Effective C4ISR is a critical ingredient for the success of any military operation. Coalition operations such as Joint Endeavor present a complex set of challenges for the military C4ISR system planners, implementers, and operators. The most difficult challenge is the provision of integrated C4ISR services and capabilities to support the needs of ad hoc multinational military force structures and politically driven command arrangements. Although integrated C4ISR services are the desired objective, the realities tend to drive the solution to stove-piped implementations. In spite of technology advances, this will likely be the case for some time to come. There will continue to be uneven C4ISR capabilities among coalition members who will continue to rely on systems with which they are most comfortable-their own. For the IFOR operation, there were independent and separately managed NATO and national voice, message, data, and VTC networks; C4 systems and ISR systems; and so forth. This is simply the reality of coalition operations, with interoperability challenges and security disconnects that need to be dealt with. Agility and accommodation are truly keys to success in these types of operation.
In spite of formidable obstacles, NATO and its member nations were able to "put the pieces of the puzzle together" and installed and operated the largest military-civil communications and information system ever built to support a major peace operation-one of the success stories of Operation Joint Endeavor. The U.S. military CIS (communications and information systems) organizations (in particular, the U.S. Signal organizations such as 5th Signal Command) played a key leadership role in accomplishing the successful integration of the disparate NATO and national CIS systems. NATO, SHAPE, NACOSA, AFSOUTH, the IFOR CJ6, the ARRC, NC3A, and the United States, United Kingdom, and France all went through a very rapid learning curve, and many of the problems discussed herein were solved early into the IFOR operation by good will and good people working together for a common cause.
The U.S. Signal organizations also played a key leadership role in the establishment and staffing of the CJCCC (Combined Joint Communications Control Center) and the management of the IFOR CIS network. The United States provided 59 percent of the military communicators in theater at the peak of the operation. The prominent role of U.S. Signal officers in key positions in NATO, SHAPE, AFSOUTH, IFOR CJ6, EUCOM, DISA, USAREUR/5th Signal Command, USAFE, and other organizations was an important unifying factor. Many IFOR problems associated with system integration issues, ambiguous roles, incomplete doctrine, network and system management, and technical interoperability were successfully resolved through close coordination among these U.S. officers. The UK was also a key facilitator in this regard with important contributing players in NATO, SHAPE, NACOSA, AFSOUTH, the IFOR CJ6, the ARRC, and UK Signal units. The United Kingdom provided 32 percent of the military communicators in theater at the peak of the operation. NATO organizations such as AFSOUTH CISD (Communications and Information Systems Division), IFOR CJ6, SHAPE CISD, NACOSA, ARRC G6, and NC3A-the Hague rose to the occasion and provided untiring support to IFOR CIS installation, operation, and problem resolution activities as well.
In peace operations, it is necessary to be able to interface with the civil organizations such as the NGOs, PVOs, and IOs. In Bosnia there were more than 500 such personnel already operating in country when IFOR arrived and they relied on HF/VHF radios, regional Bosnia PTT telecommunications service where it existed, and to a large extent the UN VSAT voice network that supported UNPROFOR and other in-country UN elements. Some also had laptop computers, but none possessed the same level of communications and information system capabilities as the military.
The units deploying into BiH deployed into an area where the communication infrastructure had been destroyed and where the lack of cooperation among the former warring factions precluded the establishment of a BiH PTT-derived commercial communications capability to support or augment IFOR connectivity needs, especially cross-IEBL connectivity. In this regard, military owned and controlled primary connectivity was still a requirement for cross-IEBL and other essential C2 links.
The Bosnia population was literate and relatively well educated and was used to all forms of media that characterize an "information society." The local and international radio, television, and print media were everywhere, operating independently of the military and reporting incidents almost instantaneously, sometimes before they were reported to IFOR. This created challenges for IFOR staff and placed added demands on the CIS network to be able to get the right information to the right place at the right time to meet not only the operational needs but to also accommodate the "CNN" effect (unsubstantiated media reports).
There were hazards and risks that had to be dealt with during Operation Joint Endeavor. The terrain and weather conditions were extreme. The commercial power was unreliable or in many cases did not exist. There was a lack of public water and space for housing C4ISR support personnel. Dust and dirt proved to be a challenge for the deployed commercially based, high-technology computer equipment that needed a relatively dust-free operational environment. Viruses also proved to be a problem for the computers and data networks, the main source being infected diskettes brought into the command centers by the staff. Minefields were numerous and added risk to all deployed C4ISR personnel. The force protection measures required soldiers to wear flack vests and helmets and travel in four-vehicle convoys, adding another challenge for those involved in the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the C4ISR systems.
There were other factors that influenced NATO and national activities in preparation for and execution of the IFOR deployment. The operation was occurring at a time when NATO and the nations were reducing force structures. Non-NATO and Partnership for Peace nations would be involved for the first time as well as the Russian Federation, and there was little guidance on how to proceed with these first-time events. In addition to the first out-of-area operation, it was also the first major ground operation ever. There were multiple OPLANs that added some confusion to the guidance for the CIS plans and management structure. NATO would be taking over from the UN and other peacekeeping agencies and this had some built-in uncertainties, including access to, integration of, and use of the already in-place CIS infrastructure of the UN, UK, and France. Deployment would take place in the depth of winter in an area of difficult terrain. The likelihood of hostilities was a major concern because of the fragility of the peace arrangements in Bosnia. There were effects on morale associated with deploying troops over the Christmas period. Therefore, one should not underestimate the degree of difficulty NATO and the nations faced as they prepared for and deployed to Bosnia in support of Operation Joint Endeavor.
CIS planning commenced more than 2 years prior to the Dayton Peace Accord being signed. Planning for OPLAN 40101 began in late summer of 1992 with the proposal of the Vance-Owens Peace Plan. The concept was to replace the UNPROFOR with NATO forces. The ARRC was given the mission as the ground component commander and the responsibility to develop the scheme of maneuver. The plan matured and was re-designated as OPLAN 40103 in the fall of 1993, when it appeared that a larger replacement of UNPROFOR by a NATO force might be required.
In December 1994, members of USEUCOM staff met with AFSOUTH staff to discuss U.S. support for possibly assisting the UN in a withdrawal from Croatia and BiH. As a result of these discussions, preliminary planning for OPLAN 40104 began. By March of 1995, the political climate in Bosnia had deteriorated to the point that NATO planning for intervention resumed. OPLAN 40104 was developed for the sole purpose of withdrawing the UN from Bosnia and established the statement of requirements for the support of that operation. In September 1995, the political climate changed again; it appeared that peace was at hand in the region. As a result, in October 1995, NATO was directed by the North Atlantic Council to finalize plans for a peace-enforcement operation and AFSOUTH developed OPLAN 40105 to support this mission. NATO and national CIS organizations were thus left trying to hit a fast-moving political target and the changing operational plans did nothing to assist with the provision of "in time" CIS support. In fact, it made the situation more difficult.
Further complicating the planning was the fact that NATO had never attempted peace enforcement and it was its first ever out-of-area operation. Consequently, there was no doctrine, experience, or accepted practices to guide CIS planning and implementation-the NATO Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) was just a concept and not doctrine. There were multiple NATO and national CIS organizations involved in the planning and implementation activities. The division of strategic, theater, and tactical CIS was less distinct for both NATO and national systems. AFSOUTH and SACEUR OPLANs reflected differing perspectives on CIS management and responsibilities. The Dayton Agreement assigned frequency management responsibilities to IFOR even though it had no established capability. These factors caused CIS organizational problems at the outset for IFOR CJ6. In order to address the shortfalls, a Theater Frequency Management Cell (TFMC) was created and a Combined Joint Communications Control Center (CJCCC) was established to focus the theater-level planning and management of the CIS aspects of the IFOR operation. The CJCCC also facilitated coordination of NATO, national, strategic, theater, and tactical CIS activities.
The operational scenario for Joint Endeavor was unclear at the outset and national planning was being kept closely held. Hence, who was going where, when, and with what equipment were unclear to the NATO planners. Also, a lack of timely political planning guidance caused last-minute changes to bring the CIS plan in line with new policy decisions. For example, there was a requirement for COMIFOR to be in theater but AFSOUTH had no mobile headquarters capability. Thus it was necessary to look for a facility first in Zagreb and then at the last minute in Sarajevo. Neither in-country facility was configured as an operational headquarters from a CIS perspective, and because space was a premium in Sarajevo, it became necessary to locate part of the headquarters in the rear, initially in Zagreb. A comparable rear area capability was established in Naples at the same time as well. This added unanticipated last-minute requirements to the CIS plan. The ambiguities in C2 arrangements exacerbated the CIS planning problems.
Delayed political decisions prohibited forces from performing any real reconnaissance of the Bosnia area of operation, which prevented headquarters, communications, and command center site surveys prior to deployment. Some reconnaissance was possible in Croatia. Hungary was a different situation, where U.S. reconnaissance was possible to prepare for the deployment of U.S. support elements. NATO had never worked operationally with the non-NATO nations scheduled to participate and there was no doctrine on how their needs and CIS capabilities would be accommodated and integrated into the IFOR operational network.
In spite of the highly uncertain planning and operational environment and a lack of established CIS requirements, NATO, IFOR, and the nations still needed to plan for deployment. They had to anticipate potential requirements and provide a CIS capability robust enough to accommodate unanticipated needs and surges should they occur. It was generally felt (at least by the United States) that it would be better to err on the side of providing too much CIS capability rather than not enough given the uncertainties of the operational environment. NATO was not fully supportive of an approach to "flood" with resources to overcome a problem.
The NATO and IFOR framework member nation commands (i.e., NATO, SHAPE, AFSOUTH, ARRC, and the United States and United Kingdom, in particular) had to plan with a minimum of guidance and a lack of established requirements for the C4ISR capabilities to be deployed. The CIS contingency plans therefore had to be flexible enough to accommodate possible operational options ranging from assisting with the removal of the UNPROFOR, to peace enforcement, to peacekeeping, to war fighting. Furthermore, NATO lacked the CIS capability to deploy out of area. Limited military satellite bandwidth offered a major challenge as well. Two NATO satellites and one U.S. satellite were used but the bandwidth was still limited by space segment power and was inadequate to meet IFOR and national requirements. It was therefore necessary to rely on leased international vendor-provided commercial satellite services to fill the gap (e.g., IEC, SPACELINK, AT&T, and ITALIALINK).
The challenge facing NATO and the nations was to build a long haul and regional CIS network out of a mixture of military and commercial equipment that would vary widely in age, standards, and technology and would be built very quickly once given the order to deploy. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together (see figure 11-1) would most likely not result in a true "system of systems" for IFOR. Furthermore, there would be a need to interface systems that had not been planned or designed for interfacing. The independent national systems would be tied together, not engineered as a single system. Given the uncertainty of the situation it would most likely be a case of integrating what you get, not necessarily what you need, and then making the best of it. In addition, it would be necessary to support both mobile tactical command centers and fixed headquarters located in "buildings of opportunity," such as the Annex to the Tito Residence (see picture) in downtown Sarajevo, hotels in Ilidza, the 1984 Olympic stadium and ice rink in Zetra, a factory in Banja Luka, office buildings at the airfields in Tuzla and Mostar, and Croatian military compounds in Zagreb and Split.
No single NATO or national organization was capable of providing the entire CIS infrastructure to support the operation. In addition, NATO took time to build up the organization and structure to plan, implement, operate, and manage the integrated strategic, theater, and tactical CIS capability required for such a large out-of-area coalition peace operation. NATO turned to the nations to assist in the form of experience, staff, and CIS capabilities and the United States, United Kingdom, and France played lead nation roles in this regard. The timely and effective response of these nations and 9 months of pre-planning by NACOSA allowed AFSOUTH to quickly react to the signing of the Dayton GFAP and rapidly deploy enough CIS capability to allow IFOR to take command and control of the operation.
IFOR Headquarters, Sarajevo
The U.S. military strategic, theater, and tactical C4ISR systems and services provided critical communications and information systems and services in support of the IFOR operation, especially the tactical SHF SATCOM (the United States provided 76 percent of the tactical SHF terminals). The U.S. Tri-Service Tactical Communications (TRI-TAC) tactical systems formed the basis for the IFOR strategic- and theater-level network and TRI-TAC/MSE were used to support MND(N) and the national units assigned to it. The British tactical systems were the other major player in the IFOR operation. The PTARMIGAN tactical system supported the ARRC and its connectivity with the MNDs and supported MND(SW) and the national units assigned to it as well. The UK tactical SHF terminals were key contributors to the IFOR backbone connectivity (the VSC-501s provided 22 percent of the tactical SHF terminals). The French tactical systems supported MND(SE) and the national units assigned to it. The French tactical SHF terminals only supported national connectivity needs. NATO-acquired CIS and leased commercial services provided a key portion of the rest of the IFOR capabilities extended into Croatia and Bosnia. The NATO TSGT (Transportable Satellite Ground Terminal) provided military SHF SATCOM access to the IFOR headquarters in Sarajevo.
Deployment into urban facilities provided interesting challenges for the implementation teams since they were required to wire these facilities for voice and data services from scratch. This included installing LANs and telephone lines; removing tactical equipment from their shelters and installing them in fixed facilities; installing cables in buildings and on compounds; installing VSAT terminals; and performing numerous other non-tactical installation functions. The installation activities stretched the abilities of the multinational teams deployed and required personnel with broad skills and training in order that they could be used for more than one task. The extensive use of commercial products (e.g., VSATs, IDNXs, routers, and ERICSSON telephone switches) meant that the military personnel needed additional training to engineer, install, and maintain this equipment as well. An IDNX course was set up at the NATO Latina, Italy, training facility to meet the IFOR need for installers and maintainers of this equipment. There were no "Tandy/Radio Shacks" in Bosnia so this put additional pressure on the support system for commercial equipment spares, repairs, and contractor assistance.
For any military operation, a certain amount of "learning on the job" is expected. However, the deployment into a generally urban environment (using office buildings for command centers), coupled with the extensive use of commercial products and services, created a need for more intensive on-the-job-training (OJT) than had been anticipated, both for the providers and users of the information services. OJT training programs were set up by the CIS providers not only to train their staff but also to teach command center staff how to use the information systems in the centers.
The proliferation of different information systems resulted in a situation where no one person was cross-trained to operate or maintain all of the systems in the command centers. Furthermore, the information system capabilities deployed were not being exploited due to the fact that the users lacked training and adequate understanding of the full potential of these systems. In many cases, information systems were simply used for word processing, e-mail, and PowerPoint briefings. SOCIFOR/JSOTF2 reported that the systems under their control could best be characterized as "too many, too duplicative."
There was a significant lack of trained data systems and network administrators. They were constantly in high demand and there were simply not enough of them to adequately meet the needs of the information networks deployed. The military also lacked experienced, system-level maintenance and network management personnel in theater to troubleshoot the complex information networks deployed. Contractor support and the professional skills of those at the SHAPE Technical Center (now the NATO C3 Agency, the Hague) and national elements such as 5th Signal Command and DISA had to be brought to bear to help solve complex system-level problems.
Training needs were not limited to information systems alone; there were shortfalls in the military SATCOM area as well, e.g., the ARRC lacked trained NATO Airbase System (NABS) SATCOM terminal operators and maintainers and had to be supplemented by USAFE technicians.
U.S. PSYOP and CIMIC operations experienced problems in communicating between headquarters and the deployed tactical teams. The tactical teams had to rely on services provided to them by the units they supported. In many cases, the supporting units did not have spare capacity to offer them, and therefore had to share access to the voice and data services. Such shared access was frequently not high on the priority of the supporting units, limiting the ability of the PSYOP and CIMIC teams to communicate effectively. In some cases, the teams deployed with laptops but could not access the U.S. tactical packet network due to the lack of Tactical Terminal Adapter (TTA) interface devices. The shortage of TTAs was only one aspect of this problem, and not the most important. The use of TTAs was also limited by a shortage of voice channels over the U.S. MSE. Finally, there were also problems experienced in the timely distribution of PSYOP products to the deployed tactical PSYOP teams since there was no automated PSYOP-provided information system dissemination capability to specifically meet these needs. Vehicle transportation means were relied upon to bulk deliver products (e.g., The Herald of Peace, handbills, and posters) to the MNDs for local distribution. Some transcripts for radio and TV broadcasts were sent electronically to the deployed tactical PSYOP teams.
The shortage of TTAs proved to be a broader U.S. Army problem since Combat Support Systems such as STAMIS (Standard Army Management Information System) deployed without appropriate interface devices and there was a general shortage of TTAs in theater to support the demand for access to information services. It was reported that Task Force Eagle was short more than 300 TTAs and an average request of 3 users per week were being experienced at D+65. TTAs were used on an exception basis in MND(N). The preferred connectivity was via the Network Encryption System (NES) into the Tactical Packet Network that provided a security solution and concentration. The U.S. Army STACCS system also experienced some deployment problems as a result of the deploying units not providing the necessary modems for tail circuits off the NES-equipment was left in garrison.
Although there were high expectations that the soldier on the ground would benefit more from advances in information technology, this was not necessarily the case for IFOR, despite efforts to equip them with the latest capabilities. From a coalition operation point of view, however, significant progress was made in moving the "information revolution" to lower levels of the command hierarchy. In most instances, the IFOR CIS network provided better service and more capability than that available at NATO and the major NATO Command headquarters and at many of the IFOR troop contributing nations' home stations.
The communications and information needs of operations such as the IFOR Public Information Office, IFOR Information Campaign, Engineers, PSYOP, CIMIC, Counterintelligence, and HUMINT were not completely formulated or necessarily fully understood at the outset of the operation. The need to be able to interface with and provide some limited support to the NGO/PVO/IO community was also underestimated. Therefore, the requirements were not adequately articulated to the IFOR and national CIS planners and providers so that the necessary service could be made available at the outset of the operation to support these activities. As an example, the IFOR CJCIMIC headquarters operation in the Burger building in downtown Sarajevo only had a few local telephone lines to conduct business in the early stages of operation. If they needed information services or a broader IFOR communications capability, they had to go to IFOR headquarters at the Tito Residency. The CIMIC and some HUMINT vehicles lacked radios for communicating while operating in the countryside. The engineers also generated a requirement for force protection communications since they too were frequently scattered throughout the country. The PIO needed more effective IFOR communications and information services at the Holiday Inn in Sarajevo and while traveling around the countryside in order to be able to quickly inform the chain of command of media-related, time-sensitive events and issues.
The IFOR engineers and legal and medical personnel needed to use the Internet to access reference material. The PIO also needed Internet access for media interaction. The Internet could be used to get English translations of Croatian and other international press releases and news articles. NATO policy at the outset of the operation did not support the use of commercial Internet services. NATO policy makers were often slow in accepting reality and the need for pragmatic change. The use of the Internet in NATO was an example of such a phenomenon. In contrast, Internet access was available to U.S. elements at almost all locations, even remote base camps in MND(N).
A significant change to the earlier OPLANs was abandoning the concept of a combined logistic support arrangement and making logistic support a national responsibility. This resulted in the establishment of three NSEs: the United States in Hungary, the British in Split, Croatia, and the French in Ploce, Croatia. The ARRC COSCOM commander was designated COMMZ Forward commander and located in Split, Croatia. He was given the responsibility of reporting movement into theater to the IFOR Commander for Support who was located in Zagreb, Croatia. This meant that providing communications between COMMZ Forward and the NSEs was a theater responsibility. For the United States it also added the requirement to support a U.S. NSE in Hungary.
Interoperability became a major concern when the total scope of the engineering effort for the IFOR network was realized. No one nation had committed to the integrated network engineering task that included terrestrial and satellite transmission systems; commercial PTT networks; and diverse systems of voice, video, and data of NATO and national strategic, theater, and tactical systems. It was decided to conduct a major interoperability exercise, called INTEROP 95, to get a better insight into the system integration and interface issues and solutions. INTEROP 95, held in April 1995, included more than 250 participants from 8 nations and tested all anticipated interfaces necessary to execute the AFSOUTH and ARRC OPLANs. System interfaces tested included the UN Ericsson commercial switch, the Olivetti commercial switch, the Italian tactical system SOTRIN, the U.S. tactical systems TRI-TAC/MSE, the UK tactical system PTARMIGAN, the U.S. strategic system DSN, and the NATO voice network IVSN. The N.E.T. commercial IDNX, the SHAPE TSGT and deployable reach-back communications capability Replica, the USAF TSSR (TROPO/Satellite Support Radio) LOS radio, and NATO and national tactical satellite terminals (U.S. TSCs, UK VSC-501 and NATO Air Base SATCOM (NABS) (USAFE deployed)) were tested as well. The results of INTEROP 95 were so overwhelming that the U.S. Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) certified a number of the interfaces and published a NATO Interface Guide as a reference book. Lessons learned have shown that despite "standard NATO interfaces," interoperability trials still have to take place to reduce interface problems.
Exercises such as INTEROP 95 and subsequently, Mountain Shield I and II, served to refine concepts of operation and work out many system integration and interoperability issues among various commercial and NATO strategic and national tactical switching and transmission systems. Among the 5th Signal Command learning experiences were difficulties in acquiring the NATO IVB satellite and poor-quality NATO satellite links (plagued with system hits). Subsequent U.S./NATO satellite testing revealed that BPSK rather than QPSK transmission needed to be used on the NATO IVB to achieve the desired link performance. Unfortunately, BPSK requires more bandwidth so the satellite planners had to reengineer the planned satellite network that was already bandwidth constrained. This problem may also have been a training-related issue as well, in that the U.S. personnel may not have been adequately prepared for accessing the NATO satellite system. Pre-deployment exercises serve to help resolve problems such as these. They also provide excellent training for the participating coalition organizations that end up supporting the actual operation.
Based on field tests and exercises involving U.S., NATO, and allied communications systems, EUCOM J6 developed a EUCOM U.S./NATO/Allied Communications Systems Automated Interoperability Handbook. The handbook is on a laptop computer and is used to document known interoperable configurations that work. It provides a wiring diagram of the configuration, technical details, and other relevant information necessary to guide interface implementation in the field. An operator simply enters the configuration to be set up and if it has been accomplished before and documented, the computer provides the details necessary to implement, test, and operate the requested interface arrangement.
One distinct advantage enjoyed by AFSOUTH was the time allowed in the lead up to the IFOR operation. During the planning of OPLANs 40103 and 40104 there was time to do some limited site surveys in Croatia and Bosnia and to coordinate CIS planning with NATO, SHAPE, and likely key participating nations such as the United States, United Kingdom, and France. It should be noted, however, that although there was a lot of time to plan the NATO CIS network to support the withdrawal of UN forces, there was little time to develop the theater contingency option to support the last-minute change to deploy into Bosnia for the IFOR peace-enforcement mission.
Fortunately, NATO had already taken action to extend its strategic CIS network into Croatia in anticipation of having to support the extraction of UN forces. The UN also had a fairly extensive network in place in Croatia and Bosnia to support UNPROFOR C2 needs. In addition, at the TOA (transfer of authority) from UNPROFOR to IFOR, there was also a considerable advantage in that the United Kingdom and France, two of the framework nations, were already in place as part of UNPROFOR. The fact that they were already in theater meant that they also had their CIS infrastructure operating in theater, including links back to their national support elements. These networks therefore became major players in facilitating the extension of NATO and national CIS capabilities to support the initial IFOR C2 needs in Bosnia.
The United States, on the other hand, was at a disadvantage in that it was required to essentially deploy its CIS capabilities from scratch when IFOR was activated. The establishment of the Headquarters IFOR, the C-SUPPORT Headquarters, and the ARRC CIS capabilities also experienced similar challenges at the outset of the operation.
The IFOR network implemented in Bosnia was basically a tactical military network which relied heavily on the tactical assets of the United States and the United Kingdom. Over time, the military network was augmented with commercial products and services. The IFOR plan was to phase out the military assets as soon as possible and rely more extensively on commercial services with a military overlay to support essential C2 needs. The commercial capabilities implemented were viewed as leave behind when IFOR withdrew and were therefore an integral part of the CIS exit strategy. When the decision was made in late 1996 to extend the NATO presence in Bosnia, the commercialization of the NATO CIS network in Bosnia and Croatia continued as a big element of the CIS strategy and the establishment of the so-called IFOR Peace Network.
TOA from AFSOUTH/IFOR to LANDCENT/IFOR occurred on 7 November 1996. The ARRC TOA to LANDCENT/IFOR occurred on 20 November 1996 and the TOA from IFOR to SFOR occurred on 20 December 1996. These TOAs were accompanied by a large personnel change and changes in the NATO and national CIS infrastructure. For the strategic and theater CIS connectivity, a rationalization and re-balancing of the networks was necessary to reflect the move of the IFOR operational center to Sarajevo and then to Ilidza where SFOR headquarters was established. Accompanying the reconfigurations were a greatly reduced role of AFSOUTH and downsizing of the CIS support to them.
LANDCENT had been planning for the transition for several months with "right seat" hand-over training initiated in late September 1996. In spite of an attempt to get up on the learning curve, LANDCENT still experienced many of the CIS implementation and procurement challenges seen in IFOR's initial deployment.
For the United States, there were also some unintended CIS reconfigurations as well. For example, due to the fact that Commander LANDCENT/SFOR was also Commander USAREUR, U.S. national CIS support systems had to be added to meet his U.S.-only requirements. The force structure downsizing associated with the IFOR TOA to SFOR also resulted in a major reconfiguration of the U.S. tactical satellite and switched networks supporting the NATO operation.
Prior to the IFOR operation, UNPROFOR had been operating in theater with a CIS network which consisted of VSAT, voice, secure and nonsecure fax, HF/VHF/UHF radios, and a system for convoy tracking and communications called LOGTRACKS. These assets were in place and some were available to support the IFOR deployment.
The UN VSAT network, depicted in figure 11-2, was already in place and provided voice connectivity to key locations to which IFOR deployed. It played a critical support role in not only the deployment phase but also throughout the operation. The network consisted of ERICSSON switches interconnected by a commercial VSAT network. There were four standard access packages available: CORPS level-8 trunk lines and 80 extensions; division level-8 trunk lines and 30 extensions; brigade/battalion level-4 trunk lines and 10 extensions; and local access to 2 lines from local VSAT facilities. NATO leased the service from the UN.
The UN VHF radio network (Motorola) consisted of 40-watt base stations, 25-watt vehicle mounted sets, and 5-watt handheld sets. There were repeater stations throughout Croatia and BiH. ARRC-Main established a VHF "network of networks" to monitor election supervisor activity for the September 1996 national elections. The MND brigade operations centers performed the monitoring. The network was a combination of IPTF and UN assets with NATO-funded ARRC-Main assets used to fill in the gaps.
In preparation for the execution of OPLAN 40104, the extraction of UN forces, a data network based on leased E1 (2mb/s) transmission bearers and using NATO-purchased IDNX smart multiplexers was extended by NACOSA and the United States into Croatia. The seven-node network connecting SHAPE, AFSOUTH, Vicenza, Brindisi, Zagreb, Pleso, and Split was approved and funded by NATO on 8 February 1995. Installation (with some assistance from DISA) began in March and was completed on 13 April 1995. In April 1995, the NAC approved the first-ever NATO out-of-area operation and authorized the deployment of up to 80 military personnel to install, operate, and maintain the E1/IDNX-based information network. The operation was dubbed "Mini-STEP 2" of a three-step process to extend NATO strategic communications and information services into the theater. On 26 April 1995, the first soldiers of the Southern Region Signal Regiment, AFSOUTH, began to deploy to Zagreb, Croatia. In addition to installing the interfaces to the E1/IDNX network, an operational WAN was established between the sites and LANs at Zagreb, Pleso, and Split. The plan also included pre-wiring and interconnecting designated buildings to be used by IFOR staff to permit rapid occupancy if the need arose. By the end of May 1995, the E1/IDNX-based strategic backbone information network was fully operational.
The NATO Transportable Satellite Ground Terminal (TSGT) was deployed to Camp Pleso (a UN compound collocated with the Zagreb international airport) and was used to provide a military path for the E1/IDNX network in the event of political instability in Croatia. The TSGT also supported the extension of SHAPE headquarters voice, message, and data services to the Zagreb area through the use of the SHAPE-provided REPLICA system. The REPLICA system was based on a prototype developed by the SHAPE Technical Center (now the NATO C3 Agency) and provided a reach-back service to SHAPE headquarters.
With the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement on 14 December 1995, the mission changed and Croatia and Hungary became the embarkation points for NATO troops deploying into the region. OPLANs 40105 and 10405 provided the guidance for the deployment of these forces and the supporting CIS infrastructure. However, because of C2 differences, the OPLANs were never harmonized and this led to disruption and discord between AFSOUTH and SHAPE staffs.
The CJCCC started to deploy elements of its organization to Zagreb in early December 1995 along with the main staff elements of the IFOR C-Support. By 17 December 1995, HQ IFOR JOC operations were being conducted out of Zagreb with a HQ IFOR (FWD) JOC at the Residency in Sarajevo. On 18 December 1995, the NATO TSGT and REPLICA were moved from Camp Pleso (Zagreb) to Sarajevo. The TOA from UNPROFOR to IFOR took place on 20 December 1995. At this time the Residency in Sarajevo had the following systems operational: UN VSAT, TRI-TAC, REPLICA, DSN, PTARMIGAN, Defense Red Switch Network, WAN, Video Teleconferencing (VTC) (connecting the Residency, AFSOUTH, and Zagreb), TARE, Recognized Air Picture from the CAOC, and LOCE INTEL access. The ARRC too was up and operational at this time with connectivity to its MNDs, the NSEs (National Support Elements), and IFOR Headquarters.
The IFOR CIS network (figure 11-3) was based on a strategy to use national military tactical systems to extend the NATO strategic CIS network into the area of operation. When a period of stability was achieved, the plan was to replace the tactical systems with commercial capabilities. It had to be kept in mind that the IFOR mission was to be completed within a year. Therefore, the IFOR CIS infrastructure would need to be replaced, in any case, by commercial capabilities as part of the mission completion.
In addition to supporting the IFOR CIS network, the framework nations (the United States, United Kingdom, and France) also provided capabilities that would support their own forces committed to Operation Joint Endeavor (figure 11-4). These capabilities included strategic to tactical C2 and mission support networks, as well as national intelligence capabilities and supporting ISR networks that would provide intelligence support to the national commanders and provide IFOR-releasable intelligence to IFOR and the ARRC through the NICs (National Intelligence Cells). Tactical systems indigenous to the units deployed, such as the U.S. MSE, single channel TACSAT, and Combat Net Radio, were employed at division and below. The United Kingdom deployed SCRA, VHF, UHF, VSAT, leased PTT, and INMARSAT capabilities to support division to battalion voice and data services, including access to MENTOR, their strategic-level network (DSN equivalent). The French deployed a number of different capabilities to support division to battalion voice, telegraph, and data services: the SPARTACUS TACSAT, the SICILE/TANIT network that supported HF/VHF/UHF/PTT/INMARSAT and PTARMIGAN interfaces and services, and the SYRACUSE SHF SATCOM. The RTY network also provided telegraph services down to the battalion level. Access to the French strategic-level system RITTER (DSN equivalent) was provided as well. The French tactical system RITA was not deployed until the March 1996 time frame.
The IFOR implementation strategy would undergo some change, however, with the fall 1996 decision to extend the NATO involvement for an additional 18 months and transition IFOR to LANDCENT/SFOR. Commercialization of the military network through the establishment of a commercial services-based, end-state network, the IFOR Private (Peace) Network (IPN), continued to be the strategy followed by IFOR and subsequently LANDCENT/SFOR. The replacement of IFOR with SFOR and the movement of SFOR headquarters from the Residency in Sarajevo to Ilidza (outside of Sarajevo) extended the reliance on military tactical systems beyond the time frame anticipated and also required the acquisition of additional NATO CIS capabilities to accommodate this change. Furthermore, the United States had to provide additional national communications to support a four-star general, who while serving as the LANDCENT/SFOR commander in Sarajevo also retained command of USAREUR.
Since NATO had no in-place ability to deploy forward its strategic C4I capabilities, IFOR had to rely heavily on the national tactical assets of the framework nations, the UN VSAT networks, and commercial products and services to extend connectivity into Bosnia and to provide information services to the deployed headquarters and forces. The pervasive use of commercial-of-the-shelf information products and services propelled NATO and IFOR into the Information Age.
Due to the lack of Bosnia telecommunications infrastructure (and in particular, cross-IEBL connectivity), mountainous terrain, and the high cost of force protection for radio relay sites, national military SHF SATCOM was used extensively. It was used not only to provide the transmission bearers for the initial deployment but also to support connectivity throughout the IFOR operation (figure 11-5) as well. NATO only had one TSGT and it was deployed to Sarajevo to support IFOR Headquarters reach-back connectivity to SHAPE. Because NACOSA had SHF SATCOM expertise and NATO had SHF space segment capacity, it was possible for NACOSA to design and the CJCCC to implement a large and complex SATCOM network using the NATO and U.S. DSCS satellites and national tactical SATCOM terminal assets. The United States and United Kingdom provided the bulk of the military tactical SHF SATCOM terminals (U.S.: 35 TSCs and 5 NABS, UK: 9 VSC-501s) supporting IFOR, ARRC, C-SPT, the NSEs, and the MNDs. In order to achieve the desired bandwidth on key links, it was necessary for the U.S. Regional Space Support Center (RSSC) to engineer the U.S. loading of the satellite based on the use of 20-foot dishes (these dishes were in short supply).
The French provided military SATCOM (the SYRACUSE, TANIT, and SPARTACUS tactical satellite terminals) connectivity but only for the MND(SE) area of operation and connectivity to France. The SYRACUSE network used the French TELECOM II A and B satellites.
By late summer 1996, although the original NATO TSGT (designated T1) was still operating well in Sarajevo, there was increasing concern about the ability to keep the terminal operational (overdue for an upgrade) and spares to support it. Therefore, it was decided to deploy several of the newly acquired NATO TSGTs to Sarajevo to replace the old equipment. The first TSGT was deployed in September 1996 to replace the aging T1. Three more terminals were deployed over the next 3 months. Adding the new terminals also increased capacity and provided more robust NATO SATCOM connectivity in the area in anticipation of the transfer of authority to LANDCENT/SFOR.
The USAF terrestrial TROPO/SATELLITE Support Radio (TSSR) provided a 2mb/s line of sight (LOS) capability that was quite flexible and easy to set up. The TSSR was used to establish local connectivity where it was not possible to acquire PTT service. For example, it was used from the roof of the Tito Residency annex to Zetra stadium to link IFOR headquarters with the NATO satellite ground terminal and by the ARRC in Ilidza to connect to the UN VSAT network in Sarajevo.
Single-channel UHF SATCOM allowed commanders to overcome terrain and distance restrictions for broadcast radio networks. In particular, at the tactical level this capability allowed formations and units to operate voice nets over wide areas without deploying VHF FM rebroadcast stations. The distance, terrain, and ground security environment that the forces needed to operate over often did not allow the deployment of rebroadcast stations. TACSAT had the efficiencies of a broadcast network, allowing stations in the net to hear and respond simultaneously. The terminals were small and easily portable and allowed maneuver commanders to quickly establish communications. UHF SATCOM was a major player throughout the theater with 37 networks active out of a planned 48 (see figure 11-6). Establishing UHF access and allocation procedures was a first for NATO. Problems were worked out jointly between AFSOUTH, NACOSA, and USEUCOM. NATO leased 32 UHF channels from the U.S. satellite network (at a very high price from the NATO point of view). NATO also initiated action to procure 212 UHF TACSAT terminals (half LST-5E [wide and narrow band capable] and half PRC-117D [narrow band capable only with a separate crypto add-on]). The CJCCC established the initial set of UHF access and allocation procedures and closely managed the emerging network. The number of UHF channels available on the satellite limited the capability over a particular region. Additionally, there were some long lead time items in re-supply and repair because the UHF terminals were low-density items. This had some operational impact implications.
As the operation evolved, commercial VSAT services were extended into the area through contract services provided by IEC, SPACELINK, and HARRIS TELEDATA. IDNX smart multiservice bandwidth managers were interconnected by the military and commercial bearers and used to provide a robust transmission infrastructure that provided connectivity for the voice, data, and VTC networks. In fact, the combined IFOR and U.S. IDNX network was the largest military IDNX-based network ever implemented. The E1/SATCOM/IDNX network proved to be a flexible and capable system for Operation Joint Endeavor. Figure 11-7 shows the status of the NATO IDNX network at the end of Operation Joint Endeavor. The network supported communications services for 18 different geographically dispersed locations. A leased 2mb/s commercial SATCOM link, ITALIALINK, connected IFOR headquarters in Sarajevo with AFSOUTH headquarters, Naples. Commercial INMARSAT terminals were also used by IFOR, the ARRC, the MNDs, C-SPT, the NSEs, and national command elements.
National tactical voice equipment was used to establish the IFOR Voice Network (figure 11-8). The U.S. TRI-TAC system provided a large portion of the strategic- and theater-level telecommunications infrastructure supporting organizations such as SHAPE, AFSOUTH, IFOR, C-SUPPORT, COMMZ, and the NSEs. NATO also provided some. The UK tactical system, PTARMIGAN, provided the telecommunications support for the ARRC (CORPS level) and between the ARRC and the MND headquarters. The United States, United Kingdom, and France used their tactical systems to support division-level communications including service to those forces assigned to their divisions. TRI-TAC/MSE equipment was employed in support to MND(N) and the U.S. NSE in Hungary. PTARMIGAN was used to support MND(SW) and the UK NSE in Split. French tactical systems already in place were used to initially support MND(SE). The tactical system RITA was deployed in the March 1996 time frame to provide additional support to MND(SE) and its NSE in Ploce. The Italian system, SOTRIN, supported the Italian brigade in MND(SE) and the German tactical system, AUTOKO, supported the German contingent in MND(SW). STANAG 5040 was employed to provide an analogue interface between the national, tactical, and strategic voice networks; between TRI-TAC and the NATO strategic voice network, IVSN; and between TRI-TAC and the commercial networks such as the UN VSAT and the Bosnia and Croatian PTTs where available. The Interim Digital Interface PTARMIGAN (IDIP), designed by the United Kingdom for this operation, was used to provide a digital interface between PTARMIGAN and the TRI-TAC/MSE systems. STANAG 5040 was used for the TRI-TAC to RITA interface as well as SOTRIN and AUTOKO interfaces with RITA and PTARMIGAN, respectively.
The OHR (Office of the High Representative) had a terrestrial UHF Motorola network that was installed to link major Bosnian cities. IFOR headquarters obtained a channel on this network to provide force protection communications for CIMIC and IFOR Information Campaign personnel in the field.
The Republika Srpska (RS) and the Federation telecommunications infrastructure were severely damaged as a result of the war. Some damage was also caused by the allied bombing campaign. Before the war, there were about 4,000 international lines but in December 1995 there were only 400. There were some 30,000 Federation and 27,000 RS trunks before the war but in December 1995 there were 8,000 and 4,000 respectively. As a result, only limited local and regional services were generally available. The international call completions went from a pre-war percentage of 35 percent to 2 percent in December 1995. There was no operational cross-IEBL connectivity even though physically some connectivity existed. For example, RS and Federation trunk switches were interconnected but software code blocks prevented dialing between the two networks. Commercial cellular communication was available in some areas of Croatia and towards the end of the IFOR operation, a limited coverage commercial cellular capability was implemented in the Sarajevo area.
AT&T and British Telecom provided a soldier Call Home commercial service as part of the military MWR (morale, welfare, and recreation) support initiatives. MCI also showed an interest in providing service, but due to the contract arrangement with AT&T this did not happen. AT&T implemented roughly a 20-node commercial satellite-based network to support the MWR service and to support other U.S. military needs in Bosnia, Croatia, and Hungary. The AT&T implementation at the outset was slower than the U.S. military would have liked it to be and DSN was used to provide limited support for MWR needs. In the case of AT&T there was a Military Saver Program under a contract with AFFEES that soldiers could join in order to get reduced rates. During the 1995 Christmas holiday period there was a promotion sponsored by AFFES, VFW, and AT&T that provided every U.S. soldier a free $20 calling card donated by these organizations.
There were various morale-call policies in place for NATO and national military personnel. The United States allowed deployed military to use the DSN for this purpose. There was, however, an IFOR-related unintended consequence associated with this practice. For U.S. personnel assigned to IFOR organizational elements, the only access to the DSN (at least in the Sarajevo area) was through the UN VSAT network. There was no NATO policy that prevented the use of the UN VSAT network for this purpose. As a result, the UN VSAT network, which was already overloaded with operational traffic, experienced additional loading from morale calls that interfered with the operational use of the network. The French used RITA to call back to France. The British forbade morale calls over their military networks. It was reported that staffs of all nationalities used the IFOR commercial access at the Residency in Sarajevo to make direct-dial international calls home. This too had IFOR-related unintended consequences. The calls interfered with bona fide mission traffic (since the commercial access could be used when UN VSAT and other networks were having problems or loaded with operational traffic). In addition, this service was expensive. NATO, which leased the service and ran the switch at the Residency, did not enforce a policy on use of this service and usage accounting was not performed on the switch in Sarajevo to check for abuse of the service.
IFOR data network service was provided by extending the AFSOUTH information system prototype designed by the SHAPE Technical Center (now the NATO C3 Agency, the Hague). The prototyping activities were carried out under project ECHO (Evolutionary Capability for Headquarters Operation). At the end of 1993, ECHO was a four-node commercial client-server-based architecture interconnected by a X.25-based Wide Area Network. The interconnecting links operated at 2.5kb/s. By February 1994 the network was expanded and migrated from X.25 to TCP/IP with enhanced security features (authorized to operate NATO SECRET system high). In May 1995, the functionality was further expanded and the network was declared operational and re-named CRONOS. The interconnecting links were upgraded and varied in bandwidth between 9.6kb/s and 64kb/s. The network supported Microsoft Office and e-mail services along with some functionally specific C2 applications such as the PAIS, CRESP, Allied Deployment and Movement System (ADAMS), and the RAP from the CAOC. The CRONOS network was extended to support NATO and IFOR strategic- and theater-level needs. The CRONOS LAN at IFOR headquarters had to be upgraded to switched Ethernet technology due to the volume of traffic received and generated by the Joint Operations Center.
UK CIS support to the ARRC included a tactical information system, the Interim ARRC Information System (IARRCIS). IARRCIS was a ruggedized equivalent of CRONOS and was used to support the ARRC and the data services between the ARRC and the MND headquarters. The CRONOS and IARRCIS networks (figure 11-9) were interfaced to provide seamless data and e-mail service between the NATO and IFOR strategic, theater, and tactical headquarters and support organizations. There was no interface between the IFOR/ARRC data networks (CRONOS and IARRCIS) and the strategic, theater, and tactical data networks of the MND nations and other participating nations.
The ADAMS, also developed by STC (now the NC3A), was used to coordinate and track NATO and national deployments. The ADAMS provided three main elements: the network for secure communication and data exchange; the software to support the analysis, planning, and management of the actual deployment process; and the databases describing the forces, transportation assets, and mobility infrastructure. NATO and national access to the ADAMS hub at SHAPE were provided through the public ISDN network via a router, a NATO approved encryption device, a terminal adapter, and an ADAMS workstation located at the appropriate NATO and national movement staff headquarters. At the outset, the initial users were the three framework nations, SHAPE, and the NC3A but soon grew to accommodate all NATO troop-contributing nations. The SHAPE Allied Movement Control Center in Mons, Belgium, and the IFOR Joint Movement Control Center in Zagreb, Croatia, coordinated the detailed deployment plans (DDPs) inputted from the nations and monitored and reported on the actual deployment. DDPs were text files describing what, where, when, and how things were moving. By the end of the deployment phase a total of 217 DDPs from 20 nations had been processed. The frequency of updates varied greatly between nations. Most of the nations provided updates only in response to significant events or changes to the plan. The United States on the other hand used a software interface between its JOPES and ADAMS to provide daily updates whether or not there were significant changes. This proved to be especially helpful for reporting actual movements.
The decision was made early not to extend the NATO strategic message network, the TARE, into theater. Instead, it was decided to provide an interface between the NATO data network, CRONOS, and the TARE and wrap the formal NATO messages (ACP 127 format) in an e-mail and send them via the interface (figure 11-10). There was one exception to this policy; a TARE terminal was provided at the Residency in Sarajevo for messages of higher classification than NATO SECRET and to be used as a backup in case the CRONOS LAN failed. The CRONOS LAN was unstable for the first several months of operation and did fail frequently. The United States extended a limited Automatic Digital Network (AUTODIN) capability into theater. The fact that the NATO TARE and the U.S. AUTODIN systems were interconnected at the strategic level made it possible to support some over-the-counter NATO messaging services for IFOR in Zagreb and Sarajevo.
Unclassified Internet was used frequently and demands for service increased throughout the operation. IFOR use of the Internet was not planned; its use simply grew with user demand. In MND(N) and the U.S. NSE, Internet access was provided via the NES and Tactical Packet Network (TPN), and via Point of Presence (POP) routers. Internet access was more widely available to U.S. forces than to NATO elements.
A limited theater-level Internet access was provided by the U.S. Army to IFOR, but IFOR really needed its own access that made Internet services more readily available to a broader IFOR community. The Public Information Office (PIO) used it for media interactions and home pages were created to inform the press and public about the operation in general. The intelligence community used it for open-source assessments; legal and medical personnel used it as a reference tool; and the engineers used it for activities such as predictions for the height of the Sava River to adjust the pontoon bridges. Deployed military personnel used it to maintain contact with their home organizations. It also had value as part of the MWR support-e-mails to home.
Internet access allowed the staffs to obtain information directly from sources around the world. As a result of the demand for Internet services by IFOR, NATO reviewed and revised its policy on restricted NATO use of the Internet. Users accessed the Internet by dialing through the U.S. DSN and the UN VSAT network to gain access to the U.S. NIPRNET that had a gateway to the Internet. Access was also possible through other dial-in servers in Germany and in other locations. Later in the operation, the CJCCC provided an IFOR dial-up service to an Internet server connected to the Sarajevo UN telephone switch, which had a positive effect in off-loading the long data calls on the DSN and UN VSAT systems. Direct IFOR access to the Internet using the public network and commercial providers also became available.
Two Video Teleconferencing networks (figure 11-11) were established to support IFOR C2 decision making and to facilitate coordination, one for Commander IFOR and his command elements and the other for the Commander ARRC and his MND commanders. The ARRC also had a secure voice conferencing capability provided by the PTARMIGAN system. VTC was an essential element of the NATO command and control operations. The NATO VTC at the Residency in Sarajevo was booked regularly for most of the day. By August 1996, the network included Naples, Split, Zagreb, the USS LaSalle, ARRC-Main, SHAPE headquarters in Belgium, and LANDCENT headquarters in Germany. The United States also deployed an extensive VTC capability, it was the U.S. Army's C2 system of choice.
The overall intelligence architecture to support IFOR is depicted in figure 11-12. The figure shows the NATO, national, and lower level connectivity. The U.S. LOCE system was extended to division level to support IFOR intelligence needs. Nations also provided national intelligence support and services to IFOR through liaison officers and NICs. An ICC (Intelligence Coordination Cell) was also established at the Joint Analysis Center in Molesworth, England. The cell consisted of a number of different national representatives who helped respond to theater requests for information via the LOCE system. They also helped to clarify requests (language differences) from members of their national forces deployed in theater. The national representatives had direct communications access to their national intelligence sources for obtaining additional information to respond to specific requests from the theater and to add to the LOCE database for use by IFOR in general. The ICC was essentially a coalition "intelligence help desk." The LOCE network provided the means for initiating the requests and disseminating the packaged results, including populating the LOCE servers with national data released to IFOR.
The multinational coalition operation, which included members from non-NATO countries, required the establishment of an IFOR Releasable category for classified information to be shared with IFOR and its partners in the operation. In terms of sharing, the United States extended access to some of its national intelligence capabilities, such as ASAS WARLORD workstations, to units assigned to MND(N) like the Russian brigade.
CIS support for air and naval operations remained in place following Deny Flight, Decisive Force, and Sharp Guard and did not require special efforts to integrate them into the IFOR operation. Although a reserve force was never allocated to IFOR, the Marine Expeditionary Unit offshore remained an option and had to be considered in the development of the CIS architecture. The Special Operations Forces CIS support consisted of both IFOR and nationally provided C4ISR capabilities. For example, the Joint Special Operations Task Force, also known as the Special Operations Command IFOR, located on the San Vito Air Station in Italy had a number of different C4ISR systems serving the operation. They had IFOR and national voice, message, and data services including for the United States, both collateral and SCI LANs for access to national capabilities. They had access to LOCE. U.S. systems such as JDISS, ASAS-Warrior, TRRIP, SOFPARS, JSTARS, TIBS, and SOCRATES METOC were provided. In fact, there was a significant overlap in capabilities deployed to support SOCIFOR operations.
The non-NATO troop contributing nations did not have direct access to the IFOR CIS network. In order to facilitate communications between and among NATO and the non-NATO troop contributing nations (e.g., Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Russia, and others) who supported the IFOR operation, it was necessary to set up a special network using the public switched network. The U.S. supplied secure telephones (KY-71E) so that these nations and NATO could communicate securely either by voice or fax. In order to participate in the IFOR operation, the non-NATO units were required to provide funding and security assurances to NATO and to allocate their units to one of the IFOR MNDs.
The High Representative, Mr. Carl Bildt, stated that free and open access to the media had to be provided as one of the 12 conditions for establishing a framework for free and fair national elections. Very few independent broadcasting stations were operational in Bosnia with virtually all of them being controlled by either the governments or entities. To circumvent this, two projects were considered: (1) a nationwide television broadcasting network called the Open Broadcast Network and (2) an FM broadcasting network called the Free Elections Radio Network (FERN). Both the Republika Srpska and Federation governments were unwilling to cooperate. Of the two projects, only the FERN was implemented. The project was realized mainly due to the drive of the Swiss government and the Office of Security and Cooperation in Europe, for which Switzerland was chairman. To implement FERN, IFOR compounds were used since other locations for transmitters were most likely mined. In addition, the UN had experienced theft problems for radio sites that were not provided force protection. HQ IFOR, CJCCC, CIMIC, and IIC personnel were also utilized extensively for consulting, obtaining site access permissions, and verifying coverage patterns, frequency management support, and other services. In support of the elections, IFOR was responsible for protecting the election supervisors and IPTF personnel. As noted earlier, to accommodate this requirement ARRC communications personnel patched together a nationwide VHF Motorola network using IPTF, UN, and their own assets-if a nationwide cellular telephone network had existed in Bosnia, it would have been possible to provide communications to all election monitors.
Security for the IFOR CIS network was provided through the use of approved NATO and national security devices. The CRONOS, LOCE, Tactical Voice, ADAMS, and VTC networks operated SECRET system high. STU-IIB secure voice units were available for use over the non-secure UN VSAT and PTT networks and on INMARSAT. Although the information networks were operated system high, other information protection measures, including network-level virus protection and intrusion detection and protection, were slow in implementation.
COMSEC management proved to be a challenge. Two theater distribution accounts had to be established to provide COMSEC support to IFOR forces-one to support Italy-based operations and one to support forces deployed to Croatia and Bosnia. The purpose of the accounts was to issue NATO material to those units who had no national distribution pipeline established in theater, to issue NATO crypto to national accounts, and to support national distribution in the event that national pipelines were not able to issue NATO cryptos to their deployed units. Normally crypto distribution is via the national pipelines to national units only. National regulations prohibit the issue of NATO crypto to other nations. The establishment of the special accounts was an attempt to streamline the process and ensure that cryptos would be distributed in a multinational environment to NATO users. STU-IIBs were used to electronically distribute key material. This worked reasonably well but was limited by the availability of data transfer devices and the quality of the Croatian and Bosnian phone lines. In the future, NATO needs one crypto pipeline that is capable of distributing NATO crypto throughout the force; can electronically transfer key material; is rapid and secure; and can ensure that the key will get to where it needs to go.
In order to pull the CIS planning, implementation, and management together, the IFOR CJ6 established a new organizational element, the CJCCC, to work with NACOSA, the ARRC G6, the MND G6s, the C-Support G6, and the national control centers (figure 11-13). The CJCCC (first located in Zagreb, Croatia, and then moved to AFSOUTH headquarters in Naples, Italy) was also responsible for managing the IFOR theater-level CIS network. NACOSA (located in Mons, Belgium, at SHAPE headquarters) had the responsibility for managing the NATO strategic-level CIS network. The Kester, Belgium, NATO satellite control center supported NACOSA in the management of the NATO IV satellite system. There were overlaps in the responsibilities of the CJCCC and NACOSA because of the blurring of the boundary between strategic- and theater-level systems. These differences needed to be sorted out early in the operation but the SHAPE/AFSOUTH C2 differences precluded this happening quickly.
The CIS organizational elements supporting the IFOR operation exceeded 4,000 personnel at the peak of the operation and the CJCCC alone approached 300 personnel. The CJCCC and IFOR CJ6 set up operation in Zagreb in early December 1995 but the IFOR CJ6 moved to Naples in January 1996. The CJCCC did not move to Naples until May 1996 where it managed the theater CIS network for the rest of the IFOR operation. On 4 November 1996, command of the CJCCC was transferred from AFSOUTH to LANDCENT in preparation for the 7 November TOA from AFSOUTH/IFOR to LANDCENT/IFOR and the TOA of the ARRC to LANDCENT/IFOR on 20 November. On 20 December 1996, TOA from IFOR to SFOR was accomplished and as part of this transfer, plans were initiated to move the SFOR CJCCC to Sarajevo. The CJCCC was subsequently renamed the Communications Information Systems Control Center (CISCC) and moved to Ilidza to be collocated with SFOR headquarters.
In response to the Dayton Accord frequency management tasking to IFOR, a Theater Frequency Management Cell (TFMC) was established in Zagreb at the outset of the operation. The cell deployed from Naples with little information on units to be supported, their number (ORBAT), their locations, their requirements, or their equipment in theater. The only available database was that of ongoing operations for Deny Flight and other UN missions. There was no information on the available spectrum and no Status of Forces Agreement. UN units transferred to IFOR were already using frequencies and would either continue to use them or change to other frequencies because of location changes and operations under different commands. The Sarajevo area also presented a problem because of the large concentration of units and associated communications equipment. The ARRC colocated its Field Management Office with the TFMC to coordinate and manage the frequency requirements in BiH for all land forces. The TFMC used automated tools provided by the United States and NATO. A TFMC Forward was eventually established in Sarajevo to act as the agent for day-to-day coordination within BiH and with the ethnic factions. The TFMC and ARRC FMO were relocated to Naples with the CJCCC move in May 1996. Over time, the TFMC was able to manage the use of the spectrum quite well. Most of the problems faced were caused by the lack of information on unit deployments, by organizations not being aware of the TFMC and the need to coordinate with it, by poor planning, and by late entries of frequency requests. On the civil side, there were problems because the RS was using Belgrade as their recognized frequency management authority, not the BiH. For instance, Belgrade TV was being relayed illegally by RS transmitters. Also, the records of stations operating in BiH were inaccurate-few stations listed were still in operation, and many of the ones that were in operation weren't registered.
Logistic support under OPLAN 40104 was conceived as being a combined operation but because of national difficulties, it evolved into framework nations supporting their own forces and those allocated to them. Thus, the role of the Commander for Support became one of coordination and deconfliction and required changes to the CIS concept. A dedicated CIS logistics organization was established based upon the Southern Region Communications Logistics Depot in Lago Patria, Naples, which executed all logistical requirements in conjunction with forward sites in Zagreb and Sarajevo. Air transportation was provided by the IFOR shuttle flights and was a key element in the CIS logistic plan.
The C4ISR infrastructure provided by the United States to its deployed forces exceeded current Army doctrine. Capabilities included TRI-TAC/MSE, commercial telephone services at every base camp, and both secure and non-secure data network services at all base camps. MSE to DSN connectivity (more than 3 million calls completed), single channel TACSAT (supported operational, administrative, and logistic networks), INMARSAT for worldwide commercial telephone access, facsimile at base camps, and VTC to brigade headquarters were also provided. The MCS (Maneuver Control System), the ASAS WARLORD (intelligence), the WAN/LAN networks using Windows NT servers, and MSE communications connectivity formed the backbone information system for the division in MND(N). MCS was distributed to every major subordinate command element including the multinational units assigned to the division. The presence of MCS at each brigade level of command made the dissemination of information such as FRAGOs and OPORDs timely and efficient. MCS was also capable of providing multiple broadcasts of information to several C2 nodes using its FTP capability. MCS was, however, somewhat complicated and not particularly user friendly. Furthermore, because of the inflexibility of its tools (e.g., mapping and word processing) to tailor the capabilities to meet needs particular to this mission, it was used predominantly as a communications hub rather than in its traditional role as a maneuver C2 system.
The U.S. communications and information systems deployment set a new standard for division and below. Doctrinally, only the brigade and separate battalions had voice and data capabilities. During the operation, all base camps had this capability and, in some instances, remote camps for isolated companies had the same level of support.
The 5th Signal Command was fully deployed by mid-March, with almost 700 personnel in country. Operation Joint Endeavor used the entire USAREUR theater-level multi-channel tactical satellite and large switch assets and still required augmentation with USAFE and commercial satellite and switching equipment.
Most of the messaging requirements, both administrative and C2, were satisfied with unclassified TCP/IP Internet-like networks connected with routers and hosts. E-mail could and did carry AUTODIN messages. Classified traffic was handled through AUTODIN and SIPRNET to TPN to C2 systems such as STACCS, MCS, and SIPR LAN servers at major headquarters (figure 11-14).
Especially innovative was the use of the IDNX equipment, routers (CISCO Series), NES, and other COTS technology to establish a network that provided Internet, NIPRNET, and SIPRNET access via the TPN to every base camp. The 5th Signal Command anticipated that the data needs of the operation would exceed the capabilities of the TPN planned and that it would be necessary to augment the TPN. The 5th Signal Command developed and deployed the Deployable Automation Support Host (DASH) to the U.S. NSE at Kapsovar, Hungary, to facilitate the augmentation of the TPN. The DASH included NIPRNET and SIPRNET routers, hubs, direct-connect/high-speed modems, cables, small routers, TTAs, and other equipment and installer kits necessary to support implementation.
A POP router network augmented the DASH and incorporated both dial-up and LAN subscribers. The routers were networked through 56kb/s links. The POP and DASH router network was interfaced to the Common User Data Network (CUDN) via 256kb/s access links (figure 11-15). The CUDN provided NIPRNET connectivity to Army customers in Germany. Through CUDN gateways to NIPRNET, the deployed users had access to the worldwide NIPRNET, including access to the commercial Internet. The transportable command post, the MSQ-126 (borrowed from CINCPAC assets), was deployed to Supply Area Harmon in Slavinski Brod, Croatia, and provided NIPRNET access through a 128kb/s link with the Heidelberg, Germany, gateway node. USAREUR (FWD) in Taszar, Hungary, was provided access to the Heidelberg gateway through a POP router and 256kb/s link.
The POP router network employed the use of the NES to encrypt unclassified but sensitive traffic for transmission over the SECRET high TPN, thus protecting the TPN SECRET accreditation. The use of NES obviated the need for firewalls to allow unaccredited systems (e.g., used to overcome systemic problems of STAMIS accreditation) processing unclassified data to traverse the classified network, the TPN. The capability was fielded with nearly every Small Extension Node down to battalion level. Hence, the POP and DASH capabilities provided deployed users with a wide area network access through an Internet Protocol environment-another Joint Endeavor success story.
In the dynamic environment of Joint Endeavor, users arrived with a variety of operating systems and e-mail clients and different methods for accessing the network (e.g., dial-in and LAN). The Post Office Protocol-3 compliant server proved to be the most flexible and universal mail server standard available to deal effectively with the mix of capabilities deployed. Although this capability was not used for mail access, it was being considered for use in the future.
The United States deployed two different VTC networks (figure 11-16) to support U.S. needs-an SCI level for intelligence operation use and a collateral level for V CORPS. VTC became the command and control system of choice, especially for the U.S. Army. LTG Abrams (Command, V CORPS and USAREUR (FWD)), the Commander MND(N) and Task Force Eagle, and the three allied brigades were tied together over the U.S.-provided VTC network prior to the NATO system coming on-line. LTG Abrams, who pioneered the active use of VTC in theater, pushed this particular arrangement. He created a "virtual headquarters" that linked the ISB in Hungary with the rear area operations in Germany (four locations) and CONUS, as well as with Task Force Eagle, its brigades, and the Sava river crossing site. The combination of e-mail, the file transfer of PowerPoint slides, and the VTC to discuss both command and staff decisions was a look into the future of a "virtual" command post, a key element of command posts of the future. LTG Abrams stated that e-mail and VTC made the difference in a successful deployment and execution in Bosnia. He compared them to the use of TACSAT and GPS (Global Positioning System) in Desert Shield/Storm.
