Tasking and orders came via "bits and pieces" when using Chat as a primary medium for tasking. Tasking sometimes came embedded in presentations provided via email or posted. Orders detailing how the force would counter the threat in each environment were more prescriptive than expected. Lack of discipline in issuing orders via chat or presentations hinders interoperability. The use of prescriptive orders instead of formal preplanned responses increases reaction time. Consolidated messages in NATO format should be used to follow-up on information provided via other means. The use of NATO preplanned responses is imperative. 66 Participa tion Planning, LNOs Staffs integrated with exercise planners well in advance. Staffs were backbriefed and kept up to date on scenario changes. Staff N5 had good Planning conferences, for the most part enough people were sent to cover all syndicates. MPC, FPC, Presail are most important. Continuity is very important, in many cases not the same people were attending all the conferences. LNOs are extremely valuable, must be knowledgeable and active; but, do not use LNOs as a primary conduit or briefer, should only assist. Assign more LNOs, and Continue robust use of LNOs, and attendance at planning conferences. Additionally, set up a compulsory port visit for watch officer's to collaborate, and talk shop just prior to the exercise. The ships need to send a representative to the pre- 119 contacts from planning conferences, ad a good list of goto experts, as a result of participation in early planning cycles. 67 Participa tion Battle Rhythm For the most part, the battle rhythm worked well. In a few cases, plans were changed at CTF level without feedback to CTG level. earlier. Example: DIMs assigned a unit to MSO duties, instead of FP duties, as planned at CTG level. Cause: Lack of feedback events in the Battle Rhythm between CTG and CTF or ESF. Otherwise the matching of lower level battle rhythm with HHQ worked well, and is extremely important for interoperability. Telecoms and VTCs were very valuable, especially for setting up exercises and serials. 120 sail conference. Recommend more cross decking: sailor from each ship rides another units ship to see how other unit operate. 68 Participa tion Participatio n Almost entirely, participation was good. Some exceptions: Time for ESF play, RCCE contributions, ROE work, Battle damage, surface-tosurface engagement. Full RCCE capabilities from coalition not used. Coalition play as ESF (expanded Strike Force) commander should have lasted longer (3 days more) to get maximum training and work on interoperability. A clear air tasking organization should have been set up earlier. Watch standers and staff were expecting more tactical interaction and serials to explore actions such as Battle damage response, ROE adjustments, and surface to surface engagements. Coalition partners were not involved in the estimate phase of the planning process, interoperability will be enhanced with their additional input. 121 Increased Delegation of duties to other units helps them learn the challenges of interoperability. 69 Participa tion Interopera bility Coalition units were ready and capable to provide the Force Enabling duties of REDCROWN, DCA/CAP control, ADC and RMP/RAP duties (T45 primary aim of the exercise) when working with the CSG from the very first day if interoperability issues had been resolved. The key issue precluding the execution of these duties was the timely and effective distribution of material and appropriate security classification between the USN and coalition units; the former struggled to release signals to the latter. If coalition units had received access to e-mail this would have been of major benefit for a more seamless and less time consuming manner of transferring necessary data for REDCROWN, ATO, CONOPS, PRE-EX information 122 70 Participa tion Responsibi lity, Involve ment, participa tion, and Value Personnel and Units were highly satisfied with duties assigned and involvement. Strike Group planners were integrated with exercise planners well in advance. Personnel were back-briefed on the scenario and kept up to date on changes. ASWC, FP commander, MIO commander, and ASUWC duties were distributed extensively to many different units. The OCE "bent over backwards" in an effort to satisfy coalition training requirements and objectives. The role of AAWC should have been transferred to more than 1 or 2 units. Responsibilities of Expanded Strike Force (ESF) commander should have been scheduled for an additional 72 hours to maximize training and interoperability availability. 123 Coalition units were able to plug into US exercises and provide value, positive contributions flowed in both directions, benefitting the exercise as a whole and each individual unit and staff. A significant amount of interoperability and understanding was demonstrated. Delegating responsibilities to other units helped them experience and overcome interoperability problems. Continue to provide more and greater responsibilities to multiple nations and units. Especially warfare commander roles (AAWC), and Force commander roles (ESF). 71 Participa tion shared responsi bilities Warfare commander responsibilities were distributed well throughout units, but could have been even better. Sharing warfare commander responsibilities around the TG allowed most of the units to take charge of other nation assets, thus increasing interoperability. Swapping duties such as AAWC allowed increased interoperability with units learning from different warfare kinds of approach. Sharing of ADC and Redcrown duties highlighted again the importance of having a consistent and robust communications architecture for the Task Group. 124 72 Participa tion Procedure s 73 Planning Draft Releasa ble OPORD s/OPTA SK Consistent use of standard NATO procedures would have aided coalition interoperability including the use of the Standard Order Table to format Pre-Ex Messages KSG ESG was required to develop a parallel but releasable OPORD and OPTASK to accommodate UK warships Having a standing releasable OPORD/OPTASKs for NATO and CMFC would alleviate requirement for each CSG/ESG to develop all new OPORDS/OPTASKs for training and operations 125 TTGL and CSFTL can have standing releasable OPORDS and OPTASKs for training and operations that can be provided to each ESG and CSG for modification as required TTGL and CSFTL develop standing OPORDS/OPTASKs that are REL NATO and REL CMFC. The standing OPORD must remain flexible enough for the CSG ESG CDR to adjust based on preference, mission, and assigned assets 74 Planning Event Tempo US units need more time in between events in order to implement required safety, risk management, and mission briefings. The exercise event tempo did not allow time for units to properly debrief the preceding event, in order to capture lessons learned, and to prepare for the next event with the required mission and risk management briefs. Mission briefs and debriefs are integral to effective training as they permit ships crews time to prepare for the next event and to absorb and reapply lessons learned. Additionally, event risk management briefs help mitigate hazards to forces and mission. Build in sufficient time between events to enable US units to properly prepare for follow on events. 75 Planning Event Design NATO needs to train to events that task multiple warfare areas simultaneously Today's threats will likely present themselves in several mediums simultaneously such as both combined surface and air attacks. Training events that test multiple warfare areas simultaneously are more realistic to today's potential threats Build events that test multiple warfare areas simultaneously 76 Planning Focus of US Training US ESG was going through a certification Establish expectations with allies with regard to the training requirements with 126 process and its attention was focused on ensuring its success. In that regard, US focus on integration with coalition partners received less attention than it deserved. 77 Planning 78 Planning 79 Planning Geographi c boundari es and warfare comman der duties Event Design Pre- the US and the limits that this imposes on coalition training. Confusion existed on the geographic boundaries that separated warfare commander duties NATO needs to train to events that task multiple warfare areas simultaneously Crucial for early Develop and distribute graphic depictions of warfare commander boundaries and responsibilities along with the corresponding C2 arrangements to include assigned communications circuits Today's threats will likely present themselves in several mediums simultaneously such as both combined surface and air attacks. Pre-exercise time in Norfolk, 127 Training events that test multiple warfare areas simultaneously are more realistic to today's potential threats Build events that test multiple warfare areas simultaneously Pre-exercise visits on Exercise Meeting solving of interoperability issues. VA, provided an extremely valuable opportunity for coalition Navigators and OOW to visit USN ships and discuss maneuvering in close company with her, including for Plane Guard duties. This enabled full appreciation of CVN considerations and concerns. 80 Planning LNOs Advance party coordination for Air Operations was successful Coalition units sent several experts to host nation air wing and squadron commands, resulting in seamless air operations. 81 Planning LNOs Not enough participants provided by coalition in conferences. Both the quantity and quality (expertise) provided by coalition participants did not provide the level of detailed interaction required. Coalition ships did not 128 board ships should be deemed essential for escorts not familiar with CVN operations. Robust engagement proved worth the time and effort. LNO engagement cannot be overemphasized. Coalition units did not realize the complexity of the exercise. provide detailed requirements during planning, or the requirements were not voiced firmly enough. 82 Planning Written plan for solutions to address ed problem s 83 Planning Synthetic Training attendan ce Participation of coalition personnel is crucial Non participation of coalition personnel probably increased interoperability problems. Participation is vital as interoperability issues can be identified early enough. Attendance of Synthetic training is vital for the exercise. 84 Planning POC for LNOS LNOS had no POC onboard ENT A POC dedicated for LNOS would make their lives easier. Address POC for LNOS on board USN ships To be addressed to CSFTL 85 Planning Releasabili ty of OPORDER was not released to What are the main concerns Investigate the issue OPORDER should be releasable to coalition Although Norwegian representatives addressed specific issues during the planning conferences no written plan addressing issues was generated. Releasability, communications publications and many other issues were raised and promises given that would be solved until the start of the exercise. 129 A plan ahead that will initiate solutions and accountability is essential as a result of any planning conference. OPORD ER 6000 coalition ships not to release it? How can we change the structure of it for courtesy purposes 86 Planning Structure of Warfare Comma nder conferen ce Coalition participants had to attend part of it due to national restrictions 87 Planning PREEXERCI SE CONFE RENCE S Certain aspects were not briefed during planning conferences like use of CENTRIX or signal release restrictions 88 Planning LNOS LNOS have to make planning decisions thus thorough understanding of the command structure they are embedded within is crucial. units .(At least the essential parts of it ) A new structure needed Planning conferences structure should be tailored to facilitate the attendance ofcoalition units representatives. LNOS should have background and experience as well as the authority to make planning decision. 130 89 Restricti ons 90 Restricti ons Course of Fire Charts New systems not used to full extent Some units do not use paper charts for course of fire. 4 ships conducted IMPASS range course of fire. During that event, it was discovered that one county's procedures for NSFS were different, did not use paper charts for their course of fire. Units were able to exchange that information to make a very successful event during the Onslow Bay course of fire. VDS sonar could have been used more robustly. Perceived safety issues. French SSN exocet capabilities not understood, and affected exercise play. New systems, and their Concept of employment were not understood well enough to create (or relax) op-area rules for robust tasking. New systems coming to an exercise can have a profound effect on exercise play, this can be both a positive and negative training experience. The 131 Good pre-planning will identify differences. Units were unable to exercise full interoperability of some systems and tactics due to lack of understanding. Need to understand differences in tactics in general as well as new systems, perhaps via briefings ahead of the exercise. HMS Ark Royal deployed with Sea King AEW aircraft that could have considerably expanded the TGs C4ISR capability. Unfortunately this capability was not integrated into the TG operating plans 91 Restricti ons TSC play and Scenario play conflicts TSC play at the same time prevented some scenario play, and the ability to exercise reacting and responding to the scenario threat. 92 Restricti ons Landing craft interoper ability Swapping landing craft between NATO amphibious ships is inhibited by lack of technical information needed to ensure TSC serials at times conflicted with exercise scenario planning and response Helo's have a NATO guide book that provides the required information to enable helos to operate safely between various NATO ships. 132 Develop a NATO technical guide book for amphibious craft in order to ensure interoperability of landing craft compatibility 93 Terminol ogy NATO Pubs need update NATO publications are major combat operations focused and task group focused. Many operations are now conducted by independent units Need a common language for "influence operations" and/or Strategic communication, for joint and coalition operations. 133 94 Terminol ogy Common Terminol ogy Terms between nations require a common reference. It appears that doctrine and TTPs are not as closely followed as in the past. C2 structures were not fully understood. Would like to have a common dictionary/thesaurus that is easy to use. (TAO vs. PWO, CIC vs. Operations center, etc.). Some units did not seem to read the OPORD, OPGENs, OPTASKS, or NATO publications. Names of control circuits were provided in OPTASK comms, but some units did not use the correct terms for these circuits. The "target allocation message" was not understood as "take these targets out". Differences on AAWC circuit with sitreps and assessment frequency. Would help to know the right person to talk to, by referencing their role to their title. 134 Knowledge of documentation was lacking, causing interoperability issues. Interoperability could be enhanced by using common terms, or providing a tool that relates one term to another. Watch officer must read up on exercise documents. Recommend that warfare syndicate breakout meetings be scheduled during each pre-exercise conference as well as LNOs embedded on ships. Face-to-face briefings: earlier, the better. Interoperability can be enhanced by providing enough time prior to exercises or operations to understand differences, and then to practice linkage in a deliberate manner. 95 Terminol ogy Voice and National differences Chat in procedures for Reportin reports g hampered differenc interoperability. es Air Defense voice and contact reporting procedures were different from what US ships are accustomed to. Attempted to work out the different details when personnel cross deck to get further insight and guidance on the proper procedure. The cross deck did not seem to help in this matter as there was still a gray area of the information that was being reported. 135 Standards of NATO voice reporting and use of ATP 1 VOL II enhanced the ability to operate with NATO units. Most ACP publications are great references and provide a standard for interoperability. The standards can be implemented, but must be understood by all parties involved before it can be used successfully 96 Terminol ogy Reference s not available Exercise OPGENs, OPTASKS, etc. referenced documents unavailable to coalition, as they were stored on national networks. TACNOTES that detailed SUPSIT requirements were not available. Some information is over-classified. SITREP templates were not made available due to security concerns. Difficult to decode and understand SITREP messages from other units. Format and details for SUPSITS not available. The LAC (a TLAM role) does not have access on UK ships to information on a TLAM operation [this is a UK issue to be solved thru MOD] Interoperability problems were caused because important reference documents were not available, or over-classified. 97 Terminol ogy Use of NATO publicati ons NATO standard code words and duty numbers were not understood by some operators NATO procedures not always well understood. Some units were not familiar with APP11 (AAWC, ASUWC). NATO format not used for ROE, Serials (TABORD), etc. Lack of experience in NATO terms and procedures was evident. Typically, would use NATO pubs (EXTACs) for supported and supporting requirements. Positive comment: Changes in OCS NATO publications were not referenced as often as necessary, resulting in misunderstanding in terms and procedures. Need to delve into NATO pubs earlier and often. 136 Establish a list of all references that will be used during the exercise and operation during the planning cycle. OCE needs to direct that use of NATO pubs is a priority, and where there will be exceptions. Decide at planning conferences. One particular item that helped, was having an officer with strong NATO experience, who can mentor other officers. allowed all units to experience NATO signal writing, allowing less experienced officers to gain knowledge. It was hard for personnel to find information in NATO pubs due to unfamiliarity. 98 Terminol ogy 99 Watch Office r ROE Warfare comman der SITREP S. US SROE numbering and wording are different from NATO ROE Too reliant on chat rooms to pass SITREPS. SITREPS were passed at a set time (ex: on the hour) rather than as the tactical situation changed. SITREPS were too lengthy. US ROE writers should endeavor to use NATO ROE organization and numbering as much as possible SITREPS tended to be very long (included Link data, and other duplicative data). SITREPS were not in NATO format. SITREP format of 1,2,3,…. With no explanation of what 1,2,3 meant made interpretation difficult. 137 Message traffic and CENTRIX chat seemed to be the main area of focus when something of great importance needed to be passed Suggest NATO-based format for SITREPs: "Situation-AssessmentIntentions". 100 Watch Office r Warfare comman der respons es too scripted Warfare reactions seemed very procedural with some units slow to react to emergent threats. Ships heavily reliant on Warfare commander orders before carrying out routine procedures (streaming arrays, joining sectors, radiate sonar, etc.). Could be due to lack of experience of Warfare coordinators. Seemed that ships would not follow tactical orders unless CO was pre-briefed. Also, concerns on burning fuel to shift stations may have been a limitation. Units appeared to be sticking to rigid adherence to timelines and move station or patrol areas following orders released well in advance. During operational phase, fluid changes and scheme of maneuver seemed to cause confusion and angst, especially if involving higher speeds and fuel burn. Aircraft checking into Green Crown was acknowledged as "sweet/sweet", even though IIF was off, because the a/c was expected as part of the script. 138 101 Watch Office r 102 Watch Office r Limited watch officer respons es to orders and question s SITREPS Questions to other units would just be answered "roger" (chat or voice), with no answer attached. May be due to interoperability issue in understanding the question and terminology. Rather than query, there seemed to be a tendency to answer roger. Perhaps a fear that the watch officer would look unknowledgeable. Watch offers also had a tendency to answer "roger, standby", and then not follow with an answer or action. Units appeared reticent in asking questions due to perceived risk of placing their units into disrepute, or with an apprehension of monitoring staff or observers. Some SITREPS provided only a summary of past events and current status. SITREPS can be of greater use if they include an analysis ("so what") of the situation. Some warfare commanders were not providing robust assessments, they were providing mostly status reports, with no assessment and intentions. 139 Recommend all nations become more familiar with each others training levels and procedures at the unit level. What is different between watch stations? What is different between CIC and the Ops Room? What are the bridge requirements/expectation s for OOW/DIVTACS? 103 Watch officer BW officers duties BW officers didn't monitor email traffic 24H. LNOs had to play the role of alerting the BWO for incoming email by coalition units 140 In any case BWO should be monitor email traffic especially when comms issues have been arise due to interoperability problems ANNEX 5: INTEROPERABILITY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Command-Level Discussion Topics (CDRE, CO,…) S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 Answer In which areas do you experience the main interoperability issues arising? Examples: Decision-Making, Planning, Force Execution. How do these issues affect the operations and C2 of the combined TG? How did lack of interoperability hinder meaningful contributions by coalition partners? Do you have ideas to propose for mitigating interoperability issues? Any comments on the importance of early liaison with participating nations for equipment fits (cost can be a key issue)? Ex: The value of liaison officers, both ways. Any comments on the importance/value of promulgating an agreed command battle rhythm (including when Commanders should provide direction and guidance to subordinates)? Also, ensuring it matches your higher HQ battle rhythm. What National rules (Safety, ROE, policy) are a major hindrance to interoperability? What issues are enduring, and never seem to be solved? What issues are new, and need fresh corrective strategies? Does the current state of personal interaction and development of working relationships fall short in identifying and solving interoperability issues? How so? 141 S-7 S-8 S-9 What significant interoperability issues arise from inability to access information? Where have we fallen short in communicating and exchanging information? Describe any media issues caused by differing multinational agendas. Visitors - Have you had too many? Do you think the value of maritime forces (in senior leader's eyes) has been fully exploited? 142 Documentation - Questions for all CSG staff Answer members D-1 Which documentation do you use as a reference? D-2 Do you have easy access to the reference documentation? If not what are the reasons? D-3 Are your national procedures different? Are there any contradictions with your national procedures? What are the reasons for that contradiction/difference (eg. Operational, doctrinal, legal etc.)? D-4 Do you have access to foreign/NATO Standing OPTASKs? Is there significant divergence in operational procedures/standards? If yes describe the areas and the reasons. D-5 Are the TABORD (serial orders) promulgated and received on time? Are the instructions accurate, and reflect balance of operational standards/procedures? Are they explicit enough? What are the specific points/areas for improvement? D-6 Do you need more time to analyze and develop internal preps to meet objectives of the US NATIONAL 143 NATO ? TABORD and if yes why? D-7 What are the main issues/problems with documentation (ROE, COMPLANS, etc.)? 144 Planning phase - Questions for Exercise planning team P-1 Are you using NATO Bi-sc exercise directive 753? For non NATO what document are you using? P-2 Were you able to send the adequate number of qualified personnel to the different conferences? If not how did you address the likely issues of interoperability? P-3 How were conflicting issues resolved during the conference solved? Did your planning team acquiesce to host nation standards, was there a compromise or did your team withdraw national participation from contentious serials? IPC 145 MPC FPC PSC Answer All Participants to answer the questions in this section G-1 Did you feel like you were involved at the right level in the Exercise? If not, was this due to a lack of interoperability? How so? Example: Were you integrated into the warfare areas, planning, and operations? Did you and your organization provide value or not? Could you have provided value? What could be done to increase your value to training and the exercise? G-2 Provide examples of tactical difficulties or operational friction experienced. Which of these do you consider to be due to a lack of Interoperability and why. Provide any proposed solutions. 146 G-3 What conflicts and issues occurred due to interoperability problems? Please consider the following: Staff interoperability, personal interaction, mutual understanding of TTPs, establishing and meeting training requirements, inability to participate or conduct a serial due to conflicting national process or doctrine, decision-making, planning, force execution, lack of common terminology, restrictive or ambiguous safety rules, conflicting safety rules, ROE,differences in national policies and procedures, differing multinational agendas, early liaison with participating nations for equipment fits, exchange of LNOs, communication with LNOs, battle rhythm, fire (gunnery) chain of commands, the exercise construct, nonstandard targets, non-standardized emergency procedure during situations of proximity (RAS, towing, personnel transfer), . **Provide potential solutions or mitigating factors to the issues you describe. G-4 Describe some significant interoperability problems that prevented the sharing of information, or limited command and control, or reduced knowledge management. This could be due to technologies, procedures, and access restrictions. Provide any potential solutions. 147 G-5 Shared responsibilities: How does the sharing of responsibilities address (reveal and mitigate) the challenges of interoperability? Provide some examples. Some areas to consider: ASW responsibilities, OCS (Officer Conducting Serial), AADC, etc. G-6 Do you know of standards (NATO or otherwise) that enable coalition interoperability? Can you implement these standards? Why not? 148 Aviation (For the Air Wing, Air Department, Staff, and Pilots) A-1 Answer What conflicts and issues occurred due to interoperability problems? Please consider the following: Air publications (example: HOSTAC), interoperability to deploy foreign aircraft, platform interoperability, facilities for flight planning, different aircraft approaches, personnel transfer (day, night), uncommon terminology, vertical replenishment (VERTREP), Search and Rescue (SAR) procedures, common safety issues, refueling. **Please provide potential solutions or mitigating factors to the issues you describe. 149 Data Networks – CENTRIXS & CSD/Griffin C1.1 Answer What interoperability challenges have you encountered with the use of CENTRIX? Consider: adequate number of workstations, location, permanent vice fitted for this deployment, what enclaves are available(e.g. CMFC, CMFP, etc), does it satisfy your IER for interoperability with US units, preference for an alternate network (e.g. NSWAN), are US elements posting to CENTRIX in a timely manner? Recommendations to enhance CENTRIX information exchange? 150 C1.2 How familiar is the Staff on the use of CENTRIX applications? C1.3 What interoperability challenges have you encountered with the use of CSD & Griffin? Consider: adequate number of workstations, location, permanent vice fitted for this deployment, was CSD used by US LNOs to email SIPR users, was CSD utilized by UK Staff to email US SIPR users, was Griffin utilized by UK Staff to email RNCSS to SIPR and vice versa? Email Email( (Mail Web server)? serv er)? Chat? Persistent Chat? Recommendations to enhance CSD and Griffin information exchange. 151 CAS Web (user) ? CAS Web (admin) ? C2PC (COP) ? Other? Other? Miscellaneous C3.1 What additional C4I interoperability challenges have you had. Consider: impact of the US preference to conduct C2 via chat and web portals, use and availability of OPTASKs, provision of CIS circuits & effectiveness of the IM plan, use of voice circuits (sufficient /successful and nonsecure/ secure), availability of C2 circuits normally used on your navy’s deployment? C3.2 What was your FDO process? How did it facilitate or hinder interoperability? C3.3 Did you know who in the US to speak to for Link 16, TACAN, distribution of the COP and SATCOM/DAMA? Who has the POC, was the Answer Link 16 TACAN COP SATCOM/DAMA 152 use successful? C3.4 What CIS Lessons Learned have you noted? 153 Planning phase – C5I Syndicate C2.1 How many people have attended planning conferences? C2.2 What was their expertise and was it sufficient to cover all the issues? Would you send more or different SME? C2.3 Were your training requirements taken into account? C2.4 Were the issues raised previous conferences solved? IPC 154 MPC FPC PSC Logistics/Engineering/Environmental L1 Answer What National/US/NATO rules (Safety, ROE, policy) are a major hindrance to interoperability? What issues are enduring, and never seem to be solved? L2 What issues are new, and need fresh corrective strategies? Does the current state of personal interaction and development of working relationships fall short in identifying and solving interoperability issues? How so? Example questions below. L2.1 Are you able to coordinate your US logistics requirements thru Standing Operating Procedures (SOP) and/or Liaison Officers (LNO) ? L2.2 Do you use your host ship to assist in coordinating your logistics support requirements? L2.3 Are you familiar with and using the Fleet Industrial and Supply Center (FISC) & Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to support requirements that ship’s agent can not meet? 155 L2.4 Are you familiar with the processes by which logistics supplies and services are requested through the US if your ship’s agent/chandler can not meet your requirements? L2.5 Have you established communications with the Medical planners in the numbered Fleet where you are operating at? Have you synchronized your medical emergency plans with the facilities ashore in conducting patient transfer from sea? L3 What significant interoperability issues arise from inability to access information? Where have we fallen short in communicating and exchanging information? Example questions below. L3.1 Does your country have a reciprocal health care agreement with the US? If not, be advised that all medical expenses incurred by your personnel has to be paid for upon discharge by the originating ship/unit. 156 L3.2 Are the aviation and marine fuels/oils used by the US compatible with your engineering and aviation systems? Are you able to provide compatible fuel types? L3.3 Does the Logistics Requirement (LOGREQ) process meet your support requirements? L3.4 Are your replenishment at sea (RAS) procedures compatible with the US procedures? L3.5 Are your hoses, couplings, fittings, and/or adapters compatible with the US fittings required to bring on fuel, water, electricity? L3.6 Is your power generation/distribution system compatible with the US shore power system or do you have to “aux steam” in port to generate electricity? L3.7 Are you able to communicate needs through CENTRIX, voice communications, Internet or other National systems? Does every country require different communication system? 157 L3.8 Provide examples where you are unable to participate or conduct a serial because you have conflicting or different national process or doctrine (EX: boarding exercise). L4 Discuss operability conflicts/solutions/mitigation examples below and add any others. Example questions below: L4.1 Do you have a funding mechanism either through your Defense Attaché/Embassy or other agency that is compatible with the US funding mechanism requirements? Does your country have logistics related agreements with the US ( i.e. Acquisition Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA) or Foreign Military Sales (FMS) that enables you to exchange/obtain support with/from the US? L4.2 Are you able to use direct Contracting/Acquisition to meet your support needs? L4.3 What safety regulations/environmental standards impede exercise support? 158 L5 Describe issues introduced when dealing with other NATO partners (other than US) during an exercise. Third and fourth party logistics support issues. 159 PART III INTEROPERABILITY METRICS EVALUATING ALLIED/COALITION –USN INTEROPERABILITY 160 Background 1. Now that we have gone deeply into Interoperability having in place the Coalition Playbook (PART I) and the Interoperability Handbook (PART II) the next step is to determine whether they improve interoperability and, if so, in what ways. Purpose 2. The purpose of this part is to outline our efforts to answer the following points. It should also formulate efforts to continue to improve the previous parts (particularly the Interoperability Checklist). Here are the three aspects of interoperability that we will assess: a. Adherence to the Checklist – Measure how well the CJOS COE, the visiting ships, and the hosting navy, USN Strike Groups follow the checklist for each visiting ship. This is a measure of preparedness; it quantifies efforts made to address known interoperability challenges. b. Demonstrated Interoperability – Evaluate the interoperability of visiting ships with their host Strike Groups during execution. Clear, objective standards are applied to evaluate how early in an event the interoperability challenges are initially overcome, as well as recording how well interoperability efforts were maintained throughout the exercise. These are measures of effectiveness for the units. c. Lessons Learned Again – Analyze interoperability LL from each ship to identify the repeat issues and determine which should be prevented through adherence to the checklist. This is another measure of effectiveness for the units but it also provides feedback on the effectiveness of the checklist. 161 Methodology 3. Adherence to the Checklist, Demonstrated Interoperability, and Lessons Learned again must be measured separately. But applying a common framework will enhance each of them by enabling cross-correlation. To evaluate the checklist, it will be critical to know what efforts were made to follow those recommendations. If we don’t know whether a ship followed a particular recommendation then it will be impossible to determine whether it was of value. Efforts to follow the checklist are “inputs” into the process that should output interoperability. Recording which checklist items were completed (and when, relative to the exercise timeline) will form the key measures of performance (MOPs) in the larger assessment framework. 4. Adherence to the Checklist (Measure of Preparedness) – There are over one hundred checklist items and often multiple items related to a single topic so it is important to group them by topic. Establishing a set of interoperability topics based on the checklist items and using it to organize the results of the performance and LL evaluations will allow us to tie the process “inputs” to the “outputs.” 5. How to: divide the existing checklist into two sections – items for CJOS to complete and items for the visiting ship and the hosting Strike Group. Ask each party to record completion (Y/N) of each checklist item. Request comments for items not completed (there may be many legitimate reasons). These metrics are scored as percent “Yes” in each checklist topic area using the checklist to record the data. 162 CJOS PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET TIME Line # 1. Prior to IPC Action CJOS LNO 2. And/Or 3. Prior to Ship Leaving Homeport Item Completed? Yes No EVENT REMARKS Obtain Ship’s schedule Keep CJOS COE Deputy Director and Plan of Intended informed. Movement (PIM) CJOS LNO Provide Interoperability and CJOS survey and checklist Interoperabilit package to ship(s). y Team Leader (TL) Communicate with CO and OPS, address any questions. Consider issuing a formal message through C2F N3 or N7. Ensure the “Coalition Playbook” is provided to Ship from CSFTL. Totals 29 Yes No Percent Completed (X<=1) X X is the final result CJOS Preparedness Assessment Sheet (example) OTHER ENTITIES/COMMANDS INFO OPS PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET Line # EVENT Items Completed? Yes No REMARK / RATIONALE INFOPS 1 BPT develop common terminology and doctrine for the conduct of strategic communications. Common terminology will ensure a synchronized information operations plan and will support effective execution. INFOPS 2 Promulgate and brief IO command and control arrangements and authorities and responsibilities in the OPTASK IO. To avoid confusion on IO C2 structure, each unit must be briefed on what the roles and responsibities there are for IO operations. Key personnel must be identified and POC information disseminated (e.g. email address, voice net, IP network.) INFOPS 3 Identify Theater IO Organizations Ensure all IO planners are familiar with theater IO chain of command INFOPS 4 Identify theater IO goals and objectives Ensure all IO planners are familiar with theater IO objectives INFOPS 5 Establish Force IO/IW Policy, including restricted frequencies, EMCON, and media policies. Ensure all IO planners are familiar with force IO policies. Totals 5 Yes No Percent Completed 163 Y7 M ISSION AREA PLANS INTEL OPS LINL AIR OPS SUB OPS INFO OPS LOG-MED COMMS GENERAL SCORE Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Overall Average = Y Y is the final result Other Entities/Commands Preparedness Assessment Sheet (example) 6. The final metrics will be two scores: a. An X score as a percentage of items CJOS COE prepared (e.g. X=80%=0.8 which means that CJOS COE was able to comply with the 80% of the CJOS PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET). b. A Y score as a percentage of items that other entities and Commands prepared (to include coalition /allied ships and USN Commands.e.g. Y=60%=0.6 which means that Coalition /Allied Ship and probably USN Commands were able to comply with the 60% of the OTHER ENTITIES/COMMANDS PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET). In that series of sheets we assume equal weight for each assessment area i.e. INTEL, OPS, COMMS etc. thus Y will be the average of the partial percentages Y1, Y2… Y10. 7. Demonstrated Interoperability (Measures of Effectiveness) – The demonstrated interoperability evaluation (should be focused on metrics tied directly to successful cooperation). Individual metrics are categorized using mission-focused labels but are also tied to the checklist topic areas. This will 164 provide data for a post-exercise analysis of how well the checklist prepared the ship for the exercise being evaluated. 8. How to: An assessor that USN will provide should be tasked with evaluating interoperability using two performance evaluation guides provided separately. Figures representing the data sheets are included in the last section (Table 1 and Table 2). Table 1 is used to evaluate timing-based metrics of when interoperability was initially demonstrated. Table 2 is used to evaluate how well interoperability was maintained through the course of continued execution. Tables 1 and 2 can be used independently; the data in Table 2 are more resource intensive to collect. When assessors are not provided we can rely on the coalition /allied ship to assess the Time based metrics (Table 1). TIME-BASED EVALUATION SHEET 1st Demonstrated Prior to Fast Cruise 1.00 Time-based metrics for initial capability 1st 1st Never Demonstrated Demonstrated demonstr During Fast During live ated Cruise Exercise 0.75 0.25 0.00 National Interests ROE - Discuss implications and roles E.g. 2/3=.75=Zt1 National Policy (regional objectives, etc. beyond ROE) implications IO (PAO) coordination Doctrine C2 Construct (CWC roles) Orders propogation Unit reports (use, format, frequency) COMM pathways and priorities E.g. 2.75/4=.69=Zt2 THE FINAL SCORE WILL BE Table1 165 Zt THE AVERAGE OF Zt1,..., Zt5 CONTINUED EXECUTION EVALUATION SHEET Continued execution metrics during exercise # of Opportunities or # of Operating Hours desired # of times interop considered or # of hours functional (interoperable) 3 2 % Interoperable National Interests ROE - Discuss implications and roles E.g. 2/3=.75=Zc1 National Policy (regional objectives, etc. beyond ROE) implications IO (PAO) coordination Doctrine C2 Construct (CWC roles) Orders propogation Unit reports (use, format, frequency) COMM pathways and priorities E.g. /4=.69=Zc2 THE FINAL SCORE WILL BE Zc THE AVERAGE OF Zc1,..., Zc5 Table 2 9. The final metric will be two scores: a. A Zt score that is the average of scores in the topic areas table 1 is evaluating. Since this sheet is more quantitative the score represents when interoperability was initially demonstrated. The higher the score the earlier interoperability was achieved on average. b. A Zc score that is the average of scores in the topic areas table 2 is evaluating. Since that sheet is more qualitative the score represents how well interoperability was maintained. The higher the score the better interoperability was maintained. It must be emphasized that the common 5 topic areas that are represented in both tables are correlated with the Other Entities/Commands Preparedness Assessment sheets. Thus it is very easy in the analysis process to identify what went wrong in the preparation and what we should change in the checklist in order to avoid 166 interoperability problems in the same area in the future. Correlation of each area with the checklist items is given in the enclosed items. 10. Lessons Learned Again – Post event, the lessons identified by the visiting ship and their host Strike Group should be compared to the CJOS LL database. If checklist recommendations on a particular subject were followed and the issue still arose, then the associated checklist items may require revision. But if all three assessment efforts are built around a common framework—a common set of interoperability focus areas—then we should be more readily able to isolate the strengths and weaknesses of the checklist. 11. How to: After Lessons Learned are submitted, they should be organized around the same set of interoperability topics as the checklist and the performance evaluation. They should then be compared with items in the existing LL database to determine whether these items are “repeat offenders.” The data should be collected using a tool similar to the Lessons Learned Assessment Sheet included in the last section (Table 3). 167 INFO OPS LESSONS IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT SHEET A B C Was an issue but Was an issue and Was not an issue were prepared were not prepared LL #1 LL #2 LL #3 LL #4 LL #5 D Did not experience situation Lack of use of common terminilogy and doctrine for info ops. Command and control arrangements /authorities /responsibilities were not clear due to lack of OPTASK IO or poor data in it. IO orgs in the theatre were not identified. IO goals abd objectives were not clear. Force IO policy was poorly established. TOTAL As TOTAL Bs TOTAL Cs TOTAL Ds A+B+C+D=NUMBER OF ALL LL Sum (SumTotal As+SumTotal Cs)/Sum(SumTotal As+SumTotal Bs+SumTotal Cs)=L<=1 L is the final result. Table 3 12. The final metric will be a score L that is the percentage of items for which (the ship was prepared + items that were not problematic) divided by (the total number of items presented in the exercise)—a perfect score is 100%, meaning that there were no repeat LL. 168 13. After evaluating these three aspects of interoperability we hope to tie performance and LL back to the checklist. If a ship follows all/most recommendation related to a particular topic, performs well in that topic during execution, and repeats no LL in this area, then we have initial evidence that following those particular checklist recommendations may be helpful. If checklist items are not followed and/or the performance is not good in a particular area, further analysis may provide insight and the potential need to revise the checklist. 14. We should be able to do this by determining what fraction of checklist items from each topic were followed correctly and then compare those statistics with performance scores and LL reported in that area. Overview of Metrics 15. Measure of Preparedness COALITION SHIP COMPLETES PREP. ASSESSMENT SHEET CJOS COE COMPLETES PREP. ASSESSMENT SHEET STRIKE GROUP STAFF COMPLETES PREP. ASSESSMENT SHEET Ysco re X-score Ysco re Y-score 169 16. Performance Evaluation USN ASSESOR OR SHIP COMPLETES TIME BASED EVAL. SHEET USN ASSESOR COMPLETES CONTINUED EXECUTION EVAL. SHEET Zt-score 17. Zc-score Lessons Learned Repeats SHIP COMPLETES LESSONS LEARNED ASSESSMENT SHEET L-score 18. Final Report/Result 170 19. The scores shown above are the basis for future comparisons and assessments. By analyzing the after action reports and the coalition/allied ship’s survey as well as the new LL reported by the ship and by including any explanatory variables noted by the ship or observers we can evaluate in which areas performance suggests that following the checklist may have been beneficial and which areas may need revision. This report will be submitted with recommendations from the interoperability team regarding any actions they will take. This evaluation should be objective and the standards outlined in this document should be followed where possible. When an exception seems necessary or prudent, a brief comment explaining the deviation and the motivation for it will be added. Summary 20. The tools presented in this guide should be useful for evaluating the overall interoperability of partner ships working with the US Navy. It should also provide useful information to the CJOS COE for improving its interoperability checklist. Any questions should be directed to the POCs below. 21. POCs: CDR Themistoklis Papadimitriou (CJOS COE, Hellenic Navy) – 757.443.9850 x47132 [email protected] Dr. Charles Nickerson (USFFC Fleet Analyst) – 757.443.9850 x47313 [email protected] 171 ANNEXES ANNEX 1: PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEETS ANNEX 2: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SHEETS (WITH CORRELATION OF EACH AREA WITH CHECKLIST ITEMS) ANNEX 3: LESSONS LEARNED / IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT SHEETS 172 ANNEX 1: PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET Line # 1. TIME Prior to IPC 2. And/Or 3. Prior to Ship Leaving Homeport 4. CJOS Action CJOS LNO CJOS LNO and CJOS Interoperability Team Leader (TL) Item Completed? EVENT Obtain Ship’s schedule and Plan of Intended Movement (PIM) REMARKS Keep CJOS COE Deputy Director informed. Provide Interoperability survey and checklist package to ship(s). Communicate with CO and OPS, address any questions. Consider issuing a formal message through USFFC N3 or N7. Ensure the “Coalition Playbook” is provided to Ship from CSFTL. CJOS TL Compare Ship’s schedule with USFFC (N7, N3) and CSFTL exercise schedule. 173 Need to understand if Ship is coming “late in the game” or is integrated starting with IPC. Yes No 5. CJOS LNO 6. CJOS TL Identify primary problems. CJOS TL Be prepared to give solutions if any. CJOS LNO and CJOS TL Follow up with IPC Participant(s) IPC 7. 8. Post IPC 9. Prior to MPC/FPC 10. 11. MPC/FPC Post MPC/FPC CJOS LNO CJOS TL CJOS LNO and CJOS TL Ensure Ship participation in IPC Ensure Ship participation in MPC/FPC Ensure CSFTL has sent Interoperability checklist and surveys to Host Nation (US) Ships/Staffs. Follow up with MPC/FPC Participant(s) 174 Ensure participants have reviewed Interoperability checklist Receive feedback on usefulness of checklist. Ensure participants have reviewed Interoperability checklist CSG/ESG staffs are the planners, and issue the OPORDS and OPTASKS. Releasability and NATO standards must be considered. Receive feedback on usefulness of checklist. 12. Prior to PSC/WCC CJOS LNO and CJOS TL Schedule Face to Face meeting with Ship. Inform CJOS chain of command, including Deputy. Keep CSFTL informed, as well. Provides Draft Objectives for Ship’s review. Sets expectations for schedule, participation and products. 13. CJOS TL Create Draft Mission Order (objectives) for Ship Engagement. 14. Coalition Ship Provide feedback on Mission Order. 15. CJOS TL Coordinate USFFC PAO coverage Inform PAO, possible coverage of Face-Face meeting 16. CJOS TL Welcome package Assemble welcome package for Face-Face: CJOS brochures, mementos for CO. 175 17. PSC /WCC Events 18. 19. 20. Execution CJOS TL Ensure Ships personnel have copies of the Survey. Same for Host Nation (US) Ships and staffs; liaison with CSFTL CJOS LNO and CJOS TL Conduct meeting, report back to CJOS COE Deputy Director. Coalition Participants Complete Surveys This includes identified US Ships and Staffs. These surveys will be used a guide during the interview process. a) Confirm schedule for follow-on visits, teleconferences, and interviews. Follow-on One-on-One interviews with selected personnel: Senior leaders (Ship CO, Operations officer, Marine Liaison, etc.). Follow-on Group interviews with watch officers, and functional areas (examples: Air operations, Logistics, Intelligence, Communications and Networks, KMO, PAO, Legal/ROE). CJOS LNO and CJOS TL 176 21. b) Resend Mission Order to Ship CO, plan on splitting interviews into groups. 22. 23. 24. Post Execution Coalition Participants Forward completed Surveys to CJOS. CJOS TL Conduct Follow-on visits, teleconferences, and interviews. a) Team members review surveys. CJOS TL, Team members for Operations, Air, Logistics, C2, Comms. 25. b) Team members split into groups. 26. c) Use completed surveys or blank surveys to guide interviews. 177 Inform PAO, CJOS COE Deputy. One-on-One interviews with selected personnel. Group interviews with watch officers, and functional areas. 27. CJOS TL 28. CJOS TL 29. CJOS TL Update Lessons Identified “database”, Interoperability Checklist. Provide after-action report Conduct meeting with CSFTL, USFFC. If required. If required. Totals 29 Yes No Percent Completed (X<=1) X is the final result 178 X OTHER ENTITIES/COMMANDS PLANS PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET Item Completed? Line # EVENT Review possession/ access/reception of/to all related/appropriate publications/documents. REMARK / RATIONALE Utilize LNO’s on order to receive documentation. Request those missing from Higher/Foreign appropriate authorities in accordance with National procedures. Ensure documents are releasable to all coalition. PLAN 2. Review lessons learned data base from recent operations or exercises Database may not be releasable. Utilize Foreign Disclosure Officer to determine releasability of lessons learned. PLAN 3. Determine Superior’s guidance and intent This may require a one on one briefing from the Commander to subordinates in order to clear any language or cultural barriers. PLAN 4. Conduct Mission Analysis PLAN 1. When possible, utilize an integrated combined planning team to ensure effective mission analysis in order to accurately identify tasks, limitations, COG analysis, risk assessment, and to develop Commander’s intent and guidance for the combined force. Language and culture will play a considerable role in correctly interpreting and transmitting guidance for combined forces. 179 Yes No PLAN 5. Refine participation ambitions (duties or task asked) and training expectations. This will ensure exercise or operations participants understand the limitations of each navy with regards to training level, certifications, etc. PLAN 6. Develop and brief C2 structure and provide reference doctrinal reference material (e.g. CWC Manual). Promulgate clear directives on C2 structure in OPORD. Briefings should include graphic depictions of geographic or functional divisions of responsibility. Provide all commanders a briefing on C2 structure to include planned changes, geographic boundaries, mission responsibilities, alternate commanders, and supporting communications structure. Brief SUPSIT doctrine as required. PLAN 7. Generate mission or training timeline to include any limitations A training or operational timeline will ensure the coalition is operating within its constraints and will ensure expectations are understood by all participants. PLAN 8. Agree, in concept, on the common set of tactics, techniques, and procedures publications used for all participants. In most cases this should be the NATO publication set. Agreement at this time provides time for the training audience to become familiar with NATO publications. Interoperability could be enhanced by using common terms, or providing a tool that relates one term to another. 180 PLAN 9. Command and Control Authorities and dissemination of orders. - Agree on command and control authority. - Document agreed to rules for disseminating orders. Coalition participants must agree to methods of distributing formal orders and what constitutes a formal order. This must be documented in OPGENs, OPTASKs, and OPORDERs. In the absence of documented procedures specific to the exercise, coalition partners should use NATO standards. Orders will be misunderstood, unrecognized, or late due to no prescribed upon or agreed to rules for disseminating orders. Official orders, such as OPTASKs, Intentions messages, serial event messages, etc. should be sent via record message traffic as opposed to email. Contents may be coordinated by email but messages are the official order. Real time changes of course can me made by voice or chat communications PLAN 10. Investigate pre-existing OPTASKs and OPORDs for use during combined operations or exercises. Commands such as TTGL may be able to provide samples of pre-existing plans documents that can be adopted and utilized for a given exercise. Using standing OPTASK and OPORDs that are releasable to participating nations will reduce planning and work load for planners. Preexisting OPTASKs and OPORDs can be modified to suit the mission, available forces and the desires of the TF/TG commander. 181 PLAN 11. BPT to develop and issue releasable OPTASKs and direct whether issued OPTASKs superseded previous OPTASKs Operators need to have common OPTASKS in which to work from. It needs to be made clear which OPTASKs will be relevant for a given exercise. PLAN 12. Discuss limitations with regards to operational tempo. Some navies have the manning and training to operate on a rapid training tempo while others do not. It’s important to frankly discuss what a realistic training tempo is in order to establish expectations and to ensure effective training. PLAN 13. Consider exercise design that simultaneously challenges multiple warfare areas. Depending on the level of expertise and training requirements, it is important to design exercises that realistically reflect the challenges the participating coalition may face during actual operations. PLAN 14. Integrate opportunities to share warfare responsibilities between all participating nations. Building into the plan opportunities for coalition units to assume warfare commander responsibilities will ensure training opportunities are equitable and will improve interoperability in the long term. PLAN 15. Identify standardized wording and numbering of ROE information. A disseminated ROE matrix with common or standardized terminology will prevent confusion with regards to implementing ROE. 182 PLAN 16. Promulgate ROE Matrix by country in order for watch standers to understand constraints and restraints with regards to national policy. Each nation will have different authorities. Operations must take advantage of the differing national rules in order to achieve the mission. It’s important for each unit to understand what missions and tasks each of the participating coalition units may conduct. For example, some nations need master’s consent before boarding, while others do not. PLAN 17. Include within the Battle Rhythm when serial event TABORDS are due. Ideally TABORDs should be released NLT than 72 hours prior to the event. Identify and adhere to where TABORDS will be posted on IP Networks (e.g. CENTRIX). Releasing TABORDS in accordance with an established battle rhythm will ensure participants have adequate time to review and plan for serial event. The TABORD are not always received in standard NATO format as expected, thus making it difficult to extract relevant information and ensure that all necessary details are passed prior to a serial PLAN 18. Establish integrated battle rhythm. Provide time for lower echelon units to provide feedback on higher echelon plans. To ensure effective planning and execution, an effective battle rhythm that considers coalition requirements must be established, promulgated, and adhered to in order to ensure continuity of operations. 183 PLAN 19. Use training requirements and objectives to build a plan that rotates warfare commander duties to as many units as possible, while providing time for each unit to become proficient, and exercise interoperability. Continue to provide more and greater responsibilities to multiple nations and units. Especially warfare commander roles (AAWC) and Force commander roles (like ESF). PLAN 20. Brief details for exercise area restrictions to include ranges, air space and sea space restrictions, environmental requirements, etc. Brief on use of exercise area. Reserve areas for events (such as helo operations). Address Risk aversion. Clear differences in Waterspace Management, environmental compliance and submarine safety procedures. 184 PLAN 21. Conduct face to face meetings and capability briefs outside of the scheduled planning conferences. Conduct site visits with air operations, communications, logistics, surface warfare, etc. Pre-exercise time in Norfolk, VA, provided an extremely valuable opportunity for ships officers and specialists to visit host nation. Discussion includes maneuvering in close company, Plane Guard duties, appreciation of CVN considerations and concerns, escort duty with CVN operations, tactical employment discussions with DESRON Air Ops, battle rhythm, and requirements from the staff for flying bids, maintenance cycles, etc. . .A pre exercise comms brief is very helpful to meet key players face to face and discuss aspects that may cause concern. PLAN 22. Verify Pre-exercise messages are received and understood by all coalition participants. Releasability issues may result in late or no release of pre-exercise messages. Ensure addressing of messages include all coalition staffs and units. Refrain from labeling documents as NOFORN. PLAN 23. Use NATO format in order to achieve releasability. Exercise and CTG/CTF staffs must understand how to disseminate information that is as freely releasable as possible (i.e.: Rel CMFC). Use NATO formats as often as possible to enhance releasability. 185 PLAN 24. Use document labeling to ensure widest dissemination. Establish releasability guidelines and ensure coalition players are included in release groups. Refrain from using NOFORN labeling. PLAN 25. LNOS Liaison Officers should be assigned at least two weeks prior to the Exercise. Both the quantity and quality (expertise) of coalition participants is the basis for the detailed interaction required. LNOS have to make planning decisions, the command structure they are embedded within is crucial. LNOs must be paired with a designated and corresponding ship POC. Totals 24 Yes No Percent Completed 186 Y1 OTHER ENTITIES/COMMANDS INTEL PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET Item Completed? Line # INTEL 1 EVENT Brief and describe foreign disclosure requirements and guidelines REMARK / RATIONALE In order to protect information, all participants must understand and adhere to foreign disclosure requirements. Coalition partners must have an understanding of the intelligence requirements for the commander. Additionally, each partner must be made familiar with the geography and characteristics of the Area of Operations, Assessment of the Enemy. INTEL 2 Coordinate Intelligence Preparation of the Battle space with coalition partners. INTEL 3 Designate clear authority on red data base management. In order to ensure the Common Operational Picture is accurate with regards to red tracks, clear lines of authority must be promulgated for data base management responsibilities. INTEL 4 Designate the information system to use for intelligence products and information sharing. Maritime coalition operations should incorporate accessible means of allowing data to be transferred between units. Information system must be identified early in the planning process to allow time for acquisition, installation, training, and testing. Clearly identify and send all parties chat room names, passwords, and location of information. All chat rooms should be setup and defined prior to deployment/exercise. INTEL 5 Discuss, where possible, intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations. Develop matrix of unit Intel gathering capabilities Intel analyst must be able to understand coalition capabilities in order to best exploit intelligence gather capabilities, which will avoid gaps and redundancies in intelligence collection. 187 Yes No INTEL 6 INTEL 7 Designate and disseminate the commander’s Priority Intelligence Requirements. Discuss Request for Information submission procedures, Develop Enemy COAs with coalition partner input, All units must understand the commander’s intelligence priorities. Differing cultures and experiences will enlighten the understanding of the enemy and their potential actions. Totals 7 Yes No Percent Completed 188 Y2 OTHER ENTITIES/COMMANDS OPS PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET Line # OPS 1 EVENT Conduct ship and aircraft capability review. Participants/units provide capabilities, especially new or unique ones. (OPSTAT UNIT or equivalent signals should be utilized). OPS 2 BPT conduct survey of amphibious ships for compatibility of various landing craft. OPS 3 Identify communications terminology and acronym reference. OPS 4 Conduct warfare commander and watch stander discussion on differences in National policy, ROE, and safety to ensure all participants have an equal understanding of limitations, rules, safety etc. REMARK / RATIONALE Examples: New systems, like VDS. Standoff weapons like Exocet. Information should include current material status of weapons, sensor, propulsion, RHIBs, and helos, and impact on operations and particular warfare areas. All OPS hands must be able to understand coalition capabilities in order to best exploit them and will lead in avoidance of gaps and redundancies in operations. A survey of landing craft and vehicles must be completed to determine the level of interoperability of amphibious units (e.g. can a US LCAC fit into a UK Amphib or vice versa). All units must be familiar and practice with common communications terminology. A single code word reference book should be identified to avoid voice communications confusion Masters Consent Boarding is one example of national policy differences, and required an understanding between units of interoperability differences. 189 Items Completed? Yes No OPS 5 Establish communications doctrine for Voice and Chat circuits. Publish doctrine within OPTASK Comms and OPTASK Chat. OPS 6 Develop and provide a roles/responsibility matrix that relates the name/title of each watch stander on the C2 nets to a common role. Agree on tactical references that will be used for operations. The objective here is to create a list of the primary National, Coalition, and NATO publications used so that each participant has time to access reference documents that are not on their national systems, or request hardcopies from other nations. OPS 7 Operators need to understand what circuits will be used for the issuance of formal tactical orders. The tactical situation will dictate whether voice or chat will be the primary C2 medium. Additionally, the purpose of the circuit must be determined, whether it is to be administrative in nature, complimentary to voice communications or operationally and tactically directive. Maneuvering coalition ships is conducted exclusively over Fleet Tac UHF, in some exercises, a combination of Fleet Tac, VHF BTB and CENTRIX chat with no particular method given primacy and on occasion conflicting orders arising from each circuit. Example: TAO(US) to PWO(UK). Need to issue good C2 guidance in OPORD, or (better) use standards in reference material. OCE needs to direct use of appropriate tactical pubs and where there will be exceptions. Interoperability problems can be caused due to important reference documents available, or over-classified. For some coalition units, chat is not a primary means of communication, and so the use of chat as a means for order dissemination should be clear from the beginning 190 OPS 8 Brief C2 and Communications procedures. OPS 9 Reinforce command and control communications doctrine. OPS 10 Communications and watch stander limitations must be briefed to rationalize expectations. OPS 11 If required, brief and discuss NSFS fire control procedures and doctrine. Identify common resources for NSFS doctrine and terminology. OPS 12 Each OPTASK should identify the appropriate C2 circuit for tactical execution and controller of that circuit. Brief participants. If chat is to be used as primary form of communications, then all participants must agree on the decision to do so, and voice circuits must be constantly tested as backup when chat is inoperative. Virtually all nations use voice as primary communications. Example: For SITREPS, Use NATO prescribed TABORD format, informative as a stand-alone documents, and deliver via message traffic and CENTRIX at 72 hr point. Official orders, such as OPTASKs, Intentions messages, serial event messages, etc. must be sent via record message traffic as opposed to email. Contents may be coordinated by email but messages are the official order. Real time changes of course can me made by voice or chat communications. Some units may have limited communications and available watch standers, therefore, operations must be planned around these limitations. Each participating unit may have differing procedures for the conduct of NSFS. In order to ensure safe NSFS events, each unit should agree on the appropriate references, procedures, and terminology. Briefing control of voice circuits will ensure voice radio discipline. 191 OPS 13 Discuss “safe to train” requirements. OPS 14 Discuss cultural treatment of command and organization. Come to terms in areas such as: Planning horizons, the objective of unit reports (should a SITREP be a status report, or should it provide a tactical assessment and intentions?). OPS 15 Where voice circuits are limited, consider assigning a single frequency for overall tactical C2. OPS 16 Confirm the units designations, call signs, etc. Need to understand differences in tactics in general as well as new systems, perhaps via briefings ahead of the exercise. Especially differences in Gunnery safety rules should be clear and understandable. Nations differ in their expectations for unit actions when situations present themselves. Two examples: An expectation that when a unit is assigned to a SAU for an ASW mission, it is not necessary to issue a change in TACON for the unit to the ASWC, when in fact, it is a good practice to issue an order for clarity. Orders changing TACON or OPCON for a unit: What format should they take, and what dissemination process should be used? Only through knowing of differences can interoperability issues be mitigated. In some cases the differences cannot be solved, which is acceptable as long as they are identified. Communications and watch stander limitations of other units must be understood to ensure effective and continuous C2. Familiarize operators with call-sign conventions and unit warfare designations (e.g. AW, AX). 192 OPS 17 Provide information on how Warfare Commander’s Roles are being performed. OPS 18 Timely issue of Commander’s daily intentions message (DIMs). OPS 19 Receipt of Orders: message traffic must be free of delays and reach all participants. Ensure proper handling or dissemination of messages All units must be aware of differences and limitations when warfare commander functions are hosted in a staff, versus the typical method of hosting within a ship’s operations center. Most coalition ships are not aware that a warfare commander can be hosted in a staff, there will be difficulty receiving/sending information, because a staff based warfare commander is not fully focused on the tactical situation. Ensure that DIMS messages are issued in a timely manner. Releasability procedures, unduly lengthy review cycles, and improper routing and message handling can easily delay the DIMS from getting to the right audience quickly. Send DIMS by fastest means possible, typically email. Record message traffic “filters" (human and electronic) may hinder interoperability. Record message traffic may suffer because of: 1) Noone (or very few) is reviewing message traffic for relevance, 2) Messages not being forwarded, 3) Information in messages was not finding its way into the relevant information, 4) Routing indicators is not up to date. 193 OPS 20 Avoid Non NATO terminology. Use of NATO terminology should be ensured. Example: “Suspect identity” is used in NATO but some other nations don’t use it, and can cause confusion when communication contacts intentions. OPS 21 Create a strong relationship between LNOs and Operations watch officers. LNOS can play a crucial role helping monitoring email traffic from coalition ships. And can help keep host watch officers informed. Totals 21 Yes No Percent Completed 194 Y3 OTHER ENTITIES/COMMANDS DATA LINK PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET Line # DLINK 1 EVENT Discuss and Identify Force COP Manager REMARK / RATIONALE Identify COP management experience and link systems integration capabilities DLINK 2 Discuss and Identify FOTC DLINK 3 Brief and promulgate link Architecture Determine primary data link for the Common Operational Picture, keeping in mind capabilities and limitations of participating units. BPT to exchange data link LNOs. Identify FOTC management experience and link systems integration capabilities Promulgate to operators to ensue familiarity DLINK 4 There is a need to broadcast the Common Operational Picture to as many units as possible, while maximizing the capabilities of the best equipped units. Additionally, there is a need to prevent cluttered pictures where multiple data line broadcasts are pushed simultaneously. DLINK 5 Establish, brief, and disseminate OPTASK ID matrix and symbology doctrine. All units must use the same ID doctrine for their data links to avoid confusion of track IDs. Based on varying degrees of link capabilities, common ground must be found on symbology and ID criteria to ensure a Common Operational Picture. Changes to existing unit ID criteria must be determined early enough for units to train to new ID criteria. DLINK 6 Determine Force Track Quality for each unit. Predetermined force track quality will reduce dual tracking in the Common Operational Picture. 195 Items Completed? Yes No DLINK 7 Provide clear direction on crypto in use, and frequency shifts. The OTAD can be problematic at times when the shoreside originator becomes confused over the time difference and which day’s crypto is required. The Link 11 Data frequency might change without being promulgated on the voice net or CENTRIX. The Link SITREP should be released hourly and not when there are changes. Totals 8 Yes No Percent Completed 196 Y4 OTHER ENTITIES / COMMANDS AIR OPS PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET Items Completed? Line # AIR 1 EVENT Conduct HOSTAC review. AIR 2 Schedule in port flight deck inspection. AIR 3 Identify appropriate aviation publications and references. Identify primary network for ATO production (e.g. TBMCS). AIR 4 AIR 5 Planning and coordination of Helo Flying Ops. AIR 6 Consider using standard NATO format (such as the ICC application) for ATO. REMARK / RATIONALE Ensures HOSTAC has up to date information is available to aviation planners. Permits HAC opportunity to determine caps/lims of helicopter flight decks to support flight operations planning. Ensures all aviation capable units will have appropriate references and time to absorb and apply contents. Some units will not have access to TBMCS as it resides on SIPR. Therefore, a common network must be identified to support ATO production. Daily DOTAH/FEEDER should be employed The lack of ready access to the DOTAH/ATO and other aviation planning information means that the majority of communication with USN is carried out via email. The usual battle rhythm employed within a NATO TG is submitting a daily DOTAH feeder and receiving a DOTAH with the next 72Hr. A standard format for the ATO for all NATO Carrier Groups (ICC) should be used. NATO use of ICC software in previous exercises with coalition assets has proved invaluable; the software is available and has been proven even if the Strike Wing’s Daily Air Plan may have be received as well as a planning aid. 197 Yes No AIR 7 Sharing of C2 duties requires detailed and easily understood comms architecture for Air Operations. The key issue precluding the execution of these duties is the timely and effective distribution of material and appropriate security classification between coalition units. Sharing of ADC and Redcrown duties require consistent and robust communications architecture for the Task Group. Totals 7 Yes No Percent Completed 198 Y5 OTHER ENTITIES / COMMANDS SUB OPS PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET Items Completed? Line # SUB 1 SUB 2 EVENT Develop Waterspace Management Plan and designate SUBOPAUTH. Promulgate submarine safety procedures. REMARK / RATIONALE Ensure all players are familiar with submarine operating areas. Yes No Ensure all players are familiar with submarine safety procedures. Totals 2 Yes No Percent Completed 199 Y6 OTHER ENTITIES/COMMANDS INFO OPS PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET Items Completed? Line # INFOPS 1 EVENT BPT develop common terminology and doctrine for the conduct of strategic communications. REMARK / RATIONALE Common terminology will ensure a synchronized information operations plan and will support effective execution. INFOPS 2 Promulgate and brief IO command and control arrangements and authorities and responsibilities in the OPTASK IO. To avoid confusion on IO C2 structure, each unit must be briefed on what the roles and responsibilities there are for IO operations. Key personnel must be identified and POC information disseminated (e.g. email address, voice net, IP network.) INFOPS 3 Identify Theater IO Organizations. Ensure all IO planners are familiar with theater IO chain of command. INFOPS 4 Identify theater IO goals and objectives. Ensure all IO planners are familiar with theater IO objectives. INFOPS 5 Establish Force IO/IW Policy, including restricted frequencies, EMCON, and media policies. Ensure all IO planners are familiar with force IO policies. Yes Totals 5 Yes No Percent Completed 200 No Y7 OTHER ENTITIES/COMMANDS LOG. PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET Items Completed? Line # LOG 1 EVENT Determine logistics report requirements such as the daily OPREP 5 report. LOG 2 Identify logistics LNOs and Forward Logistics team personnel. LOG 3 Review unit capabilities and limitations in order to identify logistics infrastructure / engineering compatibility. Fuel planners and logistics planners must refuel and other logistics systems (e.g. fuel line connections, pressure limitations, fuel and oil types, etc) are compatible for all participating units. Early identification of incompatibility is needed to ensure solutions are available before commencement of the exercise. LOG 4 Investigate locations of LNOs, forward Logistics Operating Teams and/or personnel deployment. Replenishment Procedures. Location of forward logistics LNOs is critical to the success of operations. LOG 5 REMARK / RATIONALE In order to conduct effective logistics planning, a common logistics format and reporting procedure must be identified. Logistics LNOs are critical to ensure personnel, parts, and supplies are available to the TG. Use of standard RAS signal formats in accordance with ATP 16 and OPTASK RAS should be ensured. 201 Yes No LOG 6 Understand shore power connection differences. The weight of the cables and the position of the shore connection boxes may preclude the use of shore power. In effect, heavy three-core cables are used in the US that does not have the flexibility of the single-core cables used in the coalition units. Coalition units must be prepared. Some coalition vessels supply 440v whereas US shore power is nearer 480v. LOG 7 Establish expeditious invoicing of Services. LOG 8 Approval to obtain repair services from US shipyards. Mechanism not in place to provide timely invoices to foreign ships for payment of services prior to departing. OPNAV regulations require OPNAV approval in order for Navy shipyards to provide repair services to foreign ships. Upon approval, the repair services are only provided on a not to interfere basis with US ship commitments. C2F N4, in coordination with Port OPS and the N43 community developed a process where Port Ops would request blanket approval for the shipyards to provide repair services to foreign ships prior to their arrival. This was done for some coalition units but it appears that the Mayport shipyard is not aware that this approval can be obtained. LOG 9 Identify medical planning doctrine and procedures to be used during exercises. Medical emergency plans must be compatible to ensure rapid response for injured or sick personnel. Totals 9 Yes No Percent Completed 202 Y8 OTHER ENTITIES/COMMANDS COMMS PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET Line # COMMS 1 EVENT Identify primary command and control information network (e.g. CENTRIX). Avoid using SIPRnet which coalition ships can not access. REMARK / RATIONALE A survey must be completed to determine which network can serve the most units. This will become the primary C2 network. Once identified all interaction should be completed on the primary network to avoid confusion and redundancy. If the focus of information flow and posting is on a national network, such as SIPRnet, late and incomplete information, will end up posted on CENTRIX. COMMS 2 A large amount of effort can be spent in achieving effective CENTRIX interoperability. CENTRIX can be a single point of failure for coalition interoperability and whenever connection with the server is lost, interoperability levels plummet. Define which enclave will be used. Program Staff assistance to engineer the required frequencies and permissions. Data exchange from SIPR to CENTRIX is onerous. Ensure that websites are set up correctly to allow for posting of such documents. Emailing large documents takes a long time and frequently causes the files to become corrupt or crash the system. All in all, this process requires an inordinate amount of effort by the LNOs and Ship’s Staff. COMMS 3 Identify appropriate crypto requirements and availability. Brief crypto roll over and loading procedures. Identify potential technical incompatibilities between various modems and crypto terminals. Brief and publish crypto terminal settings. Participants must ensure that compatible crypto is available in a timely manner. Additionally, all crypto users must be synchronized with roll over and loading times. Crypto material should be checked thoroughly well in advance. Planning should consider coalition availability. 203 Item Completed? NO YES COMMS 4 Identify realistic requirements for information systems to include number of required PCs, printers, etc. Identify space requirements and develop installation plan. Survey operational commanders for information systems requirements. Units may require advance notice to begin installing unique network systems (e.g. CENTRIX). Additionally, units and staffs will have to develop a comprehensive location plan for PCs and printers to ensure appropriate people have access to required information systems and that those systems are located such that they adequately support operations and planning. Where possible, collocate new systems using CPU switches, with existing systems in order to not disrupt normal office space arrangement and seating of personnel Personnel that need new information systems accounts normally must register in a timely manner to ensure availability of accounts. COMMS 5 Identify information systems account registration requirements. COMMS 6 Provide information systems training to appropriate personnel to include login and passwords. COMMS 7 Ensure adequate chat rooms are available to support operations. Survey warfare commanders to determine chat room requirements. COMMS 8 Develop and disseminate list that includes chat room names and passwords via OPTASK chat. Ensure all participants have access to required chat rooms. COMMS 9 Provide comms LNOs between combined forces. Comms LNOs will ensure continuity of communications throughout the exercise by providing an immediate POC that address comms issues. In order to ensure familiarity with newly acquired information systems, personnel must be provided with passwords and information systems training. 204 COMMS 10 Develop communications capability MATRIX and brief operators and comms caps/lims for each unit. COMMS 11 If possible, conduct pre-exercise communications circuit testing, to include operators at their watch stations 3 days prior to commex. Operators and planners need to understand communications capabilities and limitations of other units in order to develop an effective command and control structure. It will also establish expectations between participating units. It’s important to work out communications problems in port before units begin exercising in order to maximize training at sea. COMMS 12 Use NATO crypto. Using NATO Crypto will potentially eliminate issues that would arise if the coalition uses crypto provided by the host nation. COMMS 13 HAVEQUICK utilization. COMMS 14 Message Handling System exploitation. Define settings to be used and hop rate. USN has been able to use training settings with this HOPRATE and therefore opted not to use war settings during C2X. Coalition units are expected to use a different HOPRATE It has been observed the use of different hop rate and training cryptographic material put coalition units at a disadvantage as software limitations do not allow for training cryptographic material to be used Comms plan should address amongst others and the exploitation of MHS. COMMS 15 Degrees of Confidentiality. Restricted is not used by USN. COMMS 16 Use of Maneuvering circuits must be well managed. Maneuvering nets should be clarified on order to avoid interoperability issues. Furthermore NATO signaling methods should be applied. 205 Totals 16 Yes No Y9 Percent Completed 206 OTHER ENTITIES/COMMANDS GENERAL PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT SHEET Items Completed? Line # GEN 1. GEN 2. GEN 3. EVENT Identify and BPT exchange LNOs for all areas. REMARK / RATIONALE The more robust of an LNO plan there is the better likelihood of being able to rapidly resolve conflicts in tactics, doctrine, communications, and logistics. LNO engagement cannot be overemphasized. It is the only method by which Coalition units will realize the complexity of the exercise. Coalition ships must provide detailed requirements during planning. Ensure that all OPTASKs, OPGEN, TABORDS or other planning or directive messages reference only those documents that are releasable to action and info addressees. Units cannot reference a document they do not have access to, thus, their ability to execute assigned tasks may be inhibited. The standard format table in AXP 2C for signal formatting could be used to save confusion in signal orders. Identify Planning Conference Participants. Staff planners (CSG, ATG, etc.) from all participants should attend critical planning conferences. These attendees should be consistent through all planning conference, and the exercise, personnel should not be rotating to a new command in the next 8 months. Verify which units will be on certain enclaves. OPTASK Comms must encompass networks, command, control, and information management. Coalition terminals must be manned. 207 Yes No GEN 4. C4 (command, control communications, computers) architecture design must receive primary focus during planning conferences. C4 architecture should be thoroughly checked and reviewed prior to the exercise; coalition must understand how to attain visibility to higher level (CFMCC, CJTF) comms and info management and flow. Experts in C4 must attend all planning phases. GEN 5. Releasability of orders and information. Exercise planners, and CTG/CTF staffs must create, review, and label orders and other information for maximum release. Procedures for maximum releasability must be addressed early in the planning process, and used continuously during the exercise. Examples of documents that must not be labeled NOFORN: OPTASK Comms, planning conference presentations, OPORDER 6000, Pre-exercise workups (FST-GC) information. Use NATO formatted orders. Totals 5 Yes No Percent Completed 208 Y10 MISSION AREA SCORE PLANS Y1 INTEL Y2 OPS Y3 LINL Y4 AIR OPS Y5 SUB OPS Y6 INFO OPS Y7 LOG-MED Y8 COMMS Y9 GENERAL Y10 Overall Average = Y is the final result 209 Y ANNEX 2: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SHEETS (WITH CORRELATION OF EACH AREA WITH CHECKLIST ITEMS) TIME-BASED EVALUATION SHEET Time-based metrics for initial capability 1st Demonstrat ed Prior to Fast Cruise 1.00 1st Demonstrat ed During Fast Cruise 0.75 1st Demonstrat ed During live Exercise 0.25 Never demonstrat ed 0.00 National Interests ROE - Discuss implications and roles National Policy (regional objectives, etc. beyond ROE) implications IO (PAO) coordination E.g. 2/3=.75=Zt1 Doctrine C2 Construct (CWC roles) Orders propogation Unit reports (use, format, frequency) COMM pathways and priorities E.g. 2.75/4=.69=Zt2 210 Tactics, Techniqu es, and Procedur es Waterspace (surface and subsurface)/airsp ace management procedures Force employment (including NSFS and helos) Intel sharing (methods & expectations) Capabilities and limitations (comms, fires, aviation support, intel collection, etc.) ATO/HOSTAC generation Replenishment and logistics Vocabulary E.g 6/9=.67=Zt3 EW tools & procedures (deconfliction) IO Technical E.g 1.75/2=.875=Zt4 Voice, Data, Email circuits 211 SA tools (LINK, etc.), CAS and network tools Equipment RAS hoses/connectors Aviation Requirements Amphibious requirements E.g 2/3=.67=Zt5 THE FINAL SCORE WILL BE Zt AVERAGE OF Zt1,..., Zt5 212 CONTINUED EXECUTION EVALUATION SHEET Continued execution metrics during exercise # of Opportunities or # of Operating Hours desired # of times interop considered or # of hours functional (interoperable) 3 2 % Interoperable National Interests ROE - Discuss implications and roles E.g. 2/3=.75=Zc1 National Policy (regional objectives, etc. beyond ROE) implications IO (PAO) coordination Doctrine C2 Construct (CWC roles) Orders propogation Unit reports (use, format, frequency) COMM pathways and priorities E.g. /4=.69=Zc2 Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures Waterspace (surface and subsurface)/airspace management procedures Force employment (including NSFS and helos) intel sharing (methods & expectations) E.g /9=.67=Zc3 capabilities and limitations (comms, fires, aviation support, intel collection, etc.) ATO/HOSTAC generation Replenishment and logistics Vocabulary EW tools & procedures (deconfliction) IO Technical Voice, Data, Email circuits SA tools (LINK, etc.), CAS and network tools eg. A 7 days exercise is 7*24 eg functinal only the 5 days 5*24 E.g 5*24/7*24=.71=Zc4 Equipment RAS hoses/connectors E.g 2/3=.67=Zc5 Aviation Requirements Amphibious requirements THE FINAL SCORE WILL BE Zc THE AVERAGE OF Zc1,..., Zc5 213 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ITEMS AND THEIR CORRELATION WITH CHECKLIST NATIONAL INTERESTS ROE - Discuss implications and roles National Policy (regional objectives, etc. beyond ROE) implications IO (PAO) coordination DOCTRINE C2 Construct (CWC roles) Orders propogation Unit reports (use, format, frequency) COMM pathways and priorities CHECKLIST ITEMS SUB OPS/OPS4/PLAN15/PLAN16 PLAN3/PLAN4/PLAN5/PLAN9/OPS4 CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION /LNOS/INFO5/OPS21/INTEL1/PLANS2/PLAN24 PLAN22/PLAN23/OPS5/OPS8/INTEL6/OPS14/PLA N2/PLAN9/PLAN10/PLAN11/PLAN14/PLAN19/ALL 4/AIR5/AIR7/OPS6/OPS14/OPS15/OPS17/PLAN6/ PLAN12/PLAN13 PLAN22/PLAN23/OPS5/OPS8/INTEL6/OPS14/PLA N2/PLAN9/PLAN10/PLAN11/ALL5/COMMS16/AIR 5/OPS5/OPS9/OPS18/OPS19/PLAN1/PLAN18 PLAN22/PLAN23/OPS5/OPS8/INTEL6/OPS14/PLA N2/PLAN9/PLAN10/PLAN11/ALL2/INFO1/AIR3/OP S3/OPS7/OPS14/OPS19/PLAN18 PLAN22/PLAN23/OPS5/OPS8/INTEL6/OPS14/PLA N2/PLAN9/PLAN10/PLAN11/ALL3/COMM5/COM M11/COMM9/COMM8/COMM7/COMM1/LINK/OP S12/INTEL1 TTPS Waterspace (surface and subsurface)/airspace management SUB1/SUB2/AIR5/PLAN8/PLAN13/PLAN20 procedures Force employment (including NSFS and SUB1/SUB2/AIR3/AIR5/OPS11/PLAN7/PLAN13/PL helos) AN17/PLAN20 intel sharing (methods & ALL2/ALL1/COMM15/PLAN8 expectations) capabilities and limitations (comms, PLAN7/PLAN8/PLAN12/PLAN13/PLAN21/COMM1 fires, aviation support, intel collection, 0/LOG3/LOG1/SUB1/SUB2/OPS1/OPS4/OPS10/OP etc.) S13/INTEL1/INTEL5 ATO/HOSTAC generation AIR1/AIR4/AIR5 Replenishment and logistics LOG Vocabulary OPS3OPS7OPS20/PLAN8/PLAN15 EW tools & procedures (deconfliction) LINK/INTEL5 IO TECHNICAL Voice, Data, Email circuits INFO/INTEL4/INTEL6/INTEL7 COMM15/COMM14/COMM13/COMM12/COMM6/ COMM5/COMM4/COMM2/OPS5/OPS15/OPS14 SA tools (LINK, etc.), CAS and network COMM6/COMM4/COMM3/LINK/OPS16/INTEL3/IN tools TEL4/INTEL7 EQUIPMENT RAS hoses/connectors LOG Aviation Requirements AIR Amphibious requirements OPS2 214 ANNEX 3: LESSONS IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT SHEETS ALL (GENERAL) LESSONS IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT SHEET LL #1 LL #2 LL #3 LL #4 LL #5 A B C D Was an issue but were prepared Was an issue and were not prepared Was not an issue Did not experience situation No / limited plan for LNOs (numbers, areas, ships e.t.c) Terms of References used in exercise documentation wasn't available or releasable to all participants. Participants of planning or other exercise conferences (pre-post etc) weren't identified/agreed. C4 architecture design didn't receive appropriate focus. Info releasability was poor/limited. TOTAL As TOTAL Bs TOTAL Cs TOTAL Ds PLANS LESSONS IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT SHEET A Was an issue but were prepared LL #1 Problems in possession /access/reception of all publications/ documents related with the cooperation. LL #2 No or limited access to LL data base from recent exercises/operations due to releasability issues. Undetermined/not clear superior's guidance /intent. Poor or no mission analysis. Not clarified participation ambitions and training expectations. Not clear C2 structure and reference doctrinal material. Not clear geographical and/or functional divisions of responsibilities. LL #3 LL #4 LL #5 LL #6 LL #7 LL #8 B C Was an issue and Was not an issue were not prepared Limited or no training timeline. Limitations/constraints not included thus expectations difficult to be met by participants. Lack of predefined common set of TTPs . 215 D Did not experience situation LL #9 Lack of predefined methods of distribution/dissemination of orders and of command and control authority.(e.g. OPGEN, OPTASKS e.g.) LL #10 No exploitation of preexisting documentation (OPGEN, OPTASKS) for such type of exercises. Restrictions on releasability of orders/documentation of the exercise. Limitations with regards to operational tempo not clarified . Exercise design didn't met expectations /training requirements (e.g. lack of multiple threat scenario). LL #11 LL #12 LL #13 LL #14 LL #15 LL #16 LL #17 LL #18 LL #19 LL #20 LL #21 LL #22 LL #23 LL #24 Warfare responsibilities weren't shared among the participants. ROE info didn't follow accepted standards. All participants ROE matrixes weren't available to watch standers to ensure understanding of restraints and constraints. Limited or misuse of TABORDS for the serials. Not included in the Battle Rhythm, not released timely, not posted on the predefined networks. Problems with the established Battle Rhythm. Not enough time for feedback and analysis in order to ensure continuity of ops/exercise. No or limited planning to ensure linear increase of proficiency and interoperability by rotating duties among Exercise restricted areas, waterspace management, environmental restrictions and safety procedures above on and below the surface were not detailed /clear. Limited or no face to face meetings, site visits /surveys, to ensure clarity in all exercise aspects. Pre-exercise documentation wasn't received timely or was not clear. No use of NATO formats in order to avoid releasability issues. LNOs were assigned late or had no experience for decision making, couldn't be embedded in the command structure, had limited or no expertise for the exercise/ops. They were not paired with a designated and corresponding ship POC. TOTAL As TOTAL Bs 216 TOTAL Cs TOTAL Ds INTEL LESSONS IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT SHEET A B C Was an issue but Was an issue and Was not an issue were prepared were not prepared LL #1 LL #2 LL #3 LL #4 LL #5 LL #6 LL #7 D Did not experience situation Foreign disclosure requirements and guidelines were not described/cleared. Poor coordination of intelligence preparation of the Battle Space with all participants. Intelligence requirements were not clear. No clear lines of authorities were promulgated for data base management responsibilities, so picture was not accurate with regards to red tracks. Poor coordination of intelligence warfare (information system in use , means for transferring data , info sharing policy , products sharing e.t.c). Intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations not clear/available to all participants. Commanders Intelligence priorities were not clear. Enemy COAs were not produced with coalition inputs. TOTAL As TOTAL Bs 217 TOTAL Cs TOTAL Ds OPS LESSONS IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT SHEET LL #1 Ships and Aircrafts capabilities reviews were not conducted . Unique capabilities were not clear and OPSTAT UNIT was not utilized. Thus gaps and redundancies were obvious during the cooperation. LL #2 Compatibility of various landing crafts with participating amphibious ships was not clear. LL #3 Comms terminology and acronym reference were not defined. LL #4 Differences in National Policies, ROEs, and safety rules were not known from watch standers . LL #5 Communication doctrine for voice and chat circuits was not established and not published through OPTASK COMMS and OPTASK CHAT. LL #6 Roles /responsibilities matrix relating names/titles of each watch stander on the C2 nets to a common role was not developed. LL #7 Lack of list of the primary national, coalition and NATO publications that are used for the exercise/cooperation. A B C D Was an issue but were prepared Was an issue and were not prepared Was not an issue Did not experience situation 218 LL #8 C2 and Comms procedures agreed were not briefed. LL #9 Orders were not sent via record message traffic no matter how they were initially disseminated. LL #10 Comms /watch standers limitations were not known iot allow planning around them. LL #11 NSFS fire control procedures/ terminology and doctrine was not clear. LL #12 OPTASKS didn't identify appropriate C2 circuit for tactical execution. LL #13 "Safe to train" requirements were not clear . LL #14 Different tactical/command/organiza tion expectations e.g. planning horizons, reports objectives etc. LL #15 Lack of voice comms or inefficient use of voice comms for overall tactical C2. LL #16 Not common use of units designations and call signs. LL #17 Different perception on Warfare Commanders roles and how these are performed. LL #18 Improper use of DIMS (in terms of time ,info etc). LL #19 Difficulties in message traffic (routing indicators, forwarding, recording , info etc) LL #20 Use of non NATO terminology. Not proper linkage of LNOs with Ops watch standers. LL #21 TOTAL As TOTAL Bs 219 TOTAL Cs TOTAL Ds DATA LINK OPS LESSONS IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT SHEET A B C Was an issue but Was an issue and Was not an issue were prepared were not prepared LL #1 LL #2 LL #3 LL #4 LL #5 LL #6 D Did not experience situation Force COP manager and link systems integration capabilities not efficient. FTC's management experience in conjunction with link systems integration capabilities not taken into consideration in planning . COP cluttered and capabilities of the ships not taken into consideration for maximum efficiency. No data link LNOs exchanged. Problematic ID doctrine , id criteria , lack or misuse of OPTASK ID. Force track quality was not determined for each unit in order to avoid dual tracking. Problems in use of crypto material and frequency shift plan. TOTAL As TOTAL Bs 220 TOTAL Cs TOTAL Ds SUB OPS LESSONS IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT SHEET A B C Was an issue but Was an issue and Was not an issue were prepared were not prepared LL #1 LL #2 D Did not experience situation Waterspace management plan was not clear. Submarine safety procedures were not clear/known to all participants /watch standers. TOTAL As TOTAL Bs TOTAL Cs TOTAL Ds INFO OPS LESSONS IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT SHEET A B C Was an issue but Was an issue and Was not an issue were prepared were not prepared LL #1 LL #2 LL #3 LL #4 LL #5 D Did not experience situation Lack of use of common terminilogy and doctrine for info ops. Command and control arrangements /authorities /responsibilities were not clear due to lack of OPTASK IO or poor data in it. IO orgs in the theatre were not identified. IO goals abd objectives were not clear. Force IO policy was poorly established. TOTAL As TOTAL Bs 221 TOTAL Cs TOTAL Ds AIR OPS LESSONS IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT SHEET A B C Was an issue but Was an issue and Was not an issue were prepared were not prepared LL #1 LL #2 LL #3 LL #4 LL #5 LL #6 LL #7 D Did not experience situation HOSTAC info was not up to date and available to all aviation planners. Capabilities and Limitations of Helos were not known and available to all planners. No use of common NATO aviation publications and references. No primary network to support ATO production was defined. Use of DOTAH/FEEDER for planning and coordination of Helo ops was limited . No use of ATO NATO standard format. Poorly planned comms architecture decreased the capability of sharing AIR DUTIES (ADC, REDCROWN etc.) TOTAL As TOTAL Bs 222 TOTAL Cs TOTAL Ds COMMS LESSONS IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT SHEET LL #1 No use of common primary command and control information network (e.g. CENTRIX). LL #2 Primary command network parameters were not clear thus interoperability was reduced. (e.g. enclaves, web sites, passwords, etc.) Crypto requirements /availability/ compatibility problems. Information systems plan was not adequate to support operations. Information systems accounts /registration process were problematic. Training for the use of information systems was not adequate to support operations. Available chat rooms not adequate to support operations. OPTASK CHAT info was poor. No coomms LNOs between combined forces iot ensure continuity of comms. LL #3 LL #4 LL #5 LL #6 LL #7 LL #8 LL #9 LL #10 LL #11 LL #12 LL #13 LL #14 LL #15 LL #16 A B C D Was an issue but were prepared Was an issue and were not prepared Was not an issue Did not experience situation Comms capabilities and limitations not available to all planners and watch standers. No execution of comms checks prior to exercise or serials. No use of NATO crypto material. Misuse of HAVEQUICK. Poor exploitation of Message Handling Systems. No common set of degrees of confidentiality. No management of Maneuvering nets. NATO signaling methods didn't applied. TOTAL As TOTAL Bs 223 TOTAL Cs TOTAL Ds LOG LESSONS IDENTIFIED ASSESSMENT SHEET LL #1 LL #2 Capabilities and limitations review iot identify logistic infrastructure /engineering compatibility was poor or not available to all planners /watch standers. LL #4 Locations for Logistic LNOs and Forward Logistic Teams were not appropriate. No use of standard NATO replenishment procedures. (e.g. (ATP-16, OPTASK RAS etc.). Shore based logistic support planning was not adequate. Expeditious invoicing of services was not established. Mechanism to obtain approval for repair services in US shipyards was not clear or defined. Medical planning doctrine and procedures were not identified. LL #6 LL #7 LL #8 LL #9 B C D Was an issue and were not prepared Was not an issue Did not experience situation Common logistics format and reporting procedures were not identified and established. Logistics LNOs and Forward Logistics team personnel was not identified. LL #3 LL #5 A Was an issue but were prepared TOTAL As TOTAL Bs 224 TOTAL Cs TOTAL Ds METRICS ON LESSONS LEARNED ASSESSMENT SHEET A+B+C+D=NUMBER OF ALL LL Sum (SumTotal As+SumTotal Cs)/Sum(SumTotal As+SumTotal Bs+SumTotal Cs)=L<=1 L is the final result. 225