*** Army building command post of the future A changing mission focus has sparked calls for a re-envisioned command post.

http://www.c4isrnet.com/story/military-tech/communications/2016/08/15/army-building-command-post-future/87671972/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Brief%200816&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Daily%20Brief

The Army’s command post is an unwieldy nest, strung with hundreds of feet of cable, stacked with towers of transit cases and populated by a jumble of computer servers and terminals. It takes an entire platoon of soldiers a day to build one.
As the service envisions a future in which quick-response units perform in expeditionary mode, these hulking nerve centers no longer seem appropriate.
Technology advances might help lighten the equipment load, or clean up the tangle of cables typical of today's command posts.

“It has gotten very large, very difficult to move,” said Mike McCarthy, director of the LandWarNet Division of the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Army Capabilities and Integration Center (ARCIC). “They are going to have to be able to move quickly in order to survive. They have to be less vulnerable, less detectable.”
While a changing mission focus has sparked calls for a re-envisioned command post (CP), new technologies simultaneously have emerged to enable the necessary changes. Now a wide-ranging team from across the Army’s acquisition, requirements, operational and research and development communities is laying the groundwork for what the service refers to as Command Post 2025.
In February 2016 Army leadership called for initial investigations. Program Executive Office -- Command, Control and Communications-Tactical (PEO C3T) took the helm in May and leaders say they aim to produce a capabilities development document by early 2018, with an eye toward beginning system engineering and development in fiscal 2020.

While much has yet to be determined about the new CP, some things are clear. Officials know, for instance, that planners are looking to create a CP experience that will be consistent for all users.
“When a soldier performs a function in one place, then he goes to a different environment, the tools in that new environment should be very similar if not identical,” said Col. Mike Ernst, TRADOC capability manager, mission command (MC)/command posts.
Another key element for the command post of the future: The computer will be the main driver of transformation.

The brains
The Army says its evolving Command Post Computing Environment (CPCE) will consolidate and simplify command post hardware and software, while simultaneously creating a common user experience.
“It is going to be imperative that we get that right,” said Lynn Epperson, project lead, command post integrated infrastructure. Epperson called CPCE “the absolute heart” of the command post overhaul.
CPCE will provide a user-friendly hub for mission command software and intelligence applications. The systems will deliver a web-based interface with a familiar look and feel, similar to the commercial applications one might encounter on a computer, tablet or smartphone.
The service is looking to the new system to break down silos within CP activities. Today most essential functions within the command post – intelligence operations, fires, logistics, maneuvering – are controlled via independent systems, and operators cannot easily switch from one activity to another.


Lt. Col. Gina Thomas prepares a briefing in a command center in 2015.
(Photo: Army)
The new computing environment will create a common base of hardware, software and web-based applications for all major CP activities. Soldiers would have common views and shared access to data and services.
“There would be much less stove-piping with these systems, less stove-piping in terms of people’s roles and responsibilities,” said Jeffrey Witsken, director of network integration at the Mission Command Center of Excellence.

A lighter CP

If the computing environment represents the brains of the new command post, planners are equally concerned with its body. They’re looking beyond today’s cumbersome CP toward a version that can readily deploy forward into a hostile environment, all the while maintaining connectivity with command elements outside of the area of conflict.

“We really have this notion of the expeditionary mission command, of disparate command posts, all knitted together,” Witsken said.

They’re envisioning a lighter CP, one built of components that can be taken apart and integrated into a larger main command post, or easily broken down and re-configured to form a leaner tactical CP. In this modular vision the same components could be tailored to meet the needs of light or heavy units. Each unit would receive a “base kit” to support communications and mission command, and would be able to customize its implementation based on needs in theater.


The Army envisions a future in which quick-response units perform in expeditionary mode.
(Photo: Army)

A number of new technologies will likely come together to enable this vision. Improved power management capabilities, for example, “will allow for a much simpler environment,” said J. Tyler Barton, expeditionary command post project lead at the Communications, Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center (CERDEC).

He pointed for instance to the tactical microgrid, a simplified power management architecture. Such a tool could prevent overloads and grid collapse, reducing the manpower needed to operate the grid and potentially paring back fuel consumption by 25 to 40 percent. Tactical microgrids could reduce the number of generators needed from 18 to four, officials said.

Other technology advances might help lighten the equipment load, or clean up the tangle of cables typical of today’s CP.

“Certainly Wi-Fi would be one technology we would look at. We would look at the new, smaller satellite terminals and the new server technology. Our intent is to leave no stone unturned,” Epperson said. Army planners have estimated the implementation of Wi-Fi alone could reduce setup and teardown times by at least two hours each.

Virtualization is another area under consideration. By replacing hardware appliances with software, the Army believes it could not only reduce the physical footprint of the command post, but could also improve network performance, simplify network operations and reduce power demands.

Early trials

Project leaders say they are soliciting extensive input from the user community in their efforts to re-envision the command post.

“Our objective it to concurrently work with the stakeholders, to educate ourselves as to what the requirement is,” Epperson said.

To that end planners have taken part in several Network Integration Evaluation (NIE) and Army Warfighting Assessment (AWA) events, using a range of prototype components integrated into diverse tactical platforms such as the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) and the M1068 command post tracked vehicle.

They also have conducted live evaluations of CPCE components. In a May 2 NIE held at Fort Bliss, Texas, a signal operator was able to successfully manage intelligence, maneuvers and fires functions from a single computer.

“It is a hint to us of the cross-functional future that lies ahead of us,” Witsken said.


The Army is hoping the new command post system will break down silos within CP activities.
(Photo: Army)

This event marked the introduction of the Tactical Server Infrastructure (TSI), a key enabler of operations and intelligence in the emerging command post model. By utilizing a common server infrastructure across several information components, TSI helps to create a uniform operating environment for the execution of mission command applications.

Looking ahead, the development of a new command post architecture still faces several potential hurdles. Planners don’t know yet which technologies will make the final cut. Moreover, they still must tackle the often-complex question of just how those various components will fit together.

“Some of the networks components that fit well in the Stryker formation may not have a role in the infantry formation, so we will have to deliver that capability differently,” Witsken said. Will the command post be mounted in a tent or a truck? It makes a difference.



“Integration will be the main challenge, and all the things associated with that integration,” Epperson said. “Are all the various components we have selected going to be readily available? Will they work together correctly? It’s an age-old problem.”

Even if all the hardware and software comes together as planned, that still leaves the human variable. Just as the new command post will reflect new battlefield realities, it will demand new ways of working. If the silos come down, how will that impact operators? How will the new agility drive skills requirements?

“This is not just a materiel solution,” Ernst said. “The training and leadership and education components are all going to be critical to the way forward.”