DARPA's future combat system command and control

Military Review, May-June, 2003 by Jack Gumbert, Ted C. Cranford, Thomas B. Lyles, Jr., David S. Redding

Information and intelligent C2 systems are two keys to the success of FCS-equipped forces. Here, the authors outline the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's efforts in this area. The nexus of this system of systems must be a C2 system that provides an advanced knowledge base coupled with a creative device that will allow commanders to comprehend the science of warfare while practicing the art.

COMBAT POWER is defined as a linear function, being the sum of maneuver, firepower, and protection multiplied by leadership, In the future combat systems (FCS)-equipped force, combat power becomes an exponential equation where the power of information will raise the factors of maneuver, firepower, protection, and leadership. Therefore, information and intelligent command and control (C2) systems are key to the success of the FCS-equipped force. This C2 system must enable the FCS-equipped force to synchronize intelligence, maneuver, effects, and logistics, as well as the exchange of information with joint or combined task force C2 systems and the Army's tactical C2 systems. In short, the C2 system will enable a force that is both network- and execution-centric to employ combined arms and joint capabilities at the lowest tactical echelons.

The current FCS C2 program was a 32-month Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)-led effort. The program, which ran from 1 October 2000 to 31 May 2003, was to develop a rapid C2 prototype. The test's hypothesis was, "If digitization of current battlefield operating systems can substantially enhance command and control by providing better, more accurate, and timely battlefield data to today's commander and staff for decisionmaking, then a 'new' approach to Battle Command and Control implemented in the form of synthesized/analyzed information presented to the future unit cell commander will enable him to leverage opportunities by focusing on fewer unknowns, clearly visualizing current and future end states, and dictating the tempo within a variety of environments, while being supported by a significantly reduced staff"

The program required a cold start. In 2000, no organization in the Army or DARPA was looking at a follow-on system to the current Army Battle Command System. DARPA was interested in a system that would support the network-centric approach to warfare that the program proposal envisioned. This bottom-up approach focused on developing and testing a system for the lowest combined arms echelon operating within a larger bottle space against an enemy with 2010 technology.

DARPA Lieutenant Colonel Gary Sauer and U.S. Army Communication-Electronics Command civilian Maureen Molz were selected as the program and deputy program managers. To build the C2 prototype, DARPA formed an operational team, a technical team, and experimentation team. Brigadier General Huba Wass de Czege, U.S. Army, Retired, mentored the operational team, composed of U.S. Army Forces Command and U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) officers involved in the Army's Transformation and digitization efforts. In essence, the team was a reconvening of the School of Advanced Military Studies planning cell that operated in the HI Corps from 1996 to 1998. Individuals joined the team on their own time and worked on the project with their command's permission as long as the work did not conflict with their assigned duties. The team focused on developing, with TRADOC and the FCS program manager, operational information exchange requirements, C2 requirements, and insight into doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures.

The technical team. which included personnel from academia, the Army, and industry, initially focused on the FCS C2 architecture study. The experimentation team consisted of personnel charged with developing the C2 prototype, the FCS C2 federation, and the overall plan to test the program's hypothesis. The experimentation team included a small, three-person cell of human-performance scientists from the U.S. Army Research Institute. The team was to develop and test the C2 prototype over the course of four experiments. The team built a prototype command, control, and communications system in just over 4 months and performed experiments to refine the system (spinal developed) and to gather insight.

The Commander Support Environment

The development team's first task was to define the system's qualities. The operational team designed a network-centric C2 system from the ground up, literally carte blanche. The team began with the capabilities resident in the current Army Battle Command System and added functions they thought network-centric warfare would require. Providing a networked system capable of fully integrating combined and joint arms was critical. The system had to be flexible, configurable to different staff command positions, and tailorable to individual cognitive functions. The team recognized that people process information differently; therefore, the system had to be flexible and highly adaptable.