A SpaceX rocket carrying a Spanish satellite created a brief light show over Southern California after blasting off from Vandenberg Air Force Base.

The Falcon 9 rose above coastal clouds into the dawn sky Thursday and arced southward over the Pacific Ocean west of Los Angeles.

Southern Californians had been hoping for a repeat of the spectacle that occurred Dec. 22 when a Falcon 9 lifted off at twilight during exceptionally clear weather, triggering a social media storm.

Shortly after liftoff, Spain’s PAZ satellite successfully entered orbit. The satellite carries an instrument to make radar images of the Earth for government and commercial purposes.

Secondary test satellites for a proposed space-based internet system were to be released later.

The center will receive images of the situation on the ground around the globe from satellites, analyze them and provide them for the alliance’s defense planning and the local army’s use, including its foreign missions.

The system known as SATCEN CR is also planned to help the civilian sector in the case of natural disasters.

The military spy agency said on Tuesday it should open on July 1 and become fully operational by the end of 2019.

The cost is financed by the Czech Defense Ministry.

To help get at this operational shift, Raytheon is adapting a Navy system to make aircraft more expeditionary in austere environments.

The Joint Precision Approach the Landing System, or JPALS, is a program of record with the Navy that uses GPS signals tied into the aircraft and ship to make calculations for incoming aircraft for precision landing on a moving aircraft carrier.

Using internal investment dollars, Raytheon is pitching a repackaged version of JPALS to both the Army and the Air Force for use on land in austere locations.

Wayne Scott, Raytheon’s senior program manager for JPALS, told C4ISRNET in an interview that he wanted to ”repackage” the technology ”so I could rapidly deploy it to some expeditionary location to support a contingency operation” such as countering a threat or helping an aircraft provide humanitarian relief.

With an airfield devoid of proper landing infrastructure, a JPALS system can help an aircraft with its approach and precision landing in a relatively short period of time.

The Air Force and the Army are looking at dispersive basing; so rather than a single concentration of aircraft ― which creates an operational security dilemma ― the services are preparing for tomorrow’s war where the military must move smaller units to dispersed bases.

Brooks Cleveland, who works with Raytheon on precision landing systems and used to fly F/A-18 jets in the Navy, has experience with JPALS. In an Oct. 4 media briefing, he offered as analogies for dispersive basing the act of island-hopping in the Pacific, or a central nucleus of aircraft in Europe or a desert with the ability to send them into expeditionary environments.

This could also be useful in regard to the Korean Peninsula, according to JD Johnson, an executive with Raytheon’s U.S. Army and special operations forces programs. Speaking during the company’s media briefing, he said there’s going to be so much in the air that identifying friend from foe and maintaining control in such a tight, restrictive airspace will be important.

Raytheon’s repackaging concept involves a deployable version to have four GPS receivers that are fairly close to the core system along with mounted, ultrahigh-frequency antennas on tactical tripods nearby, Scott said. Those antennas would be for transmition via a secure data link.

The system can also be easily moved, as it is sheltered on the back of a Humvee. This design goal is so that the entire system can fit on a C-130 aircraft. Once arriving at its destination, it can be operational in 60 minutes. But, Scott said, it takes about 90 minutes for the GPS sensors to totally sync and provide a high level of precision.

This deployable system can simultaneously control up to 50 airplanes out to a 20-nautical-mile radius.

Scott said Raytheon is initially pitching this to the Army for use aboard UH-60 helicopters, given the service has such a large fleet of different variants. While helicopters don’t fly as fast or require as straight of a landing approach as a fixed-wing aircraft, a precision approach and landing system could still be attractive for helos because because it allows for improved landing in harsh terrain, challenging weather or hostile environments.

Moreover, Cleveland recalled speaking to a helicopter pilot who asked why something like JPALS is necessary. “If it’s bad weather, we just don’t go flying,” Cleveland said. “That’s exactly why we need JPALS.”

Cleveland added that one likely wouldn’t consider a precision approach or landing system as an offensive tool, but this allows the Army enter the fight and deploy weapons systems, such as lasers that Raytheon is testing aboard Apache helicopters.

Some retrofits aboard aircraft might have to take place to integrate JPALS, Cleveland noted, whereas maintaining the system itself is aircraft agnostic. The four things an aircraft needs for JPALS are a radio that can recognize the JPALS waveform, GPS capability, an inertial identification platform and processing power for the mission computer.

In terms of vulnerabilities, Scott noted that JPALS is designed to be jam-resistant with a high level of cybersecurity built into the system.

By using the existing ultrahigh-frequency spectrum, which is a lower power than conventional precision-approach radar, the radio frequency signature is reduced.

Additionally, given the encrypted data link, an adversary cannot use the transmitted information to determine the location of friendly aircraft.

On Tuesday, the Air Force announced it had given Lockheed an $81 million contract and Rockwell a $76 million contract for the technology maturation and risk reduction phase of the Airborne Launch Control System Replacement. That program, also known as ALCS-R, will support ICBM operations until 2075, meaning it will work with both the current Minuteman III system and its eventual replacement, the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, which will come online in the late 2020s.

The Air Force fielded an ALCS capability in the late 1960s to make moot the Soviet Union’s ability to decapitate the ICBM force by destroying the United States’ command-and-control, or C2, facilities. The thought process was thus: Even if an attack were to wipe out the ground-based launch-control centers, those ICBMs would remain ready to launch in many circumstances, and an aircraft equipped with the ALCS system could fly overhead and give the command.

Today, the U.S. military operates 16 E-6B aircraft equipped with the ALCS system, as well as one plane used for integration and lab testing. The E-6Bs are owned and flown by the Navy, while an on-board Air Force crew is tasked with providing a mobile C2 capability for the ICBM enterprise.

During ALCS-R, the Air Force intends to replace all of the airborne mission equipment on the E-6Bs as well as ground-based radios in 450 launch-control centers, which haven’t been updated since the 1960s, said an Air Force official with knowledge of the program.

According to a May 2015 request for information, most of the legacy ALCS equipment dates from the 1980s and was developed for the EC-135 aircraft that has since been retired. It also encrypts information using a U.S. National Security Agency system that will soon become obsolete.

“While mission and platform changes have occurred, the ALCS has not kept pace with changes,” the RFI stated. “In addition to the antiquated technology, the system adds significant weight to the aircraft and consumes scarce space, weight, and power resources. The software platform is also obsolete and unsupportable.”

During the technology maturation and risk reduction phase, Lockheed and Rockwell will be responsible for completing an ALCS-R preliminary design and create a “fully functional prototype,” according to the contract announcement.

The service will downselect to a single competitor in the first quarter of fiscal 2021 for the engineering, manufacturing and development stage of the program, an Air Force official told Defense News.

In the FY18 budget, the Air Force requested $78.5 million for the ALCS-R effort. Almost $66 million was appropriated for FY17 expenses.

The ALCS-R program does not entail modifying the E-6B or selecting a new aircraft to house the airborne launch capability. Earlier this year, Gen. John Hyten, head of U.S. Strategic Command, told Congress that the E-6Bs are planned to fly until 2038, but that he has already directed the Navy to begin working with the Air Force on a replacement that could support the requirements of both services.

“We’re only 20 years from 2038, so if you’re going to build large aircraft with huge command and control [requirements], you have to start thinking about those things right now,” he said then. “That’s what the Navy is starting to do.”

But it’s because CECOM’s work, when done well, is primarily behind the scenes. With six months as commander under his belt, Taylor told C4ISRNET Editor Amber Corrin about how he sees his experience so far, his command’s mission and why battlefield proximity isn’t necessarily a measure of consequence.

What would you say you’ve learned so far in the job?

Foremost, I am learning just how much the American soldier, to fight and win, depends on CECOM to sustain expeditionary [command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] readiness. Soldiers must trust and rely on CECOM now more than ever.

The Army’s dependence on C4ISR has never been greater, and the stakes have never been higher. Winning on today’s hyper-compressed battlefield requires soldiers to fight across multiple domains — land, air, maritime, space, and cyberspace — and across the electromagnetic spectrum, seamlessly reaching from home station to extraordinarily remote and austere engagement areas. It is becoming easier for potential adversaries to threaten U.S. military dominance with the proliferation of advanced C4ISR capabilities at a lower cost, including robotics, artificial intelligence, and autonomous and remotely operated systems.

We must modernize and sustain C4ISR faster and better, if we are to stay ahead of potential adversaries. The Army spends about 30 percent of a C4ISR capability’s cost on acquiring a system and the other 70 percent on sustaining a system, both hardware and software, over the rest of its life cycle.

That is mostly because the Army upgrades, modernizes and continues to use capabilities long after they are fielded. When it comes to supporting soldiers’ post-deployment reset of C4ISR capabilities under the Army’s Sustainable Readiness Model, which is the successor to the decade-old Army Force Generation model, CECOM now has to reset in about half the time. We still have a lot to improve in that regard; it’s very important to me, and we will get it right.

How does CECOM impact soldiers on the ground?

There’s not a member of the CECOM team whose work doesn’t impact the soldier on the ground. From my C4ISR supply item managers to my depot-level workforce, I expect every one of them to show up every day and make a difference for our nation’s sons and daughters in harm’s way.

CECOM’s scope of work ranges from protecting and updating 70 percent of the Army’s software in sustainment, to maintaining the soldier’s communications and electronics equipment, to conducting interoperability and certification testing with coalition partners, to upgrading the White House’s network infrastructure. The most common statement I have heard from soldiers who visit CECOM is that they wish they’d known earlier what CECOM does. Part of my job is informing the Army about how to best utilize CECOM’s vast capabilities to modernize and sustain expeditionary C4ISR readiness.

Currently, our soldiers expect their communications officer or noncommissioned officer-in-charge to take care of their communication needs. Unit leadership, and possibly the soldier, views their assigned CECOM logistics assistance representative as the sole integrator to take care of C4ISR requirements. However, CECOM’s field interface goes well beyond the LAR and includes supporting field service representatives and field software engineers under the management of CECOM senior command representatives.

Think of it as a NASCAR driver and the pit crew. The soldier is the driver, and the LAR is the pit boss with members of the entire CECOM team providing fuel, tire replacement, body repair, and cleaning the windshield to get the driver back on the road.

Understanding this, we have the opportunity for our CECOM LARs to create conditions that facilitate self-sufficiency within the unit; I consider this our first indicator of success. If the LAR is my direct C4ISR link to the customer, then I expect them to be the most technically proficient

experts in what they are doing, I expect them to facilitate and anticipate supply and demand needs, and I expect them to give the time and attention necessary for mission success.

Can you offer a brief overview of some of the organizations that comprise CECOM, and what they provide?

Beyond the scope of the soldier’s visibility, CECOM is a large team-of-teams, and our LARs are able to leverage this vast reach. We have five critical subordinate organizations that are often well-known in their own right, but unknown as belonging to CECOM.

As an example, CECOM’s organic industrial base, Tobyhanna Army Depot, or TYAD, maintains more than half of all communications and electronics equipment for the Department of Defense. TYAD’s full-spectrum logistics support to the soldier include fabrication, integration and field support to C4ISR systems.

With 51 forward depot-level locations worldwide, approximately 20 percent of our TYAD professionals are in the field actively supporting our units. For instance, a unit was having issues operating their Blue Force Tracker sets in theater. Prior to deploying, the unit had difficulty identifying the parts and software needed to ensure correct BFT operations. TYAD personnel were able to coordinate with the unit’s field location to identify the issues and troubleshoot and operationalize mission-essential equipment.

CECOM’s Central Technical Support Facility team performs Army Interoperability Certification testing and configuration management for all operational through tactical-level C4I systems, applications and hardware prior to release to the field. By using Training and Doctrine Command-approved mission threads and executing them from end-to-end, CTSF demonstrates that the network will operate together as intended in the field.

As an example, a unit conducting training operations had an issue conducting a digital call-for-fire mission from an Apache. Because CTSF demonstrates that mission during AIC testing, they were asked by the aviation community to provide instructions regarding network settings. Together with our partners, we documented the communication path for a digital call-for-fire and identified that the issue was due to recent changes in equipment and methodology. The team was able to provide TRADOC information to update future aviation training products.

You may have heard about CECOM’s Software Engineering Center for their work in hardware and software sustainment. Most soldiers don’t think about software on a day-to-day basis, but the systems our SEC provides touch them daily.

When they go to the dining facility and scan their badge to eat, SEC sustains the food management system; when they need supplies, SEC sustains the logistics systems that make it happen; and when our soldiers are in the command post or platforms, SEC is sustaining the C4ISR systems.

One of the most critical items SEC provides the soldier is force protection — they write and field the software that protects our aircraft from enemy radar and missiles, as well as the software updates used to protect ground troops from remote-controlled improvised explosive devices. The threats change very rapidly, and SEC continuously works with TRADOC to optimize software development and testing processes to ensure rapid delivery to the field.

Additionally, last year, CECOM’s higher headquarters, Army Materiel Command, assigned Operational Control of the Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center and the Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground to CECOM. These partnerships allow us to align technology efforts within the C4ISR portfolio and ensure the Army maintains its competitive advantage.

Any final thoughts?

To quote Gen. Douglas MacArthur, ‘The history of failure in war can almost be summed up in two words: Too late.’ As a global organization, I believe that our proximity to the battlefield is not a direct correlation to our contribution. We have a tremendous responsibility, wherever we are, to make sure our soldiers have everything they need to execute mission command effectively when they face an adversary. This responsibility belongs to all of us, and there is absolutely no room in our workplace for complacency. Every position on the CECOM team impacts our soldiers and their readiness. Understanding this is what motivates us and is at the core of our success.

The Army is coming to grips with how it will fight — and communicate — in complex future operating environments against both near-peer and insurgent organizations in a variety of geographic regions and terrains. But to do that, the service needs a flexible, agile network.

Over the years, Army leaders realized that the service needed to think about its network differently. Many components of the “tactical” network that fell under WIN-T’s portfolio didn’t necessary have to do with WIN-T, prompting the Army to adopt a “one network” approach, even renaming the WIN-T project office to “tactical networks.”

The Army has had several large programs come under WIN-T, included protected satellite communications and command post, which created confusion within the portfolio versus the WIN-T program of record, Col. Gregory Coile, project manager tactical networks, told C4ISRNET. Now WIN-T is a tool in the bag — albeit a very big tool given that it is the backbone for the network that enables connectivity for the command post. But it doesn’t mean things aren’t hanging off that backbone, Coile said.

“The way we approached it was we took a step back and really evaluated what our capability was, because at the end of the day, regardless of what the program of record is, we’re trying to answer a capability gap and deliver a capability,” Coile added. “We focused on our job to deliver the tactical network. That led us to what we’re really after — even though it’s not solely our mission, we all have to be a part of one network, so we developed our ‘one network’ vison.”

Despite organizationally changing the name, Coile noted that there is still a program called WIN-T increment 1, which offers communications capability at the halt, and increment 2, which allows communications on the move. “None of that goes away,” he said.

Portfolio Review

The Army right now is undergoing a major review of all IT and network systems, as directed by the chief of staff.

“The Army’s network is a critical enabler of readiness and lethality. The Army regularly conducts assessments and reviews network procedures to ensure that we are prepared to meet the current and future force requirements,” Army spokesman Wayne Hall told C4ISRNET via email. “This review will assist the Army in proactively integrating, aligning and reforming our IT portfolios to ensure infrastructure, programs, weapons and other systems are prepared to adapt. This assessment and review ensures our manpower, budget planning, and acquisition and sustainment strategies can support the Army’s IT requirements.”

The outline of this “one network” approach, based on how the Army fights, comprises five parts.

First is home station operations or training, which encompasses pre-deployment training to ensure soldiers can operate the equipment. As operating environments become more complex, requiring a more expeditionary force that will have to move on an hourly basis, the force cannot afford to have field service representatives or contractors accompany units to help operate comms gear.

“We’ve become very reliant on the capability that industry provides. In many cases we had systems that came to us that were way too complex for soldiers to understand and for leaders to manage,” said Maj. Gen. Peter Gallagher, director of networks, services and strategy, Office of the Army CIO. “We cannot afford the luxury to have field service reps with us on every deployment. We’ve got to figure out … [how to make] the systems more intuitive and simple to use.”

Second, the Army must have communications capability en route to conflict zones aboard aircraft such as C-17s. Whether a commander going to jump out of the airplane for an airborne operation or he’s going to land and do a peacekeeping operation, he can still maintain situational awareness using the same mission command applications at home station that he’ll continue to use when he hits the ground, Coile said.

Next is early entry operations, which allow units, typically smaller in size, to be able to connect and pass information — classified or unclassified — within a half-hour.

Fourth, once on the ground troops need to build up the network with greater communications capability with a larger pipe to carry more information.

This involves key components of WIN-T’s Increment 2, including:

· Tactical Communications Node (TCN), which provides the backbone element and command post operations;

· Point of Presence (PoP), which, while installed on select combat platforms at division, brigade and battalion, enables mobile mission command with on the move connectivity through line of sight and beyond line of sight, and;

· Soldier Network Extension (SNE), which provides on-the-move communications to extend the network from brigade down to company.

Finally, when getting into what’s called mature operations in theater, the force transitions to sustainment and stability operations in which a lot of communications gear brought in might stay for an indeterminate period of time. Coile said the Army has kits that have been in the Persian Gulf for two decades that must be operated and maintained. Despite this duration, they are still temporary, as these are not permanent sites.

Last November, the Army held a tabletop exercise in which they asked themselves what are the fundamental requirements needed from a mission command-network perspective for future operations, said Jeff Witsken, director of mission command network integration, Mission Command Center of Excellence.

They identified five critical operational requirements for guiding modernization of the network. One key element was the need for a unified or converged mission command network; the Army doesn’t have a unified network, but rather multiple networks. These include networks for operations, intelligence, logistics and medical information. This, Witsken noted, gets back to the push for one network — these disparate networks are not what the Army will need going forward.

When soldiers land, wherever the crisis may be, they have to be able to fight upon arrival and the network must enable that. “In an environment where we’ve been fairly static over the last 16 years, based out of forward operating bases and combat outposts,” the current network isn’t what they’re going to need in a highly mobile, lethal environment more heavily contested than today, Gallagher said.

“One of the things we have not really optimized ourselves for is that peer adversary that really has the capability to contest us in the air, contest us in space,” he said. “So, the network we deliver for the future really has to be as simple and intuitive as possible for that solider on the edge.”

Tailorability

Part of having an agile network is being able to tailor it to a commander’s need based on threats and regions they might be inserting to.

What underpins this, Coile said, is the notion that the network is IP-based: It begins with applications just like a Mac uses Safari as the application to surf the web.

For the Army these applications include things like Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System or Command Post of the Future. These user applications are fed through platforms such as an unclassified device, a device for secret communications or a device for top-secret communications. They then run through a commercial router and server to an encryption device, but upon hitting the transport layer the data becomes what Coile described as “colorless core.” Regardless of where the data came from, it is now encrypted ones and zeros and can go to any transport segment. These transport segments are the tactical systems in the field, including PoPs, SNEs and Transportable Tactical Command Communications, or T2C2.

“We want to give the [combatant commands] the ability to work in different environments,” Coile said. The service was very focused on a counterinsurgency environment that required heavy equipment and trucks to protect soldiers from roadside improvised explosive devices. However, in Europe or the Pacific, Coile said they have to allow forces the ability to insert very quickly and move quickly. Large platforms such as Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles are too heavy to air transport.

“When we talk about making things more expeditionary, sometimes it’s a choice of platform,” he said. While these heavy vehicles were the right choice in Iraq, potential operating environments of the future could require something that can be loaded into a C-130 or sling-loaded to a Chinook.

Depending on the mission, the commander might only need a T2C2 to handle the initial command post requirements until something larger comes in.

If a commander is going to be in a situation where it’s probable they could be jammed, they’ll want to make sure they have either a Secure, Mobile, Anti-Jam, Reliable, Tactical–Terminal (SMART-T) in the network, which allows for protected satellite communications, or a Troposcatter Transmission (Tropo) capability that doesn’t rely on satellites introducing redundancy into the network.

If going into an Eastern European-type scenario, where commanders will want to move, they’ll want to make sure they have POPs and SNEs, SMART-T, Tropo, or high-speed line of sight to offload that data so their network isn’t dependent on satellite that could be interdicted, Coile said.

However, if going into a humanitarian effort, maybe something like T2C2, or a couple of TCNs is all they’ll need; they don’t necessary have a mobile requirement, but this will allow for a command post, he added.

Given that the Pacific area of responsibility is different from Europe both in threats and terrain that could affect signal transmission, Coile noted that at the end of the day, the Army is an IP-based network that allows all of this to work.

While a similar-type capability for early entry existed prior to the formal standing up of T2C2 as a program of record, both the technological capability and formation into a program of record was a whole new way of doing business given the flexibility of the platform.

The chief is also enabling commanders to take certain risks and trades based on their mission and needs. Forces Command is playing a role in taking feedback from operational units, seeing where they’ve assumed risk in the past, where commanders are saying they’re willing to do that now, and tailoring it accordingly.

The other part for the Army and the direction they are moving in terms of IT and networking includes recognizing that the service as a whole had to move to a standard, common baseline. The formation of T2C2 as a program of record gets toward this by establishing it as the baseline for early entry across the entire force. This makes training and sustainment much easier, officials said.

The standard for WIN-T across the force is Increment 1B, which just received an Army-wide tech refresh. Increment 2 — the on-the-move capability — was never meant to go to everyone, Coile said, just on-the-move units the Army decided needed it.

The Army, after 16 years of war and fielding disparate systems that didn’t talk to each other, still grapples with compatibility issues.

“One of the things the Army is going to have to wrap its head around is, does everybody need the same capability?” said Gary Martin, program executive officer for C3T.

To extend a new capability to the entire Army takes a long time, whether it’s mission command applications or a network technology, he said. The real question they’re going to have to deal with is does everyone have to be equipped the same, balancing how long it takes to get the next capability to the entire Army verses trying to spin out more quickly and get portions of the Army, which leads to variations of capability and perhaps compatibility issues.

As it sits right now, the Army wants common standards and baselines. This will be critical for the future, allowing the Army to plug in modernization efforts as soon as commanders’ architectures and capabilities have been identified.

Under the contract options, Raytheon will produce, test and deliver fully integrated Navy Multiband Terminals (NMT), according to the Department of Defense contract announcement.

NMT is a multiband communications terminal that provides protected and wideband communications, including EHF, super high frequency, military Ka and Global Broadcast Service receive-only communications.

The contract will be partly funded through Foreign Military Sales funds for Australia.

Broadly speaking, this will involve the seamless integration of air, space and cyber capabilities, providing commanders cross-domain options to make more rapid decisions in complex battle spaces. The Air Force is in the throes of a highly anticipated study on the issue lead by the multi-domain C2 enterprise capability collaboration team, or ECCT, which should be finalized by November.

Message received: Industry is prepared to back the Air Force as it takes different approaches toward multi-domain C2 and figures out what this might look like and how to employ it.

Regarding the latter, Lockheed Martin in April held a war game on multi-domain C2 as a means to help inform the Air Force and the ECCT team.

[The Air Force is getting help to define multi-domain command and control]

The war game looked at operational planning in air, space and cyber in support of the ECCT. Lockheed will continue this work during another war game this fall. This upcoming war game will build on the efforts of its predecessor, adding additional layers such as hundreds of targets with actual Air Force operators coming together and planning against a much larger scenario, said Steve Froelich, director of operational command and control for Lockheed Martin C4ISR, during an interview with C4ISRNET at the Air Force Association’s annual symposium.

At the conference, Lockheed briefed reporters on some of the systems ― both those currently used by the Air Force and others in which the company is investing ― as well as systems of systems that could be produced to fit a multi-domain C2 construct.

“What we’re looking at doing is enabling the vision of linking assets that are space-based, in the air, in the sea and on the ground to create combined effects,” according to Jack O’Banion, vice president of strategy and customer requirements for Lockheed Martin Skunk Works. “[The] challenge is: How do you create a dynamic network that allows you to link things together to create effects inside the bubble and from outside the bubble to create collaborative engagements and multiple dilemmas for an adversary?”

Renee Pasman, mission systems road maps director for the Skunk Works division, noted that what Lockheed was demonstrating is merely a concept from a multi-domain C2 perspective, not a specific solution. The adoption of things like open-systems architectures makes these solutions possible.

“The key is really as the speed of information and the speed of war increases, making sure that we can get the right information to the right person to allow them to make that decision quickly,” said Pasman, adding that being able to share that information across the entire network is critical.

“One key thing from a Lockheed Martin perspective is we’re trying to approach the technologies … there’s key enabling technologies that come up again and again and again; open-system architecture, automation, that ability to do machine to machine. And part of what we’re trying to do is make sure all of those technologies are mature no matter where the Air Force chooses to apply them so the technology doesn’t limit how the Air Force uses their systems. It’s really how they want to use it to be most effective for the war fighter.”

Other contractors have applied diverse approaches to the problem set of more multi-domain capabilities for the Air Force and the military writ large.

Tom Gould, head of business development for Harris Corporation, when asked how he sees the company fitting into multi-domain concepts, said the company is developing a modem and a waveform that is truly multi-domain, highly jam resistant and very hard to detect. This will allow forces in the ground, in the air and in space to seamlessly talk to one another without being detected and without being jammed, he said.

Raytheon’s vice president of mission support and modernization, Todd Probert, said during an interview with C4ISRNET that the firm wants to serve in a ”facilitator role to work at the foundational layer; foundational layer being building those constructs, be it the open architecture.”

Probert explained that Raytheon’s work within the “foundational layer” involves enabling services to play and talk together, much like applications on a cellphone. Though apps are developed by different organizations, he said, they are brought into a single store. Using the example of a mapping layer, Probert noted how several apps can render a map even though they may not even know the map app provider in and of itself.

Raytheon is also building applications to help commanders better understand the non-kinetic effects of battle such as cyberspace.

“We’ve been fighting wars literally since the rocks and spears age in a kinetic sense. If you’re a commander out there, you understand the impact of a bullet missile … it’s very tried and true … the concept of operations, to deploy over years, and they’ve migrated in a progresses in very serial sense as technology has come along,” he said. “In the space of an operations environment, we’ve built modeling and simulation capabilities to merge kinetic ― again, bullets and missiles ― and non-kinetic, things like cyber and electronic warfare and other things into that same space using frames of reference that our military understands ― mostly kinetic ― to project how they might employ these non-kinetic-like things.”

What Lockheed’s demonstrations and war games focus on is integration, and making systems within an air operations center talk. Today, the tools in each individual operations center, while very good at what they do, are stovepiped, Froelich said.

“One of the ways in which we can move faster is to see if we can take all of these stovepiped systems and get them to start to talk to each other,” he said. “You want it to be integrated and you want it to be collaborative and you want it to start to have real-time intelligence layered on top of it as well so you now have some machine-to-machine conversations that will take care of the routine planning, tactical decision-making, all of the routine things so it makes real-time recommendations to the operator.”

Some of the capabilities displayed during the demonstration included:

• The ability of a multi-domain common operational picture to illustrate to commanders that either a cyber, air, space or a mix of each can be used against a certain target overlaid on a map.
• Coordinated planning and air-tasking orders to include coordinated and space tasks pushed to tactical C2 nodes.
• Use of software applications to unburden pilots in single-cockpit aircraft to allow them to focus on their primary tasks.
• Software that automatically detects that and automatically will find the next best communications path through which to send information if links are broken due to jamming or distance without any input from the pilot.
• Machine learning to pick out key targets from a synthetic aperture radar map, which normally would take several minutes for a well trained operator to find.
• Ability for the machine to make recommendations to the commander for effects to be used.

[Space and air ops teams integrating to fight ISIS]

Next steps

Pasman, of Lockheed’s Skunk Works, explained that the firm eventually wants to get to the point where all services and all domains are incorporated.

Joint force and combatant commanders require holistic options from all domains and services to include air, land, sea, space and cyber. Land and maritime capabilities will be incorporated into the future tabletop exercises.

“One key thing in terms of seeing how we can best instantiate that vison, we’re doing tabletop war games, which look at everything and look at [concept of operation] development,” Pasman said.

GSSAP 3 and 4 were launched into orbit on Aug. 19, 2016, and activated by the 1st Space Operations Squadron at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado, on Sept. 12 of this year.

The first two GSSAP satellites were launched in 2015.

“This addition to GSSAP is vital to expand 1 SOPS’s space-based space situational awareness mission,” according to the Air Force. “It not only provides a significant improvement in space object characterization, but also in detecting threats. Because of its near-geosynchronous orbit, it has a clear and distinct vantage point to avoid the weather interruptions that can limit ground-based space surveillance systems.”

A United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket carrying the classified NROL-42 satellite lifted off at 10:49 p.m. PDT Saturday. All systems were going well when the launch webcast concluded about three minutes into the flight.

The launch was expected to be visible across a wide area of California, weather permitting.

National Reconnaissance Office satellites gather intelligence information for U.S. national security and an array of other purposes including assessing impacts of natural disasters.

U.S. officials have not revealed what the spacecraft will be doing or what its orbit will be.

United Launch Alliance is a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing.