BI-SC EXPERIMENTATION DIRECTIVE (75-4)

Transcription

1 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION Supreme Allied Commander, Europe 7010 SHAPE Belgium Supreme Allied Commander, Transformation Norfolk, Virginia United States of America BI-SC DIRECTIVE 19 Feb 2010 NUMBER 75-4 BI-SC EXPERIMENTATION DIRECTIVE (75-4) February 2010

2 This page intentionally left blank

3 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION Supreme Allied Commander, Europe 7010 SHAPE Belgium BI-SC DIRECTIVE BI-SC DIRECTIVE NUMBER 75-4 Supreme Allied Commander, Transformation Norfolk, Virginia United States of America EXPERIMENTATION DIRECTIVE This directive supersedes Bi-SC Directive 75-4 dated 31 July REFERENCES: A. MC 324/2 The NATO Military Command Structure B. MC 0583 MC Policy for Concept Development and Experimentation C. MC 458/2 The NATO Education, Training, Exercise and Evaluation Policy D. ACT 20-3 ACT Programming Process E. Strategic Vision: The Military Challenge F. Bi-SC 75-3 Exercise Directive G. Military Training and Exercise Program (MTEP) H. MC 317/1 NATO Force Structure 1. Applicability. This directive is applicable to all headquarters and units of both ACO and ACT to include the JCs, Component/Combatant Commands, JWC, JFTC, JALLC, and other stake holders supporting the NATO execise programme and NATO concept development and experimentation. 2. Interim Changes. Interim changes are authorized when approved by the Chief of Staff, SHAPE and the Chief of Staff, HQ SACT. 3. Purpose. To provide guidance for the implementation of experimentation and the integration of experimentation into the NATO exercise programme. 4. Supplementation. Supplementation is not authorized. 5. Explanation of Terms. A list of abbreviations and acronyms is at Annex A. 6. Proponent. The proponent for this directive is HQ SACT Capability Engineering Division, Operational Experimentation Branch. 1

4 7. Table of Contents. Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Page General 1-1 Aim 1-2 Scope 1-3 Chapter 2 EXPERIMENTATION General 2-1 Types of Experimentation 2-1 Forums for Experimentation 2-2 Experiment Integration 2-4 Chapter 3 FUNDING General 3-1 Costs and Funding 3-1 Experimentation Financial Planning & Budgeting Procedures 3-1 Specific Provisions 3-2 ANNEX A Abbreviations and Acronyms 2

5 AMENDMENTS/COMMENTS Users of this directive are invited to send amendments, comments or suggested improvements to the Experimentation Directive. Recommendations/proposed changes should be submitted to the appropriate POC at either ACO to SHAPE/DCOS Force Readiness/Readiness & Requirements Directorate/ or ACT to HQ SACT ACOS Capability Engineering. If urgent issues arise, requiring immediate resolution, instant reporting is to take place to the appropriate POC, after which resolution will be sought between both SC s and a possible change issued. RECORD OF CHANGES Change No. Date Issued Date Entered Name of Person Inserting change Signature 3

6 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION GENERAL 1. The revision of the NATO Military Command Structure (Reference A) specifies division of responsibilities of Allied Command Operations (ACO) and Allied Command Transformation (ACT) along functional lines with ACT providing the lead for transformation. 2. Transformation in the context of the Alliance is defined as a continuous and proactive process of developing and integrating innovative concepts, doctrines and capabilities in order to improve the effectiveness and interoperability of NATO and Partner forces. MC Policy for NATO Concept Development and Experimentation (Reference B) states that CD&E is one of the tools that drive NATO s transformation... Experimentation is key to the ongoing transformation of NATO s military capabilities and will provide an empirical method to explore new capabilities, refine concepts, and to validate new prototypes for implementation. The experimentation process relies not only on the activities of HQ SACT and its subordinate commands but also on those of ACO and external organisations. Within ACO, activities in terms of experimentation are coordinated through the Future Concepts and Capabilities Group (FCCG). 3. Experiments may take place in dedicated venues designed to host experimentation. Others may be integrated into Exercises, and these will require careful coordination with the Exercise and Training staff(s) so as neither to conflict with nor hamper the achievement of Exercise and Training objectives. Experiments may also take place in NATO Operations. Any experimentation to be carried out in an Operational context is subject to the Theatre Commander s agreement and also that of the mission commander. 4. Traditionally, experimentation within NATO has been a national responsibility; nations developed new doctrine and fielded new technologies within their national organizations. The transformation of NATO, the development of the NATO Response Force (NRF) concept, and the overall requirement to achieve a higher degree of interoperability and standardisation amongst Member and Partner nations require an evolution in experimentation within the Alliance. Lessons Learned from real-world operations have underscored the need to have a dynamic and flexible framework in place to continually upgrade and improve standardisation within NATO and between NATO and other nations. 5. MC 458/2, The NATO Education, Training, Exercise and Evaluation Policy (NETEEP) document (Reference C), is the capstone document setting forth the strategic guidance required by the Strategic Commanders (SCs) to develop comprehensive education, training, exercise, and evaluation requirements needed to set standards for 1-1

7 NATO s Military Headquarters (HQs) and those commands and units directly subordinate or assigned to them. 6. MC 458/2 states: ETEE supports the continuous transformation of the Alliance and its partners as an important basis for lessons identified and lessons learned and by supporting experimentation and development of new capabilities. Exercises will be used as the primary venue for experimentation. 7. ACT Directive 20-3, ACT Programming Process (Reference D), sets forth the principles and processes implemented by ACT to deliver an integrated capability development program in support of the seven Transformation Objective Areas identified in the Strategic Vision: The Military Challenge (Reference E), Information Superiority, NATO Network-Enabled Capability (NNEC), Effective Engagement, Joint Manoeuvre, Enhanced CIMIC, Expeditionary Operations and Integrated Logistics. 8. Bi-SC 75-3 Exercise Directive (Reference F) states that a general aim of exercises is to Exploit opportunities for transformation, in particular Concept Development and Experimentation (CD&E). The document stipulates roles and responsibilities pertaining to integration and implementation of experimentation in exercises at the strategic as well as the operational level. 9. This Experimentation Directive (EXPD) is the implementing directive for experimentation within NATO. AIM 10. The aim of this directive is to provide guidance on the implementation of experimentation, how it is defined, directed, and coordinated, within NATO to include the following: a. Provide an experimentation overview. b. Identify potential forums for experimentation. c. Allow integration of experimentation into the NATO exercise programme. d. Identify funding responsibilities for experimentation activities. SCOPE 11. This document sets forth guidelines for the NATO Command Structure (NCS) and the NATO Force Structure (NFS) to serve as a common basis for their experimentation requirements to support NATO CD&E. The directive provides essential guidance to 1-2

8 Commanders on their experimentation responsibilities, based on Peacetime Force Affiliations (PFAs) between the NCS and NFS. 12. Increased levels of interoperability and standardisation will help prevent duplication of effort and ensure more efficient use of resources as directed by MC 458/2. These desired levels must also be sought through experimental efforts generated by NATO s desire to transform the NCS and NFS. This effort, led by ACT, will be an integral part of future training and exercises. 13. This document is intended to provide guidance within NATO members and associated partners, such as Partnership for Peace and Mediterranean Dialogue members, as to how ACT will accept, coordinate and execute experiments as per Reference D. It is not intended to instruct nations on how to execute their own experimentation programs within their national exercises. However, it may provide guidance in those instances where NATO is invited to participate in those national exercises. 1-3

9 CHAPTER 2 EXPERIMENTATION GENERAL 1. Operational Experimentation involves the integration of a set/collection of discrete experiment events into real (or near-real) operational environments to provide levels of information and insight not available from other traditional means such as operational research, joint analysis, or lessons learned from operations, exercises and training. The process aims to lower the risk of future acquisition and to help in the development of innovative and effective operational capabilities by supporting the development of concepts or the validation of new solutions under operational conditions, and in doing so, also exposes the training audience to potential new capabilities. 2. Experimentation as a tool to validate new capabilities is an essential part of NATO transformation. It is necessary to coordinate the NATO military exercise program with the ACT led Concept Development and Experimentation programs to accommodate the need for exercises as experimentation venues. Inserting operational experiments into exercises involves the warfighters in transformational efforts and contributes to a NATO culture of innovation. Allowing for experimentation in exercises should be the rule, rather than the exception, as long as experimentation activities do not seriously conflict with the training objectives of the exercise. TYPES OF EXPERIMENTATION 3. A dictionary definition of experiment is a test to determine the efficacy of something previously untried, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to demonstrate a known truth. There are three general types of experiments. a. Discovery. Discovery experiments involve introducing novel systems, concepts, organizational structures, technologies, or other elements to a setting where their use can be observed and catalogued. They are typically employed early in the development cycle, and their goals are to identify potential benefits, generate ideas about how the innovation may be employed, and identify the conditions under which it can be used. Although having specific expectations and having observation and measurement in place to assess those expectations, the outcomes of discovery experiments are generally insights and knowledge rather than full quantitative analyses and do not ordinarily provide enough information to reach a final conclusion. A discovery experiment must anticipate insights from unexpected events or developments and may bring to light unforeseen requirements or limitations. It may identify ideas that patently do not work, raising questions about the benefits being sought and the dynamics involved in implementing the idea, or specifying its limiting conditions. Discovery-type 2-1

10 capabilities experiments should produce actionable recommendations that address desired operational capabilities. b. Hypothesis Testing. Hypothesis testing experiments are the classic type used to advance knowledge by seeking to prove/disprove specific hypotheses or to discover their limiting conditions, or to test whole theories or observable hypotheses derived from such theories. Hypothesis testing experiments build knowledge or refine our understanding of a knowledge domain. The experimenter(s) create a situation in which one or more factors of interest can be observed systematically under conditions that vary the values of other factors thought to cause change in the factors of interest, while other potentially relevant factors are held constant. Results from hypothesis testing experiments are always caveated with all other things being equal. Both control and manipulation are integral to formulating hypothesis-testing experiments. Since the number of independent, dependent, and control variables relevant in the military arena is very large, no single experiment is likely to do more than improve knowledge marginally and help clarify new issues. Sets of related hypothesis testing experiments are often needed in order to gain useful knowledge and resolve issues. c. Validation. Validation experiments recreate known truth; they are analogous to the experiments in which following prescribed procedures show that the laws of chemistry and physics operate as the underlying theories predict. The NATO equivalent activities are technology demonstrations that show that an innovation can, under carefully orchestrated conditions, improve the efficiency, effectiveness, or speed of a military activity. The employed technologies are well established and the setting is orchestrated to show that these technologies can be employed efficiently and effectively under the specified conditions. Validation experiments display existing knowledge to people unfamiliar with it. Empirical observation is done to record the results and note the conditions under which the demonstration occurred; failure to do so can lead to unrealistic expectations and inappropriate applications of the innovations. This happens when capabilities developed for a specific demonstration are transferred to a very different context, leading to failure because they had not been properly adapted. To further support prototype development, a demonstration experiment may be done in an operational environment under live field conditions. It must be noted that operational testing in the field of a delivered capability is different than a validation experiment. FORUMS FOR EXPERIMENTATION 4. Experimentation requires different environments to help provide the best solutions: standalone environments to develop discrete immature concepts, live exercises and simulations involving operations staff to explore some of the more complex interactions of new concepts with existing practices, and, if circumstances warrant, the use of operational environments (where appropriate and allowable by the force commander) to produce viable solutions to particularly complex problems. 2-2

11 a. Exercises. By inserting Experimentation into operational/training exercises, NATO can nurture a culture of innovation, where not only SCs, but also warfighters, continuously look for better ways to address challenges. Experimentation in exercises will be the rule rather than the exception. Experimentation must be coordinated with the exercise staff to ensure that integration of the experiments is compatible with the attainment of the Exercise and Training objectives. (1) Headquarters. Headquarters exercises are normally conducted at the joint staff level. If carefully managed, these Command Post Exercises (CPX), and Computer-Assisted Exercises (CAX) provide opportunities for experimentation using fully trained personnel. (2) Crisis Management Exercise (CMX). A CMX is normally conducted at the strategic political/military level and is an events-driven exercise to practice procedures for consultation and collective decision making to maintain and improve the Alliance s ability to manage crises. (3) Live Exercise (LIVEX). A LIVEX is field exercise involving deployed air, ground, and/or maritime units under operational/tactical conditions. b. Operational Theatre. Operations in theatre provide an actual field environment and may facilitate more rapid development of an essential capability. Any experimentation to be carried out in an Operational context is subject to the Theatre Commander s agreement and the decision to host an experiment in the field lies in the mission commander s remit after thorough assessment of the situation. c. Others (including Stand Alone Event). In general these venues are not planned, funded, or prioritised within yearly exercise and training program (MTEP), but may be designed to develop Experiments, reduce risk and support Experiments within exercises like the Steadfast series. (1) Limited Objective Experiment (LOE). An event driven venue specifically designed and tailored to support the experiments therein. (2) Multi-National Experiment (MNE). MNE is a USJFCOM-sponsored series that brings nations and NATO into USJFCOM-sponsored experiments to test different facets of warfare involving Coalition forces. The Multinational Interoperability Council (MIC) nations and NATO are the multinational partners in these experiments. (3) War Games. Carefully constructed scenarios in which experienced civilian and military representatives must make decisions on using force in the context of future conflict environments may be used to explore future security 2-3

12 environments and the merits of alternative concepts for meeting critical military challenges over the longer term. They can be invaluable guides to concept development and refinement. (4) Battlelabs. Provide a synthetic environment for experimentation of new technologies, processes, and techniques and procedures. Results from modelling can be tested in a simulated environment allowing for further development and maturation of concepts before they are introduced to a live exercise. (5) Workshops/Seminars. Gatherings with a specific theme designed to foster discussions, sharing of ideas, and information gathering. 5. The NATO Military and Training Exercise Program (MTEP) (Reference G), promulgated annually, provides a 5-year outlook of exercises, both NATO and non- NATO. These exercises are considered to be the primary locations for operational experimentation. The potential for association of experiments with these exercises requires close cooperation of ACT and ACO. ACT will coordinate with ACO and Nations to access forces necessary to conduct training, exercises and experiments in support of transformation objectives. EXPERIMENT INTEGRATION 6. To facilitate the goal of Transformation, all venues must be open to the integration of experimentation. In principle, the owner of an exercise/event is to support the entry of experimentation and the participants are to accept and support experimentation. Equally, the experiment sponsors are to provide as seamless an integration as possible so as to minimize the effect of the experiment on the conduct of the exercise/event or the achievement of the exercise/event objectives by the participants. To this end, the experiment objectives are to be included as exercise/event supporting objectives/transformational Objectives. 7. Experiment sponsors (those persons/commands responsible for the experiment) are to establish contact with the exercise/event coordinators as early as possible to bring experiment planning into the exercise/event planning process. Experiment design, execution requirements and timeline, and support requirements must be identified and coordinated to ensure that the exercise/event is a proper venue for the experiment, that the experiment can be accommodated, and that the accommodation is in keeping with, or made part of, the design of the exercise/event. 8. Experiment representative(s) need to be involved in the exercise development process as early as possible to include attendance at exercise design conferences, as appropriate, as well as exercise planning conferences. 2-4

13 9. Costs directly related to experimentation normally fall to the experiment sponsors; exercise funding is not to pay for experimentation. However, experimentation funding is not to be used to subsidize the costs associated with the planning and execution of an exercise that would have been incurred regardless of any experimentation participation. Venue hosts are asked to provide the same general support as provided to participants (coordination of lodging, transportation, worksite, etc.). Exercise participants can also be expected to be experimentation participants to the extent that their experiment participation falls in line with their exercise participation. 10. JWC, on behalf of ACT, will facilitate and manage the integration of experiments into appropriate venues in close coordination with ACO. 2-5

14 CHAPTER 3 FUNDING GENERAL 1. Within the framework given by the NATO Financial Regulations (NFRs) and their implementing procedures and the decisions of the Military Budget Committee (MBC), SCs are authorised to give additional guidance on preparation and execution of budgets supporting experimentation activities. 2. NATO experimentation is to be conducted in the most cost effective manner that meets NATO strategic interests and operational objectives. The NFRs direct all financial processes at the strategic, operational and tactical levels. In accordance with these regulations, NATO Commanders at all levels are responsible for the cost effective and accurate administration of resources provided to support experimentation activities. In order to accommodate emerging requirements within approved budget ceilings, commanders will frequently be required to take difficult decisions regarding relative priorities of competing exercise experimentation programme elements. COSTS AND FUNDING 3. ACT s experimentation budget is designed to support ACT s development and execution of experiments, including the incremental costs to NATO HQs of hosting experimentation in their events. As such, NATO military organisations hosting experimentation in their venues will have funding allocated to them by ACT to fund the incremental costs of their doing so. 4. Nations are to fund the costs of their forces or personnel already participating in the event who either contribute to, or benefit from, NATO experimentation activities. Transportation of forces to the exercise location and the costs of their activities in the field are a national expense to be borne by the participating nations. NATO commands and Nations who wish to send their staff to participate or observe experiments are responsible for funding them. ACT will only centrally budget for ACT participants and exceptionally for non-act personnel essential to support the experiments. EXPERIMENTATION FINANCIAL PLANNING & BUDGETING PROCEDURES 5. Experimentation Budgets. To the extent possible, the resource requirements of the SC overall experimentation programme should be collectively programmed and prioritised. Experimentation is considered to be an activity of all NATO Commands. However, due to the cyclical (non-annual) nature of these activities and of exercise events, normal HQ expenditure profiles would be severely distorted if these costs were distributed via the annual HQ budgets. As such, experimentation should be budgeted centrally to the extent determined appropriate by the SCs. Based on affordability 3-1

15 determinations developed through the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) prioritisation process, the SCs are responsible for screening the budget inputs from subordinate HQs, and assembling detailed SC-wide experimentation budgets for their upcoming financial year. These budgets are reviewed by the MBC, defended by the SC, and approved by the North Atlantic Council (NAC). For centralised budgets, the SCs will then allocate the approved experimentation budgets to the HQs responsible for executing the various budget segments. Experimenters must budget the full cost of their development and conduct of experiments and their own travel and participation in exercises, but not those of exercise participants that may be requested to support an experiment integrated into an exercise. 6. Budget Preparation and Submission. Budget estimates will be prepared by the HQs in accordance with instructions and target figures issued by the SC Financial Controllers. In general, the Experimentation Budget Fund Managers at each command will submit their estimates to the Experiment Budget Fund Managers at the parent HQ. They will in turn aggregate estimates, prioritise requirements within target allocations, and prepare impact statements for submission to the SC Experimentation Budget Fund Manager. The SC Experimentation Budget Fund Manager will submit the consolidated estimates, together with impact statements addressing any unfunded requirements to the Budget and Finance Division who will assemble the final budget documents. These estimates will be submitted to the Military Budget Committee. 7. Budget Execution. NATO Commanders at all levels are responsible for conducting their experimentation programmes within their own budgets or within the financial limits allocated to them by the SC, and for the proper accounting for all funds provided. They are responsible for ensuring the propriety of all expenditures, and the overall costeffectiveness of their activities. In turn, SCs are responsible to the nations for the proper inclusion of experimentation activities in SC financial reports, and the overall cost-effectiveness of the SC experimentation programme. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS 8. Exercises. Specific guidance regarding eligibility of NATO staffs, augmentation personnel, and contributed forces is detailed at MC 458/2 (Reference C) and MC 317/1 (Reference H). Experimentation funding is not to be used to supplement or replace funding of exercise related activities. 9. Experimentation. NATO Commanders are authorised to test/validate developing military capabilities and plans through the conduct of experimentation. Funding for experimentation related activities must come from approved experimentation budgets and can be used to cover the incremental costs (those above and beyond routine command activity) directly associated with Experimentation Support (venue development) and Experiment Projects. 3-2

16 10. Command and Force Structure Elements. Military HQs and Agencies may conduct experimentation educational programmes consistent with their terms of reference. These may be in co-ordination with or support of educational institutions, or represent SC-endorsed initiatives conducted by the HQs themselves. For these programmes, costs lie where they fall among contributors and the beneficiaries. The costs for personnel participating in experimentation training will normally be funded by the parent organisation of those personnel. 11. Other. Other situations not falling within the above general categories should be deferred to the appropriate SC for decisions and/or guidance. SCs should obtain guidance from the funding committees as appropriate. FOR THE SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDERS, EUROPE AND TRANSFORMATION: Karl-Heinz Lather General, DEU A Chief of Staff R G COOLING Vice Admiral, GBR N Chief of Staff ANNEX: A. Abbreviations and Acronyms DISTRIBUTION: External Action: JFC HQ Brunssum JFC HQ Naples Joint HQ Lisbon CC-Mar HQ Northwood CC-Mar HQ Naples CC-Land HQ Heidelberg CC-Land HQ Madrid CC-Air HQ Ramstein CC-Air HQ Izmir HQ NAEW&C FC 3-3

17 HQ ASC Joint Warfare Centre Joint Forces Training Centre Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Centre Information: HQ STRIKFORNATO HQ FRMARFOR HQ ITMARFOR HQ SPMARFOR HQ UKMARFOR HQ ARRC HQ NRDC-GENL HQ NRDC-IT HQ NRDC-SP HQ NRDC-TU HQ EC HQ FR RRC HQ MNC NE HQ 2 nd PL Corps HQ NDC-GR Internal Action: SHAPE: ACOS J7 HQ SACT: JEEA JET Information: SHAPE: NMR Echelon for Nations DCOS OPS DCOS Support HSG S1 Central Records 3-4

18 10 ANNEX A TO Bi-SC DIR 75-4 DATED: 19 FEB ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ACO - Allied Command Operations ACT - Allied Command Transformation BI-SC - Bi-Strategic Command CAX - Computer Assisted Exercise CD&E - Concept Development and Experimentation CIMIC - Civil Military Cooperation CMX - Crisis Management Exercise CPX - Command Post Exercise ETEE Education, Training, Exercise and Evaluation EU European Union EXPD - Experiment Directive FCCG Future Concepts and Capabilities Group HQ - Headquarters JWC - Joint Warfare Centre LIVEX - Live Exercise LOE - Limited Objective Experiment MC Military Committee MBC Military Budget Committee MD Mediterranean Dialogue MNE - Multi-National Experiment MTEP - Military Training and Exercise Program MTFP - Medium Term Financial Plan NAC - North Atlantic Council NCS - NATO Command Structure NETEEP - NATO Education, Training, Exercise and Evaluation Policy NFR - NATO Financial Regulations NFS - NATO Force Structure NNEC - NATO Network-Enabled Capability NRF - NATO Response Force PFA - Peacetime Force Affiliation PfP - Partnership for Peace POC Point Of Contact SACT Supreme Allied Command for Transformation SC - Strategic Commander SHAPE Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe A-1