How great is the demand for ISR systems in current and future military operations?

How great is the demand for ISR systems in current and future military operations? The demand for ISR capabilities is currently and will continue to remain high for the foreseeable future. In all conflicts, information is a highly regarded commodity; ranking very closely with war fighting capabilities and logistics. Without current, accurate and actionable information (intelligence), the warfighter does not know where or how to deploy whatever weapons system is required to meet the challenge. Imagine deploying a fighter squadron to support humanitarian operations or a naval vessel to support counter terror operations in a land-locked country like Turkmenistan. Each system has its capabilities and limitations and may provide support to their assigned mission but are not the optimal tool to meet the challenge. NOTE: When most people discuss ISR capabilities they often think of the platform (MQ-9 Reaper, RC-135 Rivet Joint, MC-12 Liberty, etc). The platforms are the most visible part of a "system of systems" and are therefore, the easiest to identify. However, the platform is only the collector. The real value in the system is in the data or imagery that provides the finished product; be it at level 1, 2 or 3 analyses. That analysis takes place using an exploitation or analysis capability designed to ingest, analyze, exploit and disseminate intelligence derived from the ISR data and/or imagery. [eventPDF] In the past these systems were very "stove-piped" due to technical constraints associated with communications and security as required by the owning nation or command. With the advent of network enabled capabilities using Internet Protocol (IP) communications, these systems and their products are now proliferating at a higher rate throughout the battlespace. As a result, the imagery collected from one MQ-9 Reaper can be analyzed and exploited by a variable number of commanders for their specific requirements (e.g. Time Sensitive Targeting – Near Real Time or Intelligence Preparation of the Battlespace [IPB] –operations planning and forensic analysis). Further, this ability to access the network is not limited to traditionally air centric or operational level ISR assets. Organic tactical level (Brigade and below) and maritime ISR assets are as well, capable of accessing the network. This means these commanders can collect, analyze, exploit and in turn provide data and intelligence to a wider array of commanders. For the first time, the highest intelligence directorate (J2) can have an accurate picture of what all ISR assets are collecting and how they are being tasked, even those at the lowest level of command (e.g. Brigade or Battalion). This results in the need for coherent and joint tasking and allocation of ISR assets across the command; and in some cases adaptation of doctrine to meet these new capabilities and requirements. So what we have is a system of systems that tasks, allocates, collects, analyses, exploits and disseminates data, imagery and intelligence across a wider network. This is a very different environment from the cold war, requiring a new more progressive view of management and employment. What are the uncertainties about the long-term acquisition plans for ISR systems? Funding is probably the most visible uncertainty. Like the platforms above – money always gets attention because it’s easy to identify and to process. A system that costs X millions of dollars or euros is easier to deal with than the cost benefit analysis that goes with it, and ISR systems are very expensive. As a result, they are often looked at first when budgets are tight. This can be offset by comparing the long term cost to the benefit of additional accurate information, making the war fighter more efficient in planning and execution. However, as noted this requires both research and education on the part of the decision makers and their advocates. What are the major challenges getting ISR capabilities to Warfighters? Technically speaking the major challenge is communicationsand infrastructure. Much of the ISR products available use large bandwidth capacities to move effectively throughout the system. This is fine for a terrestrial network where T-1 lines abound; not so good for deployed systems at the lead or edge of the battlespace (Brigades) or those operating in a wireless environment (e.g. aircraft, vessels). Solutions are available but very expensive (e.g. KU, KA band SATCOM). Doctrinally the major challenge is related to the technology and capability emerging at an exponential clip. Doctrine for ISR operations simply has not kept up with technology. We now have issues associated with tasking and allocation and analysis and exploitation of ISR capabilities and their products. Unfortunately, until doctrine catches up, the effective employment of ISR systems will be limited. Finally, with regard to policy: ISR capabilities and their products have traditionally been held very closely, released only on a "need to know" basis. The expansion of the network and the ability to support a wider array of commanders has changed the requirement from "need to know" to "need to protect." This simply means the "one size fits all" INFOSEC policy model no longer applies. Commanders now need to decide what data or intelligence needs to be protected versus what can be released, often in near real time. The problem sounds the same but it is very much a "180 degree turn" in thinking. What it means is the local commander, not the INFOSEC officer will now be required to decide releaseability at much lower levels. For anyone having spent any time in the INFOSEC community, this is a real sea change in process thinking. Like doctrine, policies associated with sharing and release has not kept up and need to be refreshed. This will of course take time… Examine the current ISR program you’re involved with…how is it performing? What are the aims? I am currently supporting a number Joint ISR related programs, more specifically the Multi-sensor Aerospace-ground Joint Interoperable ISR Coalition (MAJIIC) project and the transformation of the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control (NAEW&C) E-3A Scientific and Technical Support (STS) Project. Both are related to ISR capability integration and employment. However MAJIIC is more directly related via its operational and technical integration of ISR capabilities for nine NATO nations and the NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) system. For NAEW&C, we have developed on-board IP capabilities leading to the employment of ISR products by mission crew in support of tactical operations. Both are doing well with several simulated (laboratory) and live experiments planned for this year and 2013. What would you say is required of industry in order to meet current and future ISR challenges? The main issue I think industry can address is technical and operational interoperability. Network enabled systems must be able to connect and communicate with each other. This requires both operational and technical interoperability. The operational interoperability stems from doctrine, concepts of operation (CONOPS), tactics techniques and procedures (TTPs) and standard operating procedures (SOPs). This is the responsibility of the operators and their respective commands/nations. Technical interoperability stems from the design and production of these capabilities using agreed national and international standards (STANAGS, MILSPEC, ISO). It is important to note that both groups should not work in a vacuum. It will be easier for the operators and commanders to develop effective doctrine if they understand the technical capabilities and limitations of the systems they are acquiring. Similarly, industry must understand how a system is employed during the design, development, production phase of acquisition or they will provide a system that does not meet requirements. In essence, there needs to be a partnership between the two groups.

How great is the demand for ISR systems in current and future military operations?

Upcoming Events

Military Simulation Training Summit

Homeland Security Week

Wildfire Technology Summit

Air Dominance Summit

Armored Vehicles USA Conference

Next Generation UAS

Follow Us

Latest Webinars

Responsible and Transparent Approaches to AI in Biometric Algorithm

Securing the Defence Industrial Base: Mitigating Risk and Delivering Resiliency in Physical and Digital Supply Chains

Treatment Option for Two Subsets of Challenging to Treat Major Depressive Disorder in Adults

Recommended

Facial Recognition: Art or Science?

Facial Recognition: Art or Science?

NORAD’s Perspective on Radar: Interview with Lieutenant General Pierre St-Amand...

OBIM's View On Biometrics

Controlling the Waters Biometric Security at Port Everglades

Trump and Tricare: How will the new administration affect Military Healthcare?

Trump and Tricare: How will the new administration affect Military Healthcare?

How Will the New Administration Affect Military Healthcare?

Unmanned Solutions for Ground Combat Systems: with Johns Hopkins University

CERDEC On Energy Storage Solutions

The Future of Biometric Technology With U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services...

Military Healthcare: Presentation Case Study

FIND CONTENT BY TYPE

IDGA COMMUNITY

ADVERTISE WITH US

JOIN THE IDGA COMMUNITY

How great is the demand for ISR systems in current and future military operations?

Upcoming Events

Follow Us

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter

Latest Webinars

Recommended

FIND CONTENT BY TYPE

IDGA COMMUNITY

ADVERTISE WITH US

JOIN THE IDGA COMMUNITY