LGen André Deschamps, former commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, once described the joint C4ISR initiative as the Holy Grail for networking the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Colonel Jeff Tasseron serves as director of Joint C4ISR, a unit within Chief of Force Development. As he explains, while the Army, Navy and Air Force may not share a unified system just yet, an interoperable backbone is emerging.
How much of a “joint” network does the CAF have today?
That’s a surprisingly tricky question to answer, because it depends on what your idea of a “joint” network consists of. On the one hand, if you are of the belief that the ideal form for a joint network would be a single network for all users, regardless of which environment they come from, and which embodies a single set of applications and standards that are used universally, then we are still some ways back from that. The environments each have unique operational requirements that they have addressed through network implementations of Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) functionality, according to their roles.
At the same time, there is an ongoing convergence in terms of the network backbones that support applications, the applications themselves and the standards to ensure better interconnectivity. For example, active projects such as the Joint Intelligence Information for Command are leveraging technologies and applications developed by our allies to address emerging joint requirements, while other environmental C4ISR players such as the Army are drawing upon their experiences running their internal command and control systems (such as the Land Command Support System) to look for opportunities to eliminate overlapping or redundant capabilities, and to converge on existing standards, such as those exemplified by the Consolidated Secret Network Infrastructure network.
Right now, I would say that we have a functional joint network that we want to bring more coherence to, but which works well for us domestically. Internationally, we are working with our NATO partners and closest allies to draw upon our experiences building the Afghanistan Mission Network to create and implement the Future Mission Network – a federated environment with the standards and protocols in place to allow us to rapidly create and begin to share services in deployed operations. There has been a great deal of effort and enthusiasm around this concept, and right now it is looking good for Canada to play a contributing role in its formation, particularly with regard to data labeling and security.
What key pieces still remain?
While we need to keep pushing toward a smaller number of networks, and more commonality among the tools being used, the real emphasis from my perspective should remain on creating good, useable rule sets for proposing and evaluating future capabilities, and for fitting those capabilities together in a coherent fashion by design, rather than after the fact. For example, we need common language for describing C4ISR capabilities and requirements. This way, when an operational requirement is identified, we have a way of classifying the capability, and validating the various projects that are ongoing, or proposed. As well, we need a system that allows the merits of various projects to be examined in a systematic way, to allow prioritization against scarce resources, and to enable better monitoring once a given project is underway. We have great ideas, and there are clever people within DND, and among our industry partners who are focused on coming up with sound solutions to the challenges we identify.
Do you have a process for the services to ensure interoperability while still meeting their specific C4ISR requirements?
One of the challenges we face is that the joint C4ISR space is still in the process of building and consolidating itself. The Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) is still a very new construct, and there is work to be done to define the relationships between them and other key C4ISR stakeholders, including the Strategic Joint Staff, ADM Information Management, the traditional environments, and emerging domains such as cyber.
That said, recent efforts have been made to enhance the oversight role of the Defence Capabilities Board (DCB) when it comes to evaluating and green-lighting joint C4ISR projects. ADM(IM) has a parallel effort underway to enhance oversight of information management aspects of the C4ISR portfolio through its oversight committee, which will inform DCB deliberations with specialist insight into the technical, human resources, and in-service support aspects of longer-term C4ISR projects. And of course, there is a very strong technical standards role played by ADM(Mat) that aims to increase interoperability at the interface level. Finally, within the environments themselves, there is greater awareness of the interconnected, and in many cases, interdependent qualities of many of these systems. New capabilities often present data handling and information fusion requirements that demand high-capacity networks, and which have been designed with joint integration in mind.
In sum, while this doesn’t mean that every C4ISR-related capability effort passes through the same neatly defined process that ensures the right balance is struck between operational requirement and interoperability, we’re definitely moving into a space where all of the key players recognize both the need and the advantages of working together.
The larger challenge is interoperability with allies. What are you doing to ensure you’re on the same page?
We are continuously discussing compatibility, common C4ISR architectures and, where possible, common equipment with our allies. One of the ways we keep this dialogue current and advancing is through a robust and progressive exercise and experimentation approach. Through organizations such as the Canadian Forces Warfare Centre (now within CJOC), the environmental warfare centres, and the academic networks associated with the Defence Research and Development Canada centres, we tie into a global network of C4ISR experts and practitioners in a wide variety of forums, and are able to bring a multinational perspective to bear on collective problems.
At the tactical level, we continue to advance with well-known standardization efforts such as the Standard NATO Agreement approach, to make sure that our techniques, tactics, and procedures advance in a predictably common fashion. The Coalition Interoperability Assurance and Validation process is another valuable aspect of our NATO engagement, allowing us to leverage interoperability standards and practices developed by other countries, while minimizing the costs to Canada that we would otherwise have to incur were we to “go it alone.” Finally, it is worth noting that one of the most effective ways of ensuring interoperability is by executing multinational operations and training with our allies. Working together is still the best way of identifying how well our processes, procedures and systems dovetail, and where more effort is required.
What would you like to see from industry to complete the network?
First, I would say that C4ISR is more of an enduring practice than a specific system or system of systems. Meeting the ever-changing spectrum of C4ISR operational requirements will demand an evolutionary approach in line with changes in communications and IM/IT technologies, and must encompass a rate of change that sometimes confounds our best procurement efforts. What I would like to see from industry is a clearer indication of where the state-of-the-art is going – not so much in terms of what the next shiny capability might be, but where the “sweet spots” of technology and practice are.
It is my perspective that we need to concentrate on examples of C4ISR functionality that are not necessarily cutting edge, but which deliver solid operational advantages, that are reliable, cost effective and, above all, secure. We don’t have the budget or in many cases the need to project the most advanced C4ISR capabilities, but we must meet our internal requirements, as well as remaining a useful, reliable and secure partner for our allies in the domain. So that will take foresight of the sort that can only be developed with a wide scan, aided by industry.
Are there some significant integrated command and control issues you anticipate having to deal with?
I think the most significant C4ISR challenges are related to pace and penetration – pace, in the sense that new capabilities are being introduced all the time, which makes it a very dynamic and difficult threat environment in which to work. Militaries all over the world are struggling to come to grips with the reality that these technologies are both vital to the modern way of war, and a huge new vulnerability, and they’re having to do so in an environment that is changing so rapidly it is difficult sometimes to even understand how the capabilities can be used, or defended against.
Intensifying this challenge is the fact that the barriers to entry into the C4ISR world are dropping all the time, and C4ISR enabling technologies are penetrating into mainstream life every day. Technologies that only a few years ago would have been the exclusive province of militaries and police forces can now be bought off the shelf locally and refreshed every two to three years. Increasingly, individuals have unfettered access to imagery, data sets, and software tools that once were controlled national security instruments, and they are re-purposing these tools with a wide (and not always noble) set of motivations.
In our own organization, the expectations of our soldiers, sailors and airmen and women are being shaped by such forces, and they are adopting and using these technologies to do their jobs in new and sometimes fundamentally disruptive ways. It’s an exciting time to be working in the C4ISR realm, as I think we’re witnessing the maturation of a new operational environment that in its own way will be as impactful and influential as the land, sea and air environments have been on the course of military history.