DOCSLIB.ORG

Future Combat Systems Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Future Combat Systems Program CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Arroyo Center View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. ARROYO CENTER Lessons from the Army’s Future Combat Systems Program Christopher G. Pernin, Elliot Axelband, Jeffrey A. Drezner, Brian B. Dille, John Gordon IV, Bruce J. Held, K. Scott McMahon, Walter L. Perry, Christopher Rizzi, Akhil R. Shah, Peter A. Wilson, Jerry M. Sollinger Prepared for the United States Army Approved for public release; distribution unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Army under Contract No. W74V8H-06-C-0001. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pernin, Christopher G., 1973- Lessons from the Army's Future Combat Systems program / Christopher G. Pernin, Elliot Axelband, Jeffrey A. Drezner, Brian B. Dille, John Gordon IV, Bruce J. Held, K. Scott McMahon, Walter L. Perry, Christopher Rizzi, Akhil R. Shah, Peter A. Wilson, Jerry M. Sollinger. pages cm Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-8330-7639-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. United States. Army —Procurement. 2. Armored vehicles, Military—United States. 3. United States. Army—Weapons systems—Evaluation. 4. United States. Army— Technological innovations—Evaluation. 5. Technological innovations—United States— Management . 6. Systems engineering—United States—Management . I. Title. UC263.P46 2012 355.6'2120973—dc23 2012045151 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2012 RAND Corporation Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND documents are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/ publications/permissions.html). Published 2012 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] Preface The Future Combat Systems (FCS) program was the largest and most ambitious planned acquisition program in the Army’s history. As a program it was intended to field not just a system, but an entire brigade: a system of systems developed from scratch and integrated by means of an advanced, wireless network. Moreover, the FCS- equipped brigade would operate with novel doctrine that was being developed and tested along with the materiel components of the unit. To paraphrase the Army at the time, FCS was Army modernization. In 2009 the FCS program was cancelled, although some of its efforts contin- ued on as follow-on programs. The FCS program had garnered considerable attention throughout its existence, but few studies have been released documenting the lessons from the program to aid the Army in moving forward from such a large acquisition termination. In 2010, the Army’s Acquisition Executive asked RAND Arroyo Center to conduct an after-action analysis of the FCS program in order to leverage its successes and learn from its problems. This report documents a history and lessons from the FCS program. It should be of interest to the broad acquisition community, as well as those interested in Army modernization, requirements generation, and program management. This research was sponsored by Dr. Malcolm O’Neill, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisi- tion, Logistics and Technology. It was conducted within RAND Arroyo Center’s Force Development and Technology Program. RAND Arroyo Center, part of the RAND Corporation, is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the United States Army. The Project Unique Identification Code (PUIC) for the project that produced this document is HQD105725. iii iv Lessons from the Army Future Combat Systems Program For more information on RAND Arroyo Center, contact the Director of Oper- ations (telephone 310-393-0411, extension 6419; fax 310-451-6952; email Marcy_ [email protected]), or visit Arroyo’s web site at http://www.rand.org/ard.html. Contents Preface ................................................................................................. iii Figures ................................................................................................ xiii Tables .................................................................................................. xv Summary ............................................................................................ xvii Acknowledgments ................................................................................ xxxi Acronyms .......................................................................................... xxxiii chapter one Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 Background and Purpose ............................................................................. 1 Sources for This Report ............................................................................... 3 Organization of This Report .......................................................................... 3 chapter Two Background of the Future combat Systems Program ......................................... 5 Strategic Contexts of the 1990s Informed Capabilities ............................................ 5 FCS Grew Out of the Need to Move the Army into the Future ................................. 8 Not “Out of Nowhere” .............................................................................. 9 Program Assumptions Were Derived from the Army’s Understanding of the Future Operating Environment ......................................................................... 10 Most Conflicts Would Involve High-Intensity, State-to-State Combat ...................... 11 Army Forces Must Be Deployed Very Early in a Crisis ........................................ 12 Future Army Forces Would Have to Dominate Any Type of Conflict ....................... 13 Very High Levels of Situational Awareness Will Be Available to Army Forces .............. 14 Army Operations Would Be Supported by Intratheater Air Mobility of Light Mechanized/Motorized Forces ............................................................... 15 Conclusions and Lessons ............................................................................ 17 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 17 Lessons .............................................................................................. 18 v vi Lessons from the Army Future Combat Systems Program chapter Three cost, Schedule, and Performance of the FcS Program over Time ......................... 21 “System-of-Systems” Interoperability and Unit View Were Key to FCS Planning ............ 21 Initial FCS Schedule Incorporated Immediate and Future Goals ............................. 23 The Army Began Execution of the Vision Immediately ......................................... 24 Acquisition Was to Be Realized Through Multiple Stages ...................................... 26 Costs and Schedule During Concept and Technology Demonstration Phase: Why So Fast and All at Once? ................................................................. 28 Costs ................................................................................................. 28 Schedule ............................................................................................. 30 Problems Became Clear as FCS Neared Milestone B .........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Effectiveness of Influence Activities in Information Warfare
    The Effectiveness of Influence Activities in Information Warfare Cassandra Lee Brooker A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Research School of Business May 2020 Thesis/Dissertation Sheet Surname : BROOKER Given Name/s : CASSANDRA LEE Abbreviation for degree : MRes Faculty : UNSW Canberra School : School of Business Thesis Title : The Effectiveness of Influence Activities in Information Warfare Abstract Rapid, globalised power shifts, technological advances, and increasingly interconnected, ungoverned communications networks have resulted in the rise of asymmetric grey zone threats. The lines are now blurred between political, civil, and military information environments. The rise of influence activities is the new ‘sharp power’ in information warfare (the iWar). Western democracies are already at war in the information domain and are being out-communicated by their adversaries. Building on the commentary surrounding this contemporary threat, and based on a review of the literature across three academic disciplines of: Systems Thinking, Influence, and Cognitive Theory; this study aimed to investigate solutions for improving Australia’s influence effectiveness in the iWar. This study asked how systems thinking can offer an effective approach to holistically understanding complex social systems in the iWar; as well as asking why understanding both successful influencing strategies and psychological cognitive theories is central to analysing those system behaviours. To answer the aim, a systems thinking methodology was employed to compare two contrasting case studies to determine their respective influencing effectiveness. The successful case system comprising the terrorist group ISIS was compared and contrasted with the unsuccessful case system of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election campaign – using a single stock of influence to determine relevant reinforcing and balancing feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Agile Command Capability: Future Command in the Joint Battlespace and Its Implications for Capability Development
    UNCLASSIFIED DRAFT AGILE COMMAND CAPABILITY: FUTURE COMMAND IN THE JOINT BATTLESPACE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT Steven J. Harland, MPhil(Cantab), C. Psychol, FRSA Gregory Harland Ltd Surrey Research Park Guildford GU2 7YG United Kingdom Paul J. Shanahan, PhD Gregory Harland Ltd Surrey Research Park Guildford GU2 7YG United Kingdom Cdr David J. Bewick MA RN Command Development Directorate of Command and Battlespace Management/J6 Ministry of Defence St Giles Court 1-13 St Giles High Street London WC2H 8LD United Kingdom UNCLASSIFIED DRAFT UNCLASSIFIED DRAFT AGILE COMMAND CAPABILITY: FUTURE COMMAND IN THE JOINT BATTLESPACE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT1 Steven J. Harland, MPhil(Cantab), C. Psychol, FRSA Gregory Harland Ltd Surrey Research Park Guildford GU2 7YG United Kingdom Paul J. Shanahan, PhD Gregory Harland Ltd Surrey Research Park Guildford GU2 7YG United Kingdom Cdr David J. Bewick, MA RN Command Development Directorate of Command and Battlespace Management/J6 Ministry of Defence St Giles Court 1-13 St Giles High Street London WC2H 8LD United Kingdom Command cannot be understood in isolation. The available data processes technology and the nature of armaments in use; tactics and strategy; organisational structure and manpower systems; training, discipline, and…the ethos of war; the political construction of states and the social makeup of armies – all these things and many more impinge on command in war and in turn are affected by it.2 Martin van Creveld, Command in War ABSTRACT The paper defines the Ministry of Defence (MoD) requirements for Future Command3 within the context of the United Kingdom’s (UK) Joint Higher Level Operational Concept (HLOC).
    [Show full text]
  • Projected Acquisition Costs for the Army's Ground Combat Vehicles
    Projected Acquisition Costs for the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicles © MDart10/Shutterstock.com APRIL | 2021 At a Glance The Army operates a fleet of ground combat vehicles—vehicles intended to conduct combat opera- tions against enemy forces—and plans to continue to do so. Expanding on the Army’s stated plans, the Congressional Budget Office has projected the cost of acquiring such vehicles through 2050. Those projections include costs for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and for procurement but not the costs of operating and maintaining the vehicles. CBO’s key findings are as follows: • Total acquisition costs for the Army’s ground combat vehicles are projected to average about $5 billion per year (in 2020 dollars) through 2050—$4.5 billion for procurement and $0.5 billion for RDT&E. • The projected procurement costs are greater (in constant dollars) than the average annual cost for such vehicles from 2010 to 2019 but approximately equal to the average annual cost from 2000 to 2019 (when spending was boosted because of operations in Iraq). • More than 40 percent of the projected acquisition costs of Army ground combat vehicles are for Abrams tanks. • Most of the projected acquisition costs are for remanufactured and upgraded versions of current vehicles, though the Army also plans to acquire an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, which will replace the Bradley armored personnel carrier; an Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, which will replace the M113 armored personnel carrier; and a new Mobile Protected Firepower tank, which will be lighter than an Abrams tank. • The Army is also considering developing an unmanned Decisive Lethality Platform that might eventually replace Abrams tanks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Army's Future Combat System (FCS)
    The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS): Background and Issues for Congress Andrew Feickert Specialist in Military Ground Forces August 3, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32888 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS): Background and Issues for Congress Summary The Future Combat System (FCS) was a multiyear, multibillion dollar program at the heart of the Army’s transformation efforts. It was to be the Army’s major research, development, and acquisition program consisting of 14 manned and unmanned systems tied together by an extensive communications and information network. FCS was intended to replace current systems such as the M-1 Abrams tank and the M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The FCS program has been characterized by the Army and others as a high-risk venture due to the advanced technologies involved and the challenge of networking all of the FCS subsystems together so that FCS-equipped units could function as intended. The FCS program exists in a dynamic national security environment which ultimately played a role in determining the program’s fate. Some questioned if FCS, envisioned and designed prior to September 11, 2001, to combat conventional land forces, was relevant in current and anticipated future conflicts where counterinsurgency and stabilization operations are expected to be the norm. The Army contended, however, that FCS was relevant throughout the “entire spectrum of conflict” and that a number of FCS technologies and systems were effectively used in counterinsurgency and stabilization campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    [Show full text]
  • The Army's Future Combat System (FCS)
    = -*=72>8= :9:7*=42'&9=>89*2= a= &(0,74:3)=&3)=88:*8=+47=43,7*88= 3)7*<= *.(0*79= 5*(.&1.89=.3= .1.9&7>=74:3)=47(*8= &>=,3`=,**3= 43,7*88.43&1= *8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 18/1**= <<<_(78_,4;= -,222= =*5479=+47=43,7*88 Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress -*=72>8= :9:7*=42'&9=>89*2= a=&(0,74:3)=&3)=88:*8=+47=43,7*88= = :22&7>= The Future Combat System (FCS) was a multiyear, multibillion dollar program at the heart of the Army’s transformation efforts. It is was to be the Army’s major research, development, and acquisition program consisting of 14 manned and unmanned systems tied together by an extensive communications and information network. FCS was intended to replace current systems such as the M-1 Abrams tank and the M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The FCS program has been characterized by the Army and others as a high-risk venture due to the advanced technologies involved and the challenge of networking all of the FCS subsystems together so that FCS-equipped units could function as intended. The FCS program exists in a dynamic national security environment which ultimately played a role in determining the program’s fate. Some questioned if FCS, envisioned and designed prior to September 11, 2001 to combat conventional land forces, was relevant in current and anticipated future conflicts where counterinsurgency and stabilization operations are expected to be the norm. The Army contended, however, that FCS was relevant throughout the “entire spectrum of conflict” and that a number of FCS technologies and systems were effectively used in counterinsurgency and stabilization campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    [Show full text]
  • The Army's M-1 Abrams, M-2/M-3 Bradley, and M-1126 Stryker: Background and Issues for Congress
    The Army’s M-1 Abrams, M-2/M-3 Bradley, and M-1126 Stryker: Background and Issues for Congress (name redacted) Specialist in Military Ground Forces April 5, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44229 The Army’s M-1 Abrams, M-2/M-3 Bradley, and M-1126 Stryker Summary The M-1 Abrams Tank, the M-2/M-3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV), and the M-1126 Stryker Combat Vehicle are the centerpieces of the Army’s Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs). In addition to the military effectiveness of these vehicles, Congress is also concerned with the economic aspect of Abrams, Bradley, and Stryker recapitalization and modernization. Due to force structure cuts and lack of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) opportunities, Congress has expressed a great deal of concern with the health of the domestic armored combat vehicle industrial base. ABCTs and SBCTs constitute the Army’s “heavy” ground forces; they provide varying degrees of armored protection and mobility that the Army’s light, airborne (parachute), and air assault (helicopter transported) infantry units that constitute Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) do not possess. These three combat vehicles have a long history of service in the Army. The first M-1 Abrams Tank entered service with the Army in 1980; the M-2/M-3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle in 1981; and the Stryker Combat Vehicle in 2001. Under current Army modernization plans, the Army envisions all three vehicles in service with Active and National Guard forces beyond FY2028. There are several different versions of these vehicles in service.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel Egger Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c87w6jb1 Online items available Daniel Egger papers Finding aid prepared and updated by Gina C Giang. Manuscripts Department The Huntington Library 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2191 Fax: (626) 449-5720 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org © Finding aid last updated June 2019. The Huntington Library. All rights reserved. Daniel Egger papers mssEgger 1 Descriptive Summary Title: Daniel Egger papers Inclusive Dates: 1927-2019 Collection Number: mssEgger Collector: Egger, Daniel Frederic Extent: 3 boxes, 1 oversize folder, 1 flash drive, and 1 tube (1.04 linear feet) Repository: The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens Manuscripts Department 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2191 Fax: (626) 449-5720 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org Abstract: The Daniel Egger papers include correspondence, printed matter, and photographs related to Daniel Egger’s career in the aerospace industry. Language of Material: The records are in English and Spanish. Access Collection is open to qualified researchers by prior application through the Reader Services Department. For more information, please go to following web site . NOT AVAILABLE: The collection contains one flash drive, which is unavailable until reformatted. Please contact Reader Services for more information. RESTRICTED: Tube 1 (previously housed in Box 1, folder 1). Due to size of original, original will be available only with curatorial permission. Publication Rights The Huntington Library does not require that researchers request permission to quote from or publish images of this material, nor does it charge fees for such activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the PDF File
    Nick: Invisibility sounds like something out of a work of Sci-Fi. However, Northrop Grumman’s B2 Spirit is just that. While the B2 is not invisible to the naked eye, it can avoid detection by radar thanks to a specially designed frame and coating that deflects and nullifies radar waves. Radar waves are sent outwards, and bounce off of features such as engines and straight wings. By altering its shape and applying radar absorbent material, the B2 is able to minimize the radar waves that can be analyzed, making the B2 almost impossible to find. On top of being a stealth plane, the B2 is a flying wing, meaning it has no fuselage or tail. The B2 is meant to be a low observable stealth plane used to penetrate anti-aircraft defenses. It can carry both conventional and thermonuclear weapons, and is a unique aircraft that can carry heavy air-to-surface weapons while also remaining in stealth. But where did this technology come from? Daryl: As soon as radar was developed during World War Two, there was a need to evade radar. Efforts were made during and after the war to counter radar, and two German brothers were the first to find a solution. Walter and Reimar Horton were pilots with the German Luftwaffe, but also designed aircraft of their own. One of these was the Horton HO-229 jet, the earliest flying wing propelled by a jet, which also had radar wave absorbing material on the wings. They used a wood-carbon powder to absorb radar waves, making this the earliest stealth plane.
    [Show full text]
  • “Keep the Dream Alive”
    February 28, 2015 The 60th Annual Honors and Awards Banquet “Keep the Dream Alive” February 28, 2015 th 60 Honors & Awards Banquet Diamond Anniversary 1 The 60th Annual Honors and Awards Banquet February 28, 2015 National Engineers Week Committees ~ BANQUET COMMITTEE ~ Kenneth Davis, Sonja Domazet, Stephen Guine, William Johnson, Sharlene Katz, Paul Landry, Robert Tarn, Thomas R. Tarn, Charles Volk ~ HONORS & AWARDS COMMITTEE ~ Marek Barylak, Kenneth Davis, Stephen Guine, Sharlene Katz, Paul Landry, Charles Olsefsky, R. Freeman Straub, Robert B. Tarn ~ AWARDS ASSEMBLY ~ Ken Davis, Sonja Domazet, James Flynn, Bill Johnson, Sharlene Katz, Charles Olsefsky ~ HOST / HOSTESSES ~ Olivia Landry, Maria Tarn ~ SOUVENIR PROGRAM GRAPHICS & DESIGN ~ Paul Landry ~ AWARD GRAPHICS ~ Mike Matte ~ AUDIO / VIDEO ~ Swank Audio Visuals, Carlos Guerra ~ BANQUET SETUP / AWARDS DISTRIBUTION ~ Marissa Bayless, Margo Guerra ~ MATH COUNTS ~ Jerry Kraim, Eli Stiny Engineers’ Council Past Presidents 1970 William B. Johnson 1992 Robert Budica 2005 Robert B. Tarn 1980 Clifford B. Shiepe, PE 1993 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2006 Paul F. Landry 1981 Clifford B. Shiepe, PE 1994 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2007 Paul F. Landry 1982 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 1995 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2008 Patrick Berbon 1983 William F. Hassel, PE, FIAE 1996 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2009 Dr. Charles H. Volk 1984 Clifford Terry 1997 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2010 Dr. Charles H. Volk 1985 Roland V. Roggero 1998 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2011 Kenneth G. Davis 1986 James P. Ritchey 1999 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2012 Kenneth G. Davis 1987 James P. Ritchey 2000 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2013 Sonja Domazet 1988 Harlan L. Russ 2001 Lloyd W.
    [Show full text]
  • Civilians in Cyberwarfare: Conscripts
    Civilians in Cyberwarfare: Conscripts Susan W. Brenner* with Leo L. Clarke** ABSTRACT Civilian-owned and -operated entities will almost certainly be a target in cyberwarfare because cyberattackers are likely to be more focused on undermining the viability of the targeted state than on invading its territory. Cyberattackers will probably target military computer systems, at least to some extent, but in a departure from traditional warfare, they will also target companies that operate aspects of the victim nation’s infrastructure. Cyberwarfare, in other words, will penetrate the territorial borders of the attacked state and target high-value civilian businesses. Nation-states will therefore need to integrate the civilian employees of these (and perhaps other) companies into their cyberwarfare response structures if a state is to be able to respond effectively to cyberattacks. While many companies may voluntarily elect to participate in such an effort, others may decline to do so, which creates a need, in effect, to conscript companies for this purpose. This Article explores how the U.S. government can go about compelling civilian cooperation in cyberwarfare without violating constitutional guarantees and limitations on the power of the Legislature and the Executive. * NCR Distinguished Professor of Law and Technology, University of Dayton School of Law. ** Associate, Drew, Cooper & Anding, P.C., Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1011 1012 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law [Vol. 43:1011 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Warfare: the New Domain and Future Battle Space
    CYBER WARFARE: THE NEW DOMAIN AND FUTURE BATTLE SPACE Maj C.W. Ethelston JCSP 41 PCEMI 41 Exercise Solo Flight Exercice Solo Flight Disclaimer Avertissement Opinions expressed remain those of the author and Les opinons exprimées n’engagent que leurs auteurs do not represent Department of National Defence or et ne reflètent aucunement des politiques du Canadian Forces policy. This paper may not be used Ministère de la Défense nationale ou des Forces without written permission. canadiennes. Ce papier ne peut être reproduit sans autorisation écrite. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as © Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, représentée par represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2015. le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2015. CANADIAN FORCES COLLEGE – COLLÈGE DES FORCES CANADIENNES JCSP 41 – PCEMI 41 2014 – 2015 EXERCISE SOLO FLIGHT – EXERCICE SOLO FLIGHT CYBER WARFARE: THE NEW DOMAIN AND FUTURE BATTLE SPACE Maj C.W. Ethelston “This paper was written by a student “La présente étude a été rédigée par un attending the Canadian Forces College stagiaire du Collège des Forces in fulfilment of one of the requirements canadiennes pour satisfaire à l'une des of the Course of Studies. The paper is a exigences du cours. L'étude est un scholastic document, and thus contains document qui se rapporte au cours et facts and opinions, which the author contient donc des faits et des opinions alone considered appropriate and que seul l'auteur considère appropriés et correct for the subject. It does not convenables au sujet. Elle ne reflète pas necessarily reflect the policy or the nécessairement la politique ou l'opinion opinion of any agency, including the d'un organisme quelconque, y compris le Government of Canada and the gouvernement du Canada et le ministère Canadian Department of National de la Défense nationale du Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Operationally Responsive Space (ORS): an Architecture and Enterprise Model for Adaptive Integration, Test and Logistics
    Air Force Institute of Technology AFIT Scholar Theses and Dissertations Student Graduate Works 6-2008 Operationally Responsive Space (ORS): An Architecture and Enterprise Model for Adaptive Integration, Test and Logistics Jeff A. Alexander Martha Charles-Vickers Talbot L. Smith Michael L. Vickers Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.afit.edu/etd Part of the Other Aerospace Engineering Commons, and the Systems Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Alexander, Jeff A.; Charles-Vickers, Martha; Smith, Talbot L.; and Vickers, Michael L., "Operationally Responsive Space (ORS): An Architecture and Enterprise Model for Adaptive Integration, Test and Logistics" (2008). Theses and Dissertations. 2880. https://scholar.afit.edu/etd/2880 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Graduate Works at AFIT Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of AFIT Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE (ORS): AN ARCHITECTURE AND ENTERPRISE MODEL FOR ADAPTIVE INTEGRATION, TEST AND LOGISTICS THESIS Jeff Alexander Martha Charles-Vickers Talbot Smith Michael S. Vickers AFIT/GSE/ENV/08-J01DL DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED The views expressed in this thesis are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force,
    [Show full text]