Operational Architecture For Individual and Small Unit Soldier Systems

Wolfpack Deliverable
Competition Sensitive
Wolfpack Deliverable
Title: Operational Architecture Document (Final)

SLIN: 2BS
Due Date: 24 March 2003
Agreement No: DAAD16-02-9-0002

ALIN: 0001
Wolfpack Contact: Ray Fitzgerald

(706) 256-0020, Ext 103
brfitzgerald@thewexfordgroup.com
Disclosure Notice: Due to the competitive nature of Objective Force Warrior Phase I (Concept and
Technology Development), requests for this product shall be referred to the Technology Program Manager,
Natick Soldier Center, Natick, Massachusetts, 01760-5011.
Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Exponent · Booz Allen Hamilton · The Wexford Group · Charles River Analytics · Hamilton Sundstrand · Wyle Laboratories
Contents
Page
Exhibits iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations v
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Development 1
1.2 Inclusiveness 2
1.3 Purpose 3
1.4 Context 5
2. Overview 8
2.1 Mission 8
2.2 Assumptions 9
2.3 Limitations 13
2.4 Background 13
2.4.1 UA/FCS OA Products 13
2.4.2 LW OA Products 24
2.4.3 SBCT OA Products 26
2.4.4 LF OA Products 28
3. Methodology 29
3.1 Operational Architecture Development Method 29
3.2 Metrics 31
4. OFW OA Products 31
4.1 OFW OA DOTMLPF Implications 31
4.1.1 Doctrine 31
4.1.2 Organizations 32
4.1.3 Training 32
4.1.4 Materiel 32
4.1.5 Leadership and Education 36
4.1.6 Personnel 37
ii

4.1.7 Facilities 38
4.2 OFW System, SoS, and FoS, and O&O Concepts 38
4.2.1 Combined Arms Capability Concept 39
4.2.2 Missions 39
4.2.3 Tasks—OF Small Unit Mission Tasks 39
4.3 OFW OA Required Capabilities 48
4.3.1 Battle Command—Anytime, Anywhere 48
4.3.2 “Space to Mud, Factory to Foxhole” 48
4.3.3 “Linking Joint Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance” 48
4.3.4 “Every Soldier a Sensor, Shooter, and Assessor” 49
4.3.5 Networked Dismounted Elements 50
4.4 Wolfpack OA Products 51
5. Use of OA Products 52
5.1 Wolfpack OFW System of Systems Architecture 52
5.2 Wolfpack OFW System/Technical Architectures 52
5.2.1 Wolfpack OFW System Architecture 52
5.2.2 Wolfpack OFW Technical Architecture 53
6. Summary 53
Endnotes 55
Appendices contained in separate document (“Operational Architecture

Appendices”)
iii

Exhibits
Page
Exhibit 1. OFW/FCS/UA Notional Soldier System 2
Exhibit 2. TRADOC OA Role 5
Exhibit 3. Director OF Task Force Briefing Extract 5
Exhibit 4. Emerging Objective Force Organizational Concepts 7
Exhibit 5. OF Tactical InfoSphere OV-1 8
Exhibit 6. OF SoS Soldier-Centric Architecture 10
Exhibit 7. Army Modernization Schedule 12
Exhibit 8. OF Fielding Schedule 12
Exhibit 9. FCS-equipped UA C4ISR Architecture Concept 14
Exhibit 10. TRADOC/FCS LSI OF UA and FCS Effort 16
Exhibit 11. UA OV1 17
Exhibit 12. UA SV141 18
Exhibit 13. FCS SoS 20
Exhibit 14. FCS ORD UA Rifle Squad OV1 21
Exhibit 15. FCS ORD Training OV1 22
Exhibit 16. LW OV1 25
Exhibit 17. LW SV1 26
Exhibit 18. OF Small Unit Task List 43
Exhibit 19. OF Infantry Platoon—9-Man Squad Based 44
Exhibit 20. OF Infantry Platoon—12-Man Squad Based 44
Exhibit 21. Objective Force Infantry Squad—9-Man Alternative 46
Exhibit 22. OF Infantry Squad—12-Man Alternative 47
iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations
ABCS Army Battle Command System
ACE Advanced Collaborative Environment
AIMD Architecture Integration and Management Directorate
AKE Army Knowledge Enterprise
AKM Army Knowledge Management
AoA Analysis of Alternatives
ASD (C3I) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence
AUTL Army Universal Task List
AV Architecture View
AW Air Warrior
AWG Architectural Working Group
BDA Bomb Damage Assessment
BFA Battlefield Functional Area
BLOS Beyond Line-of-Sight
BOI Basis of Issue
BOIP Basis of Issue Plan
C/S/A Command, Service, and Agency
C2 Command and Control
C4I Command, Control, Communication, Computers, and Intelligence
C4ISP Command, Control, Communications, and Computers Integrated
Support Plan
C4ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance
CAB Combined Arms Battalion
CAC Combined Arms Capabilities
CAD Course Administrative Data
CAT Combat Applications Team
CATS Combined Arms Training Strategy
CBR Chemical/Biological/Radiological
CCIR Commander’s Critical Information Requirements
CD Concept Development
CID Combat Identification
CJCSI Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction
CS Combat Support
CSS Combat Service Support
CONOPS Concept of Operations
COP Common Operating Picture
CRD Capstone Requirements Document
CROP Common Relevant Operating Picture
CSA Collaborative Situational Awareness
CTC Combat Training Center
C/S/A Command/Service/Agency

DA&I Department of Defense’s Director of Architecture and Interoperability
DAS Defense Acquisition System
DDE Detect, Decide, Destroy, and Evaluate
DM Dominant Maneuver
DoD Department of Defense
DS Distributed Systems
DOTMLPF Doctrine, Organizations, Training, Materiel, Leadership and
Education, Personnel, and Facilities
FBCB2 Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below
FCS Future Combat Systems
FDP Full Dimension Protection
FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards
FL Focused Logistics
FoS Family of Systems
GIG Global Information Grid
GPS Global Positioning System
HLS Homeland Security
HQ Headquarters
IAV Interim Armored Vehicle
IDM Information Data Management
IER Information Exchange Requirements
IF Interim Force
IP Integrated Processes
IPv Internet Protocol Version
ISR Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
ISS Information System Services
IT Information Technology
ITP Individual Training Plan
JCIDS Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System
JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff
JFCOM Joint Forces Command
JIM Joint, Inter-agency, Multi-national
JMA Joint Mission Area
JOA Joint Operational Architecture
JROC Joint Requirements Oversight Council
JTRS Joint Tactical Radio System
KMS Knowledge Management Subsystem
LDAP Leader Development Action Plan
LF Legacy Force
LOS Line of Sight
LSI Lead System Integrator
LTI Lead Technology Integrator
LW Land Warrior
LW-IC Land Warrior Initial Capability
LW-SI Land Warrior System Stryker Interoperable Capability Increments
vi

LW3 Land Warrior Block 3
MAA Mission Area Analysis
MCO Major Combat Operations
MDMP Military Decision Making Process
MILCON Military Construction
MNA Mission Needs Analysis
MOC Military Operational Context
MoP Measure of Performance
MOS Military Occupational Specialty
MOSAIC Multifunctional On-the-Move Secure Adaptive Integrated
Communications
MS Milestone
MT Mission Thread
MW Mounted Warrior
NC Netted Communications
NCA National Command Authority
NCO Non-Commissioned Officer
NCOW Network-Centric Operations and Warfare
NLOS Non-Line-of-Sight
O&O Operational and Organizational
O&OC Operational and Organizational Concept
O&OP Operational and Organizational Plan
OA Operational Architecture
OC Operational Concept
OE Operational Environment
OF Objective Force
OFW Objective Force Warrior
OP Observation Post
OPFAC Operational Facility
ORD Operational Requirements Document
OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense
OV Operational View
PE Precision Engagement
PEO Program Executive Officer
POI Program of Instruction
PPE Plan, Prepare, and Execute
PSA Principal Staff Assistant
R&S Reconnaissance and Surveillance
RDM Rapid Decision Making
Recce Reconnaissance
SA Situational Awareness
SaaS Soldier as a System
SBCT Stryker Brigade Combat Team
SBU Sensitive but Unclassified
SCI Special Classification Instructions
vii

SDM Soldier Development Memoranda
SECDEF Secretary of Defense
SFC Sergeant First Class
SITREP Situation Report
SOI Signal Operating Instructions
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
SOF Special Operations Forces
SoS System of Systems
SoSA System of Systems Architecture
SSC Small Scale Contingency
SSG Staff Sergeant
STRAP System Training Plan
SU Situational Understanding
SV System View
TA Technical Architecture
TO&E Table of Organization and Equipment
TP TRADOC Pamphlet
TPIO TRADOC Program Integration Office
TRAC TRADOC Analysis Center
TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command
TS Top Secret
TSP Training Support Package
TTP Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures
TV Technical View
UA Unit of Action
UAMBL Unit of Action Mounted Battlespace Lab
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
UE Unit of Employment
URS Unit Reference Sheet
USASMDC U.S. Army Space & Missile Defense Command
USD (AT&L) Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics)
WIN-T Warrior Information Network – Tactical
WNW Wideband Networking Waveform
Wolfpack Wolfpack Enterprise
viii

1. Introduction
1.1 Development
The final edition of the Wolfpack Enterprise (Wolfpack) Objective Force Warrior (OFW)
Operational Architecture (OA) Document1 reflects significant change from the interim
edition. The change derives from continued consideration of the Wolfpack OFW System
of Systems (SoS) and Operational and Organizational Concept (O&OC) documents2, and
Wolfpack’s Doctrine, Organizations, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education,
Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF) Use Case analyses. The changes also come from
the further consideration of the results of our Quick Look and Technology Search events
and, most significantly, analysis of the Training and Doctrine Command’s (TRADOC’s)
architecture development process and products.
The Wolfpack OFW OA Document describes concepts and links DOTMLPF

implications relevant to OA products for Objective Force (OF) organizations, especially
the Unit of Action (UA) and its subordinate formations, leaders, and soldiers. The
Wolfpack OFW OA Document provides a foundation for development of OA products,
System Architectures (SA)3, Technical Architectures (TA)4, and System of Systems
Architectures (SoSA) during Phases II and III of the OFW Program, and post-OFW
development, by the OFW Lead Technology Integrator (LTI) and TRADOC schools and
centers.
The Wolfpack OFW OA Document uses a variety of sources as its basis: Wolfpack’s
OFW SoS and O&OC documents’5 descriptions of OFW DOTMLPF implications;
concepts for OFW soldier and leader systems, SoS, and Family of Systems (FoS) from
the Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept Document6; and O&OCs for OF small units, soldiers,
and leaders from the Wolfpack OFW O&OC Document7. The inclusion of OFW
DOTMLPF implications in the Wolfpack OFW OA, SoS, and O&OC documents, and
other Phase I deliverables, embraces the synergy of parallel advances to support the
development and application of advanced soldier and other technologies.
Wolfpack has taken a technical approach in the OFW OA Document to guarantee

traceability to Department of Defense (DoD) processes and documents. The approach
pays particular attention to the processes that govern force and materiel development and
ensures the Science and Technology (S&T) choices made early in the OFW Program are
centered on the thinking of the DoD and the Army. Traceability of the evolution of
thinking is important because DoD processes and documents will continue to evolve as
the Army wrestles with the creation of the OF. Put another way, traceability helps ensure
discipline and accuracy in evolving concepts and architectures in the OFW Program.

1.2 Inclusiveness
OFW OA products must support development of capabilities for the OF soldier, leader,
and small unit that address soldier needs for the mounted and dismounted “core soldier,”
maneuver arms soldier, and maneuver support soldier and service support in support of
the evolving Soldier as a System (SaaS) concept (Exhibit 1). These capabilities must be
based on the common task needs of individual soldiers and the collective needs of the OF
UA and its subordinate formations.
Maneuver Arms Soldier
Maneuver Core OFW Soldier

Sustainment Mounted or Dismounted
Soldier
Maneuver Support
Soldier
Exhibit 1. OFW/FCS/UA Notional Soldier System
The evolving SaaS concept speaks to the core capability of the OF, its soldiers, leaders,
and units, and focuses on the need for all soldiers to be able to perform certain common
tasks, regardless of specialization, and the commonality of the equipment to perform the
tasks.
As described by Wolfpack’s OFW SoS Concept8 and O&OC documents, the most
difficult DOTMLPF problems confronting the OFW Concept and Technology
Development effort are well characterized by the needs of those OF soldiers who must
seize and control key terrain by direct action and close with and destroy enemy forces by
assault—mounted or dismounted. In particular, the most challenging, dramatically
expanding—and most likely for future adversaries to exploit—environment for the OF
will be complex terrains: urban, jungle, and mountain. It is in these environments that
achieving the ability to see first, act first, and finish decisively becomes most difficult and
in which dismounted assaults will predominate.
While stopping short of the United States Marine Corps’ notion that “…every Marine is
an Infantryman…” Wolfpack embraced the idea, exemplified by recent Army decisions

to create a basic officer leader course and Chief of Staff of the Army emphasis, of an OF
filled with soldiers who possess the ability to close with their opponents in open, close,
and complex terrain and kill them. In addition, Infantry soldiers, leaders, and small units
represent the most challenging combination of physical and moral demands that should
guide development of OFW common requirements for soldiers throughout the UA.
Under the current design of the Maneuver UA9 the type of OF soldier most likely to
conduct dismounted assaults is Infantry. Associated with the demands of assault, and
related individual and collective tasks, are OF soldiers performing reconnaissance and
security for command elements. Collectively, these sets of soldiers (approximately 32%
of the personnel of a UA) face the most trying physical challenges within the UA. They
will typically work away from Future Combat Systems (FCS) manned platforms, as
opposed to those soldiers performing tasks in the platforms, without the protection
provided by manned combat platforms. They will also perform air assaults and other
detached missions that may take them longer distances from FCS platforms.
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of the final edition of the Wolfpack OFW OA Document is to develop the
broadest possible foundation for development of the system, technical, and SoS
architectures during Phases II and III of the OFW Program, and post OFW development,
by the OFW LTI. In particular, the OA provides robust and holistic descriptions of
concepts and linked DOTMLPF implications relevant to OA products for OF
organizations, especially the UA, UA subordinate formations, and OFW equipped
soldiers and leaders to help the following developers and other agencies:
• TRADOC force developers—the Architecture Integration and Management

Directorate (AIMD) of Headquarters (HQ) TRADOC10, the TRADOC Program
Integration Office for the Army Battle Command System (TPIO ABCS)11, and
school and center proponents12—in their understanding of the architectural
implications of potential OFW impacts to identify changes to existing OA
products and to support future OA product development efforts for the Legacy
Force (LF), Interim Force (IF), and the OF. TRADOC’s OA role is summarized
below (Exhibit 2).
• Army and TRADOC analysts in their understanding of the likely operational

effectiveness and costs of potential impacts of OFW on OA products to support
Analyses of Alternatives (AoA) to facilitate evaluation of the feasibility of
alternative solutions to OFW concepts and to provide a basis for assessing the
relative merits of these solutions.13
• Army and TRADOC force developers in their understanding of the organizational

implications of potential OFW impacts on OA products to identify changes to
existing Unit Reference Sheets (URS) and Tables of Organization and Equipment
(TO&E), and to support future organizational development efforts (Exhibit 2).

• TRADOC doctrine writers in their understanding of the doctrinal implications of
potential OFW impacts on OA products to identify changes to existing doctrine
and Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTP) and to support future doctrinal
development and development of Doctrine Program Directives (DPD).
• Army and TRADOC training and leader developers in their understanding of the
training and leadership and education implications of potential OFW impacts on
OA products to identify changes to or development of new Individual Training
Plans (ITP), System Training Plans (STRAP), Training Support Packages (TSP),
Course Administrative Data (CAD), Programs of Instruction (POI), Combined
Arms Training Strategies (CATS), and Leader Development Action Plans
(LDAP).
• Army and TRADOC Combat/Force and materiel developers in their

understanding of the materiel implications of potential OFW impacts on OA
products to identify system modifications, system upgrades and “New Start”
programs.
• Army and TRADOC personnel managers in their understanding of the personnel

implications of potential OFW impacts on OA products to identify changes to or
development of new Soldier Development Memoranda (SDM), and personnel
policies and systems.
• Army and TRADOC installation planners in their understanding of the facility

implications of potential OFW impacts on OA products to identify Military
Construction (MILCON) requirements, and MILCON Memorandum and Funding
Requests.

Exhibit 2. TRADOC OA Role
Current TRADOC OA products14 focus on detailed Command, Control, Communication,
Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) data, e.g., Core Systems and Quantities Reports
from the AIMD database, set of displays presenting a pictorial TO&E views, complex
files (netViz15) defining network views of architectures, and spreadsheets depicting
C4I equipment for each communication node within organizations.
1.4 Context
“The Joint Forces must get C4ISR right. It is critical that they get this right. We
cannot go to the battlefield and continue to put things together on the fly. Our soldiers
are bright, they're wonderful, they'll ride jackasses to get to the fight, and I appreciate
that, but we've got to do better.”16
Exhibit 3. Director OF Task Force Briefing Extract
OFW OA products will require almost constant modification given the evolution of
strategies, guidance, policies, directives, enterprises, concepts from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) for Joint Command, Control,
Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR),
Dominant Maneuver (DM), Precision Engagement (PE), Focused Logistics (FL), Full
Dimension Protection (FDP), etc.17, and changes in the Defense Acquisition System

(DAS) and the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)18.
Perhaps most significantly:
• The Department of Defense’s Director Architecture and Interoperability (DA&I)

has been directed to build the foundation for network-centric operations through
policies, program oversight, resource allocation, and support. The DA&I is
developing and implementing the Global Information Grid (GIG) enterprise
architecture.
• The GIG enterprise architecture is to provide a description of the GIG, serve as

the DoD Enterprise Architecture, and by identifying and substantiating the
operational and systems requirements for Network-Centric Operations and
Warfare (NCOW), describe how commands, services, and defense agencies will
operate in a network-centric environment.19 The GIG architecture includes the
GIG Architecture Database and architecture products derived from the database,
and supports the DA&I’s decisions and recommendations concerning Information
Technology (IT) requirements, planning and programming, acquisition, and
policy.
• GIG and GIG Architectures:
− The GIG is a physical entity—the sum of DoD’s information capabilities,

systems, services, and facilities, and associated processes and personnel. The
GIG is to provide the means for warfighters, decision-makers, and policy-
makers to conduct and support military operations.
− The DoD Tactical InfoSphere is a key part of the GIG and is linked to
organizations and resources that will support operations outside the Army
Tactical InfoSphere. The DoD Tactical InfoSphere consists of organic and
dedicated sensors, a command and control (C2) system, rules for rapid
distribution of information, communication nodes of tactical units organized
to support accomplishment of a mission operating from reachback locations,
supporting national assets, logistic organizations charged with pushing
supplies forward, and training resources for the tactical units to maintain
readiness while awaiting employment. The DoD Tactical InfoSphere includes
any platform—on the ground, in the air, or in space—that is equipped with a
radio, sensor, processor, router, or location device that participates in
information gathering and distribution.
− GIG Architecture Version 1 is the current DoD IT architecture combining
architectural descriptions of selected Joint Mission Areas (JMAs) and selected
Principal Staff Assistant (PSA) business functions.
− GIG Architecture Version 2 is the future DoD IT architecture. It describes the
enterprise aspects of NCOW, using tactical, operational, strategic, and
Combined “Use Cases,” and incorporates Joint OAs20 and JMAs developed by

the Joint Staff, Command, Service, and Agency (C/S/A) architectures, and
PSA and other OSD staff architectures. GIG Architecture developers are to
build future versions of the GIG Architecture, based upon the guidance,
direction, and priorities provided by the DA&I, in conjunction with other
stakeholders.
• Corresponding Army strategies, guidance, policies, regulations, enterprises, and
Army OF programs and concepts—particularly the Army Knowledge
Management (AKM), Land Warrior (LW), OFW, and the FCS programs, and the
Army Knowledge Enterprise (AKE), OF Unit of Employment (UE)21 and UA22
concepts (Exhibit 4).
Exhibit 4. Emerging Objective Force Organizational Concepts

• The Army has consolidated management of IT into AKM to develop and
implement a network-centric, knowledge-based Army architecture interoperable
with the joint system nested within the GIG. The Army’s concept for AKM is
collaborative mission planning and execution among widely dispersed locations
around the world by providing rapid and seamless flow and exchange of
actionable information and knowledge.
• The AKE construct describes the Army's process to enable improved strategic and
tactical information distribution and collaboration. Integration and refinement of
existing Army networks is to be the first step in achieving a network-centric,

information-enabled force that creates efficiencies and provides secure, reliable,
actionable information communications.23
• The Army Tactical Internet and the Warrior Information Network – Tactical
(WIN-T) system are the core of the Army Tactical InfoSphere. The High Level
Operational Concept (OC) Graphic (Operational View [OV] 1) for the OF
Tactical InfoSphere is shown below in Exhibit 5.24
Exhibit 5. OF Tactical InfoSphere OV-1 25

The TRADOC OA processes and products described in Section 1.3 are responsive to
DoD Enterprise Architecture processes and products. 26
2. Overview
2.1 Mission
OFW OA products must robustly and holistically address the following questions:
• How do re-organized OF UAs operate when they incorporate soldiers, leaders,

and small units, re-equipped as a result of the OFW program, based from facilities
provided by an improved DoD/Joint infrastructure, recruited and retained by an

improved Army Personnel System, schooled in an improved DoD/Joint Education
System, trained in improved DoD/Joint institutional and unit individual and
collective training programs, using improved Joint TTP?
• Further, do they perform their missions in a more strategically responsive,

deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable fashion across the
entire spectrum of military operations from Major Combat Operations (MCO)
through counter-terrorism to Homeland Security (HLS) in the environments
expected for the 21st Century?
• From an intra-small unit perspective, what capabilities and interactions are

required for OFW-equipped soldiers, leaders, and small units to successfully
perform their tasks and missions?
• Within the context of a UA company and above formation perspective, what

capabilities and interactions are required for OFW-equipped soldiers, leaders, and
small units to successfully perform their tasks and missions?
• How do OFW-equipped soldiers, leaders, and small units influence the Integrated
Processes (IPs) and Distributed Systems (DSs) developed for the FCS and how do
the FCS’s IP and DS influence OFW-equipped soldiers, leaders, and small units?
2.2 Assumptions
Exponential advances in the capabilities of soldiers, leaders, and small units will allow
OF soldiers, leaders, and small units to see first, understand first, act first, finish
decisively, survive and endure through all dimensions of the future battle space. The
objective of the OFW Concept and Technology Development effort is to develop and
demonstrate the technologies that would provide these advances through the fielding of
systems to equip OF soldiers, leaders, and small units implementing the SoS Soldier-
Centric Architecture for the OF as described by the Program Executive Officer (PEO)
Soldier (Exhibit 6).

Exhibit 6. OF SoS Soldier-Centric Architecture
Assumptions include:
• OF soldiers, leaders, and small units will overmatch all adversaries using
enhanced, networked and collaborative organic capabilities while leveraging
company, battalion, UA, UE, and Joint combat multipliers that enable the
collaborative application of massed effects.
− OFW OA products must allow OF soldiers, leaders, squads, and

platoons interoperability with a wide range of legacy, Joint, Inter-
agency, Multi-national (JIM) communications systems and
networks. The critical requirement for OF soldiers, leaders, and
small units is to be able to access data from these systems so that it
can be fused into information and organized into knowledge
components.
− OFW OA products must be closely coordinated with the OA
products being developed for the FCS program, and the UA and
UE concepts. See Section 2.4.
10

− OFW OA products must consider the GIG Capstone Requirements
Document (CRD) and other relevant CRDs.27
• The OF will include re-organized small units, using improved Joint TTP, trained
in improved DoD/Joint institutional and unit individual and collective training
programs, re-equipped as a result of the FCS, OFW, and associated DoD
programs, led by Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and officers schooled in
an improved DoD/Joint Education System, manned by soldiers recruited and
retained by an improved Army Personnel System, and based from facilities
provided by an improved DoD/Joint infrastructure that are more strategically
responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable across
the entire spectrum of military operations from MCO through counter-terrorism to
HLS.
− OFW OA products should not be limited to only C4ISR

considerations but must address all OF soldier, leader, small unit,
system, SoS, and FoS requirements and DOTMLPF implications.
− OFW OA products must be broadly based on analyses that address
all aspects and types of soldier and leader systems, SoS, and FoS
as described in the Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept Document28, the
O&OCs as described in the Wolfpack OFW O&OC Document29,
and the doctrine, training, leadership, and education, personnel,
and facility implications described by both documents30 that may
affect OA products for the UA and other organizations that may be
equipped by the OFW Concept and Technology Development
effort.
• Prior to fielding of the OF, the Army will comprise small units in UAs and in
other units not equipped by the FCS program (Exhibits 7 and 8). The OFW
Concept and Technology Development effort will develop and demonstrate
technologies that permit the fielding of advanced systems to equip all Army
soldiers, leaders, and small units.
11

Exhibit 7. Army Modernization Schedule
Exhibit 8. OF Fielding Schedule
12

− OFW OA products must address OF soldier and leader systems,
SoS, and FoS required capabilities relative to an “LW Block II
Baseline” in Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08). OFW OA products must
use OA products developed to support the LW program as their
baseline.
− OFW OA products must be closely coordinated with OA products
developed for the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs) and the
LF. The suite of systems that currently comprises the ABCS
provides an integrated, Joint C4ISR “backbone” for the digitized
LF. The OFW OA must seamlessly link with the LF’s OA.
• Given the nature of the DoD, Army, and TRADOC architecture processes and
products, described above, OFW OA products must not only support development
of OF soldier, leader, and small unit capabilities but also related company and
above UA formation capabilities.
2.3 Limitations
To date no facts or situations (U.S. public law, international law, religious laws, or
treaties) have been identified that would limit the application of the OFW OA in any area
of the world.
2.4 Background
2.4.1 UA/FCS OA Products
TRADOC OF OA products completed to date include a draft UE HQ design and its
database. 31
TRADOC to date has not completed any OF OA products. However, the FCS-equipped
UA is envisioned as a network-centric unit featuring full interactions between its systems
to permit integrated operations and realize innovative Concepts of Operation (CONOPS).
The system is to have no hardware, software, or information stovepipes and no hardwired
features. It is to be fully integrated for information dominance and to make maximum
coordinated use of the capabilities of its “warfighters,” its sensors, and its weapon
systems. The warfighter is to interface with other UA systems, Joint and LFs through an
integrated C2 system that leverages an open SA and modern modular, services-based
design. All C2 systems are to be common to all warfighting systems and will share a
common framework to achieve the goal of an integrated and interoperable system. The
warfighter’s interfaces and C2 systems are to be tightly integrated into each FCS vehicle
system with its subsystems through Vetronics architecture, achieving a system that is
integrated top to bottom. Dismounted warfighters are envisioned as using a Joint
Tactical Radio System- (JTRS-) compliant small form factor radio derived from the Small
Unit Operations program and to fully participate in the wideband network – not as a
appliqué or adjunct net but as a fully participating set of dismounted subnets. Ubiquitous
13

networked communications is to permit full expression of the commander’s intent at all
levels of the UA (Exhibit 9).32
Exhibit 9. FCS-equipped UA C4ISR Architecture Concept33

FCS is to be designed for information superiority through an active Information
Management System that makes maximum use of all information sources organic and
external to the UA. Warfighters are to be presented with a synchronized and consistent
Logical Database that contains a dynamically updated Common Relevant Operating
Picture (CROP) to support situational awareness and C2 operations. CROP instances are
to be synchronized across the UA by the active Information Management System. The
system of Information Management components and Logical Databases comprise the
information layer—commonly called the “InfoSphere” for the UA. The data structures of
the InfoSphere are engineered to conform to the Joint Common Database so that UA
situation data can be directly exported to UE, higher Army and Theater systems along
with a Common Operating Picture (COP) that interoperates with the common pictures in
the Theater Family of Interoperable Operating Pictures.34 As information reaches
individual soldiers working within small units, the information is dramatically
constrained to ensure its relevance to their situation and the tasks they must perform and
those of their unit.
14

The communications backbone of the UA is to be a hierarchical, ad-hoc wideband
network centered on the JTRS using its Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW). The
hierarchical Internet Protocol-based network is to be coordinated by the Multifunctional
On-the-Move Secure Adaptive Integrated Communications (MOSAIC) network
management system to ensure scalability and efficient low overhead operation within
frequency allocation constraints. JTRS is to be common to all vehicles in the UA,
ensuring that communications supports completely coordinated operations with
collaboration among systems and efficient transport of the required data, images, voice,
and video communications data for network-centric operations.35
The UA is to be designed to be fully interoperable with other Army forces—the UE, LF,
and Army forces at Theater command—and the full spectrum of Joint/Theater, National,
coalition, and interagency forces. The JTRS software-defined radio is to permit direct
communications over most DoD standard radio and link formats, permitting close
interoperability with Navy and Air Force units and Special Operations Forces (SOF).
The UA is to integrate with Theater entities of all kinds through the WIN-T system. This
is to permit fully interoperable information environments and data communications at
higher levels. Ordinary VHF/UHF radio voice and data formats are to be supported to
permit a wide range of communications with civilian, law enforcement, and international
authorities. The UA is to be engineered to link into Ethernet Local Area Networks and
Wide Area Networks to allow use of civilian, federal, and DoD networks when the
opportunity arises.36
The FCS Lead System Integrator (LSI) has defined IPs that span the functional
requirements of FCS at a level of detail described as “appropriate for functional views”
and mapped Unit of Action Mounted Battlespace Lab (UAMBL) Mission Threads (MT)
to the IP. In the FCS LSI’s view, the IPs are “…enduring processes that can be applied
across many MTs and scenarios. They reflect the way the warfighter thinks when
preparing for and conducting operations. The IPs lend themselves to decomposition for
finer views. The IPs are ‘Architecturally Significant.’ Some of the MTs are not. The MT
were not written by system architects and should not be expected to be optimal for
architectural views…” For the FCS Command, Control, Communications, and
Computers Integrated Support Plan (C4ISP), OVs were created for MTs that illustrate the
six missions from the FCS Operational Requirements Document (ORD) Appendix G—
Early Entry Operations, Combined Arms Operations for Urban Warfare to Secure Portion
of Major Urban Area, Rapid Advance to Enemy Center of Gravity, Mounted Formation
Conducts Pursuit and Exploitation, Airmobile/Air Assault Operations, Defensive
Operations.
FCS LSI, together with TRADOC and UAMBL, has established an Architectural
Working Group (AWG) to establish direction, schedules, and to review progress for the
development of UA/FCS architectures. The collaboration is reflected in Exhibit 10.37 The
AWG has decomposed 19 MTs resulting in over 8,000 operational Information Exchange
Requirements (IER) and developed a High Level OC Graphic (Exhibit 11) and a System
View (SV) (Exhibit 12) for the FCS ORD. The FCS LSI and TRADOC have committed
15

to continuous collaboration during development of architectural views. Views are
reviewed by the AWG and when ready are placed on the FCS Advanced Collaborative
Environment (ACE) for UAMBL and TRADOC review. Upon acceptance, they are
placed under Configuration Management by TRADOC.38
Exhibit 10. TRADOC/FCS LSI OF UA and FCS Effort39
16

Exhibit 11. UA OV140
17

Exhibit 12. UA SV141
Listed below are the eight FCS IPs to be used for development of the first FCS
architectural views. Workshops scheduled by the UAMBL will define the detailed
functionality for each IP at a level of detail below that of the O&OC. For each IP, the
FCS LSI is to develop a High Level OC Graphic - OV1; an Operational Node
Connectivity Description - OV2; an Operational Information Exchange Matrix - OV3;
and an Operational Event/Trace Diagram (MT) - OV6. These various views collectively
support a Systems Functional Description - SV4 development to validate procurement
specifications and SV10c42 views:43
• Sensor Network
• Sensor Fusion
• Communications
• COP
• Netted Fires
• Battle Command
18

• Maintenance and Re-supply
• Training.
The FCS LSI has also defined eight DSs that provide the capability needed to support the
OV. For the DS, each related to platforms and IP, a set of SVs is to be generated. The
DSs are listed below and define the FCS’s SoS (Exhibit 13). At present, the “Weapons”
DS is solely associated with a “Soldier Combat System.” Further, the FCS LSI stipulates
the employment of Use Cases below the DS to allow for more detailed views.44 Also, IPs
are used to define functions performed by DS.
• C2
• FCS Management
• Communications
• Sensing
• Weapons
• Vehicle Management
• Support
• Training.
19

Exhibit 13. FCS SoS45
20

Annex C of the FCS ORD provides an example of an OV1 for the UA Rifle Squad.
(Refer to Exhibit 14 below.) Annex C is provided as Appendix A.
Exhibit 14. FCS ORD UA Rifle Squad OV146
21

Appendix F of the FCS ORD47 provides a Training OV1 (Exhibit 15 below).
Exhibit 15. FCS ORD Training OV1

Interoperability requirements. Annex G of the FCS ORD48 provides a robust listing of
Army system interoperability requirements for FCS including LW - Block III
(LW3)/OFW, which are described as an overwhelmingly lethal and survivable soldier
SoS capable of dominance across the entire spectrum of operations. The annex states that
LW3/OFW will be an integrated soldier and small unit SoS within the FCS equipped UA
and that LW3/OFW will achieve revolutionary advances in Netted Communications/
Collaborative Situational Awareness (NC/CSA), integration with WIN-T and JTRS,
netted lethality, enhanced survivability, man-portable power, soldier mobility/
sustainability, and human performance utilizing a fully integrated combat ensemble.
C4I System Requirements (Annex H of the FCS ORD49) contains the following:
• Vertical and Horizontal Integration. The annex states that C4I systems in the
FCS FoS will be vertically and horizontally integrated with Army legacy and IF
platforms, tactical and logistics C4I systems, individual Battlefield Functional
Area (BFA) systems and SOF. Also, as a full-spectrum force, the FCS-equipped
UA will be required to interoperate with Joint, U.S. Government agencies,
multinational coalitions, local authorities and other non-governmental, and private
volunteer organizations.
• Interoperability. The annex states that unless indicated otherwise, FCS

interoperability as described in the ORD is to be achieved when FCS FoS and
external system/capabilities (UA, legacy Army, UE, Joint, SOF, other Service,
22

allied, coalition, interagency, etc.) can exchange data and information. It also
states that FCS and the external system will not be considered interoperable
unless they can exchange data but that temporary exceptions to this may be
necessary (e.g., with respect to subsets of legacy system capability needed at First
Unit Equipped date).
• CRD and ORDs. The annex lists CRDs and ORDs, including the SaaS CRD
(draft), the Mounted Warrior (MW) ORD (draft), the LW ORD, and the Air
Warrior (AW) ORD, which it describes as applicable to FCS and identifies that
the listing continues to be refined. It also states that other CRDs and ORDs that
are applicable to the FCS-equipped UA will be identified and added, and that
some CRDs and ORDs may be removed if Army doctrine specifies that
interoperability with those systems will be achieved solely through UE systems.
• Army JIM Interoperability. The annex also provides a description of the likely
Army and JIM interoperability requirements for FCS.
IER. Appendix J of the FCS ORD50 provides an IER matrix of 41 IER. The ORD states
they are to describe information that is exchanged between FCS UA and the
UE/Joint/Allied/Coalition elements. The matrix describes the general characteristics of
the information exchanged and not specific messages, report formats, or database
exchanges and that the IER are information exchanges that are so significant that if they
do not occur, the warfighter mission accomplishment will be severely and adversely
affected.
• Current Location of Sending and Receiving Nodes. All of the sending and
receiving nodes listed in the IER are at the UA level or above except for IER #14,
“Fire Mission, Clearance of Fires,” which lists “UA Sensors and Platforms” as the
sending node: #15, “Targets Acquired by Sensor,” which lists “All firing
platforms” as the sending node; #35, “Conduct civil affairs ops,” which lists “SOF
LNO” and “SOF TM” as sending and receiving nodes; #39, “Exchange
Information between designated link-up forces,” which lists “SOF TM” as a
sending node; and #40, “Situation Change, Routine Rpts, Analysis Spt,” which
lists “SOF LNO” as a receiving node.
• Formation of the COP. The ORD also states that the IER are used to form the
COP that is derived from a series of MTs and analyses based on guidance
documents and warfighter inputs, and that further analysis of these information
elements to arrive at a set of lower level, discrete information elements will be
done to support FCS UA ORD development. The appendix is to evolve as analysis
efforts continue thru Milestone (MS) B, dependent upon Joint, UE, and other
systems still in development, ultimately supporting a MS C FCS production
decision.
23

2.4.2 LW OA Products
TRADOC has completed a variety of OA products for the 75th Ranger Regiment, the
82nd Airborne Division, the 172nd Light Infantry Brigade, and the 2nd Armored Cavalry
Regiment that include LW as individual soldiers and leaders with associated equipment.
The LW ORD51 provided the OV1 for a “LW Phased Approach for TI System Interface”
(Exhibit 16). The accompanying description in the ORD states:
• The high level OC Graphic presents a top-level view of the system’s

interoperability requirements with other current and future systems. The Block I
LW communications structure limits communications interoperability to within
similarly equipped LW soldiers. Based on soldier access to all information in the
LW system and the reality that not all soldiers have the requisite security
clearance, the LW communications architecture must remain unclassified for
platoon sergeant and below. Platoon leaders and above have communications
(long range secure) and appropriate clearances. It is assumed that by Block II a
combination of materiel solutions and policy resolution will enable
interoperability with higher C2 SAs as well as vehicle systems operating in secret
communications architecture. This is a flexible architecture. Information access is
dependent on positions within the unit, i.e., rifleman, platoon sergeant, or
commander.
• The approach for LW interoperability with the ABCS will follow the three
phases. Although interface/interoperability between LW and ABCS is a LW
Block II requirement, it will not be required in Block I due to an Army-wide
problem with the lack of definition of interface between cleared and uncleared
user communities, i.e., the ABCS at Secret High, and the LW system at Sensitive
but Unclassified (SBU). Seamless electronic interface between generally
uncleared soldiers using the LW weapons system and the ABCS C2 system is not
possible under current policy guidelines. Key leadership elements of the LW
community will retain legacy C2 capabilities through the use of existing secure
voice equipment.
• Implementation of Phase II, limited interoperability, will be achieved through

adoption of Army approved tactical guards and gateways, as defined by ongoing
actions of the Communication and Electronics Command Security Architecture
Working Group, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Information Systems and C4, and
the Secret and Below Interoperability Committee of the National Security
Agency. Full interoperability will be achieved through the implementation of
LW-suitable trusted computer operating systems and multi-algorithm encryption
hardware, coupled with revisions in current security policy and procedures that
are supportive of tactical operations in mixed security environment.
24

Exhibit 16. LW OV152
The LW ORD53 provided an LW SV1 (Exhibit 17). The accompanying description in the
ORD states:
• A capability for the timely and accurate exchange of information between sender
and recipient is required. The threshold system will incorporate the information
exchange capability defined below. Objective capability or capability aligned with
subsequent blocks will be defined based on refining the IER of LW in the specific
unit type. The Block I system established digital interoperability within the LW
equipped architecture. Secure voice communications is provided by currently
fielded combat net radios. Block II will establish interoperability with ABCS
systems based on removal of previously stated security issues. It is expected that
the LW equipped system will interface with the Force XXI Battle Command
Brigade and Below (FBCB2) system on other vehicles or in command centers as
well as systems currently comprising the operational design of the light force and
Initial Brigade Combat Team Battalion Tactical Operations Center.
25

Exhibit 17. LW SV1
The LW ORD includes IER (refer to Appendix B) but only four of the 22 requirements
address the individual soldier, only six of the 22 requirements address squad and below,
and only 13 of the 22 address platoon and below. The ORD’s rationale is that “This
information exchange set represents the expected core capability that will enable an
acceptable level of operational effectiveness, suitability and survivability.”
2.4.3 SBCT OA Products
The Army and OSD appear to have recently reached an agreement that will allow the
Army to field six SBCTs54. OSD had demanded that the final two SBCTs55 not simply
replicate the first teams fielded. Instead, OSD wants to see a capability that looks more
like an OF UA and less like a “souped up” remnant of the current force. Part of OSD’s
concern is that the current development and fielding time lines of the OF and the SBCTs
appear to overlap (the last SBCT is due in FY07). The Army must develop a refined
SBCT design and submit it to OSD for approval. The SBCT “plus” concept would affect
both the materiel and operational and organizational (O&O) aspects of the unit. It likely
would include improved C4ISR capabilities. The OFW OA must seamlessly link with the
both the OA of the initial four SBCTs and the OA to be developed for the final two
SBCTs.
26

The Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) Stryker is the primary combat and combat support
(CS) platform for the SBCTs. The Land Warrior System Stryker Interoperable (LW-SI)
Capability Increments development effort is to enable SBCT LW-equipped soldiers to
prepare for the dismounted fight while still mounted in the IAV by effectively developing
the situation while moving mounted and giving key leaders the ability to effectively
communicate and update the tactical plan. LW-SI expands upon the developmental work
being completed under the Land Warrior Initial Capability (LW-IC) Other Transaction
Agreement.
LW-SI Version 2.0 system is the LW-SI Version 1.0 system with additional functionality,
such as FCS communication interoperability, voice control, achievement of full LW-SI
system performance specification mission duration and system weight requirements, and
processor/memory type improvements as part of the spiral development process with the
eight required SBCT IAV vehicle variants56. TRADOC has completed a variety of OA
products for the “Interim Division,” the Interim Combat Service Support (CSS)
Company, 172nd Light Infantry Brigade (Separate) and the 2nd Armored Cavalry
Regiment (Light). Both of the latter product sets include the LW as individual soldiers
and leaders with associated equipment but neither addresses the OFW.
172nd Light Infantry Brigade (Separate) OA Products:
• The “Architecture Business Rule” document states LW will be used for

dismounted squad operations and that soldiers not equipped with LW will have
stand-alone Combat Identification (CID) equipment.
• The “Horseblanket” document lists LW-Leader (BLK II) and LW System Soldier
(BLK II) as “not TO&E supported” items, each described as including a CID
Device, a computer processor, a Global Positioning System (GPS)/navigation
system, a handheld display/keyboard, a helmet display, a soldier radio, and a
thermal weapon sight. The LW systems are depicted down to the individual
soldiers and leaders of the Combat Engineer Squad of the Engineer Company, the
Fire Support teams, mortar sections, sniper teams, and rifle and weapons squads
of the companies of the Infantry Battalions, and the Reconnaissance (Recce)
squads of the ground troops and the Chemical/Biological/Radiological (CBR)
Recce platoon of the Surveillance troop of the Reconnaissance, Surveillance
Target Acquisition Squadron. The netViz document mirrors this arrangement.
• The “netViz” document top level view for the brigade depicts ten formations
within the brigade down to company sized organizations, including its five
battalion level formations, 16 voice and data nets, and the connectivity among the
formations and nets; the battalion level view in the document depicts seven
elements within the battalion, including its four company level formations, and
six voice and data nets, but not their connectivity; the rifle company level view of
the document depicts six elements with the company, including the three rifle
platoons and the Mobile Gun System Platoon, and three voice and data nets but
27

not their connectivity; and the rifle platoon level view of the document depicts
every individual leader and soldier within the platoon and three voice and data
nets, but not their connectivity. In each view the nodes of each voice and data net
and the equipment of each individual soldier and leader are displayed as
subordinate views.
2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light):
• The “Architecture Business Rule” document that states LW nets are not depicted
in the network view (netViz file) of the architecture and LW availability is
uncertain but is depicted as a requirement, and lists the LW System – Leader
(BLK II) and LW System Soldier (BLK II) as potential C4I equipment for the
regiment.
• The “Horseblanket” document lists LW-Leader (BLK II) and LW System Soldier
(BLK II) each including CID Device, a computer processor, a GPS/navigation
system, a handheld display/keyboard, a helmet display, a soldier radio, and a
thermal weapon sight. The LW systems are depicted down to the individual
soldiers and leaders of Combat Engineer Squad of the Engineer Troop, the Fire
Support teams, mortar sections, and scout squads and the CBR Recce platoon of
the regiment’s squadrons.
In FY03 TRADOC plans to address OA products for 2nd Brigade of the 25th Infantry
Division and the 56th Brigade 28th Infantry Division (Mechanized).
2.4.4 LF OA Products
TRADOC has completed a variety of OA products for III Corps Troops, the 1st Cavalry
Division, the 75th Ranger Regiment, and the 82nd Airborne Division. Both of the latter
product sets include the LW as individual soldiers and leaders with associated equipment
in a similar fashion to the 172nd Light Infantry Brigade and the 2nd Armored Cavalry
Regiment (Light).
The 75th Regiment’s “Systems Architecture-Conceptual” document states that it reflects

the current Infantry Center fielding plan for communications and automation systems
available to the Ranger Regiment in the year 2004; that the LW (Block I) will be fielded
and will replace all AN/PRC 126s, the Soldier Intercom System, and selected GPS
devices carried by dismounted soldiers at the Ranger Regiment; and that AN/PRC-148s
will integrate the LW system with the Command Net according to the system developers
and that all soldiers in the regiment will receive the LW. The proposed Basis of Issue
Plan (BOIP) described in the “Systems Architecture-Conceptual” document states that all
leaders, Squad Leaders and above, will receive the LW, all Radio Telephone Operators
will receive LW, and all other soldiers equipped with LW will receive the LW Soldier
System. Finally it states that Tactical Command Nets will be voice, the LW Wireless
Local Area Network will carry data, and Enhanced Position Location Radio System nets
28

will not be deployed but that Situational Awareness will be provided to the individual
soldiers via LW.
3. Methodology
3.1 Operational Architecture Development Method
Given the complexities implicit in developing an OA, Wolfpack has employed a method
that provides a building block approach to be performed over time in the development of
a compete small unit OA down to the soldiers that make up the unit. Since the OA for
the current UA is in the early stages of construction, one can only conjecture at this point
about the construction of any given small unit component of the OA once completed. As
the UA gains precise definition, tools such as netViz permit the development and
refinement of an OA for the UA’s small units.
Wolfpack initiated Combat Applications Team (CAT) deliberations to achieve multiple

goals including selection of an organizing principle for combat interactions, use of
hierarchical decomposition to organize the combat processes, establishment of task-based
fault trees for mission success using measures, conditions, and standards for desired end-
states, and to construct integrated Use Case Threads (See Appendix G) to sequence the
execution of combat processes leading to combat interactions.
CAT used a Military Operational Context (MOC) including an appropriate set of

Operational Environment (OE), Military Operation, Tactical Operation, and Mission Set
considerations to provide an appropriate framework for its analyses.
CAT considered the threat, terrains (open/rolling, urban, complex, restricted, jungle,
mountains, and desert), seasons of the year, types of weather conditions, political
situations, media situations, infrastructure, tactical situations, health conditions, industrial
chemicals (toxic) and decay, mixes of non-combatants/combatants, friendly situations,
and a baseline TRADOC MOC57 in defining the OE for their sessions.
The set of military operations considered by CAT included high-end Small Scale
Contingencies (SSC) to restore peace and stability; major combat operations; and low-
end SSC. CAT sessions produced a series of vignettes that describe the range of terrains,
warfighting intensity levels, types of threats and engagements, and small unit tasks and
supporting activities likely to be encountered by OF individual soldiers, leaders, and
small units. CAT vignettes provide a frame of reference for high, mid, and low levels of
conflict. See Wolfpack OFW O&OC Document for the vignettes.58
The set of tactical operations considered by CAT included “Combined Arms Operations
for Urban Warfare to secure Portions of Major Urban Area” and “Rapid Advance to
Enemy Center of Gravity.”
29

Wolfpack used “Use Cases” to provide context to its technology search and as a logical
supporting document to OA products (See Appendix G).
The Use Cases assisted internal Wolfpack communication between its Concept Working
Group and Technology Working Group and will be refined during OFW Phase II,
particularly as OFW’s training strategy is developed.
Relationships between functional needs and technology enablers were developed through
a systematic analysis. Each use case is “walked through” and potential technology
enablers are identified at each “step.” Attaching technologies in this manner facilitates
construction of a system design trade space where different levels of technology
implementation may be assessed in light of operational need, size, weight, power, as well
as cost (perceived or estimated). In many cases, the technological enablers (and their
variants) are the direct result of the Wolfpack technology search process.
Technology enablers have been broken down into two classes: primary and secondary. A
primary enabler provides a basic level of implementation. For example, directed fires
(squad-level fire concentrated on a single target) may be achieved using conventional
tools (a rifle, a means with which the squad members may see one another to coordinate
targeting and fire, a weapon sighting system, as well as the possibility of a voice radio).
This may impose constraints on how far apart individual squad members may be.
Secondary enablers consist of tools that may enable a less conventional means of
achieving an operational function. In the directed fires example, this may include remote
targeting capabilities such as a laser range finder and a digital compass coupled to
positioning information, a data radio capable of transmitting target coordinates across the
squad, and sensory enhancements such as image intensifiers and thermal imaging
systems.
The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept Document provided the conceptual basis for the
Wolfpack OFW O&OC, which serves as the infrastructure and architectural basis for the
Wolfpack OFW OA; when taken together, the Wolfpack OFW O&OC and OA answer
questions about:
• The capabilities the systems provided by the OFW program must have and the
functions they must perform, the Basis of Issue (BOI) for the systems, and the
who, how, and why interaction with other systems takes place so as to achieve the
needed level of JIM or intra-Army interoperability.
• The missions and tasks the individual soldiers and leaders of the OF must
accomplish, the benefits or contributions these soldiers and leaders provide to the
OF, the purpose for and description of key systems with which the OF’s
individual soldiers and leaders will interact and interface, the typical geographical
positions on the battlefield of the individual soldiers and leaders of the OF, and
the types of support that the individual OF soldiers and leaders will need in order
to perform their tasks and missions.
30

• The missions and tasks OF small units must accomplish, the benefits or
contributions these formations provide to the OF, the purpose for and description
of key systems and organizations with which the OF’s small units will interact
and interface, the typical geographical position on the battlefield of OF small
units, and the types of support that OF small units will need in order to perform
their tasks and missions.
3.2 Metrics
The Wolfpack OA development methodology is based on the straightforward proposition
that missions can be reduced to two fundamental elements: tasks (what needs to be done)
and DOTMLPF (what capabilities are required to do it). Both elements have equally
important roles in mission accomplishment; tasks provide requirements for DOTMLPF,
and DOTMLPF provides the ability to execute the tasks. Since the ultimate goal is to
achieve mission success, it is necessary to start at the top with mission utility and define
success succinctly and unequivocally. Then one can work down and infer the capabilities
at lower level that are required to achieve mission success. Completing this top-down
process, one can then infer the DOTMLPF solutions at the levels that can best (e.g., least
expensively and most quickly) meet the required capabilities. This process also implies
that Wolfpack must define what constitutes operational effectiveness, then the key
supporting capabilities, and then the robustness of individual soldiers and leaders, squads,
and platoons which support those capabilities.
What can be modeled, but not measured, is the military effectiveness of individual OF
soldiers and leaders, squads, and platoons. Therefore, Wolfpack has sought warfighter
input to infer how performance forms the basis for effectiveness and what defines the
military environment(s). Wolfpack initiated the CAT deliberations to compute Measures
of Performance (MoP) under prescribed conditions and compare to task-based fault tree
standards to determine the mission outcome of a combat process following a combat
interaction, and to determine effects on other Combat Processes.
4. OFW OA Products
4.1 OFW OA DOTMLPF Implications
4.1.1 Doctrine
The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC documents provide a robust and holistic
conceptual description of the DOTMLPF implications. See Wolfpack SoS and O&OC
documents for a complete description of OFW doctrine implications, especially those
derived from the FCS Mission Area Analysis (MAA), Mission Needs Analysis (MNA)
and ORD, and the UA O&O.
31

4.1.2 Organizations
The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC documents provide a description of OFW
organizational implications, especially those derived from the FCS MAA, MNA and
ORD, and the UA O&O.
4.1.3 Training
OF Infantry squad members must be cross-trained in all the positions and weapons within
the squad.
In the future, “information and knowledge soldiers” will be required at every echelon.
These soldiers will need to be multi-functional and trained to be able to:
• Understand sensor capabilities and operations, synchronize and integrate non-

organic and coalition sensors with organic ones
• Assist leaders in setting profiles and filters for specified applications, recommend
appropriate sensor mix to users of sensor information, establish and follow
reporting criteria
• Assist leaders with adversary information interpretation and establish procedures

to provide only the information required at the point of decision.
The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC document provide a robust and holistic
documents for a complete description of OFW training implications, especially those
derived from the FCS MAA, MNA and ORD, and the UA O&O.
4.1.4 Materiel
The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC document provide a description of OFW
materiel implications, especially those derived from the FCS MAA, MNA and ORD, and
the UA O&O. A list of the materiel elements of the Wolfpack proposed OFW Family of
Lethality, Mobility, Training, Task Directed and Organized, Situational Awareness,
Sustainment and Survivability Systems examined in the Wolfpack’s Quick Look and
Technology Search Events and to be evaluated in the OFW program’s Concept and
Technology Development Phase I Culminating Demonstration is described in detail in
Wolfpack’s SoS Concept Document.
Supported by the WIN-T, OF information systems will enable leaders to create

collaborative teams operating across echelons, functional areas, commercial/military
sectors, and national/language boundaries so leaders can transcend the limitations of
personal knowledge and physical location. In so doing, leaders will achieve virtual
presence at key points on the battlefield, access to global information, and collaborative
execution. WIN-T employs the JTRS to allow elements at brigade and below to access
32

the GIG. WIN-T will support the warfighter’s requirement for mobile communications by
leveraging the integrated and/or embedded JTRS elements in the FCS platforms, legacy
wide-band digital radios, and wireless LAN technologies. WIN-T and JTRS will be used
to effectively create a single transmission network from home station installation to the
deployed individual soldier.59
Network operations at brigade and below must not be segmented from those above
brigade. For this reason, UA and UE network concepts and solutions must be closely
aligned to form a single GIG-compliant network. 60
The system must be secure but must also simplify the user and management processes
required for implementing security. Keying/re-keying must be performed automatically
and remotely with minimal or no operator intervention. The system must accommodate
access to all security levels, complying with GIG guidance to enable “one terminal with
multiple security modes, ‘colorless’ backbone, data labeling, allied/coalition, unclassified
through Top Secret (TS)/Special Classification Instructions (SCI).” This drives us toward
adoption of an application-based security structure in which the need to encrypt network
traffic is removed.61
Self-configuring, automatic reconfiguration, guided by network specialists, will be

especially fluid at tactical echelons where the shape of the battlefield and flow of the
fight may change very significantly very quickly. 62
Information Data Management (IDM) is the technical means for providing the correct
information to the correct person or system at the necessary time and in the proper
format. It addresses the awareness, access, and delivery of information, ensuring
management of information flow to users in accordance with the commander’s
information policy. IDM will sort and filter information as specified in a preprogrammed
user profile. IDM is not a separate stand-alone system, but rather a set of integrated
information tools, applications, processes and services residing on all GIG-enabled
systems. These tools must address the following IDM issues: timely distribution of time-
critical information, delivering information in ways that optimize the use of GIG
resources, packaging, storing, and “advertising” information so it is accessible to a
widely dispersed community of users with a variety of needs; implementation of
individual user and system “profiles” so information can be intelligently and
automatically pushed or pulled; dynamic methods to allow flexible updating of user
profiles as the situation changes; and restricting access to classified information to ensure
information security is maintained. The OF Battle Command System facilitates adequate
protection of information in accordance with security policy for information at different
classification levels and provides for the secure exchange of information between
networks at different classification levels. It must accommodate access to all security
levels, enabling one terminal with multiple security modes that will support a “colorless”
backbone, data labeling, and allied/coalition access. The objective is adoption of an
application-based security structure in which the need to encrypt network traffic is
removed. 63
33

In order to meet operational requirements, the COP must provide the following:
• A near-real-time continuous graphical representation of the current situation

within the land Area of Operation to include all friendly and enemy (known and
suspected) locations, identification, and unit status in a way directly useful to the
echelon at which the COP is being presented. At a small unit level, the
representation becomes necessarily simple to match the information needs of
soldiers with relevant and useful information available with higher systems.
• The situation should be displayed over topographic details selected by the user
from a menu of available mapping features. The user will tailor the detail and
scale of the display. In general, the tailoring options will be extremely simple.
• On-demand synthesized graphical display of the civil considerations within the

battlespace specified by the user. Generally this information would only be
available to users with a need.
• Near-real-time graphical representation of the weather and weather effects.

Again, while soldiers and small units will have strong interest in weather, the
presentation of weather information and its effects would be necessarily
simplified.
• Scaleable, three-dimensional depictions of the terrain with depiction of man-made

and natural obstacles. This capability is particularly useful in mission rehearsal
and training preparation.
• On-demand display of operational animations used to forecast future enemy and

friendly actions and plans. This capability would likely be used by leaders at the
platoon and company levels.
• Near-real-time depiction of the air situation in the battlespace specified by the

user, including control measures, ballistic trajectories of large caliber artillery and
missiles, and engagement capabilities for friendly air and missile defense systems.
This capability would be of particular interest to fire support experts down to
those in infantry squads.
Interfaces with ABCS and its successor OF system. OFW OA products will be
required to address interface requirements for several versions of the ABCS and as well
as the successor OF Battle Command System. Similarly, OFW OA products will have to
address a mix of new and old, high- and low-tech capabilities.
• The ABCS has been developed in stages using a numbering system to describe
periodic increments of functionality added to the FoS. Full fielding of ABCS
Version 7.0 has been limited to the 4th Infantry Division, the 1st Cavalry Division,
the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, and the SBCTs. Decisions for fully fielding
34

ABCS 7.0 to other units are pending Army assessment of transformation
momentum and availability of resources.
• For the OF, the Army wants to cover all the necessary battlefield functionalities
through a single battle command system, or perhaps two or three systems
together. The Army is in the process of designing this OF Battle Command
System in accordance with the timeline established for FCS.
• All ABCS functionality will not necessarily be migrated to the successor system.
The current Army strategy is to start with a requirement for the OF and then pull
in what is needed against that requirement from ABCS.
Interfaces with Quick-MEDS. OFW OA products may be required to address interface

requirements for the evolving concept nicknamed Quick-MEDS to deliver critical
medical supplies to battlefield wounded through the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(UAVs) as couriers.
• The Army is considering whether to expand the traditional mission of the UAV—
reconnaissance and surveillance (R&S)—to include the often-perilous job of
medical resupply.
• Under an operational scenario developed for the concept, soldiers forward on the
battlefield would call back to troops located away from the battle and request a
certain set of supplies. The items would be loaded into an air-droppable pod,
equipped with a deceleration device (such as a parachute), stabilizing fins, a
crushable nose and, if required, a guidance system. The pods would be inserted
into special holders that, due to the aerodynamics of the Shadow airframe (the
current system being tested is the Shadow 2000 Tactical UAV but other
unmanned vehicles, such as a rotorcraft or ground system, also are under
consideration), likely would be located under the wings. Soldiers would pre-
program Quick-MEDS with GPS coordinates for the forward unit and launch the
air vehicle. Upon arrival at a waypoint near the troops in need of resupply, the
Quick-MEDS GPS trigger would release the individual pods; the fins and
guidance system would help steer the pods during the final leg.
• Crucial triage items that could be transported include blood, fibrin bandages, fluid
infusion sets, ceramic oxygen generators, emergency airway supplies, burn packs,
the Critical Care System for Trauma and Transport, vaccines and other
pharmaceuticals such as anti-venom, and medical CBR defense materiel.
Protocol Addresses. OFW OA products may be required to address Internet interface

requirements for OFW soldiers and leaders, and small units.
• DoD is planning to roll out an advanced version of the Internet that would allow
commanders to give every weapon system its own protocol address.
35

• DoD expects to complete a new policy within the next few months that would set
a “roll out” date to begin implementing “Internet Protocol Version 6,” or IPv6.
The 128-bit protocol would be a giant leap beyond the current 32-bit version,
IPv4. DoD plans department-wide implementation of IPv6 to enhance
functionality of its suite of protocols.
Urban Warfare Master Plan. OFW OA products may be required to address the
implications of the DoD Urban Warfare Master Plan and Joint Publication 3-06, Doctrine
for Joint Operations for OFW soldiers and leaders, squads and platoons.
• The draft master plan contains a DoD-wide strategy with MSs for enhancing joint
urban capabilities. The plan contains direction for Defense agencies and the
services, and describes in detail how to achieve the vision for joint urban
operations outlined in an already completed road map for that mission. The road
map states that DoD must address the following issues: policy; coordination with
other U.S. Government agencies and U.S. allies; research, development and
acquisition; concept development (CD) and experimentation; the development of
modeling and simulation capabilities; military operations on urban terrain training
and experimentation facilities; and the development of joint doctrine.
• The master plan includes timelines and MSs for achieving certain goals, such as
operating in cities with fewer casualties and less infrastructure damage, the key to
which is enhanced C4ISR capabilities. Exploring C4ISR opportunities will be at
the top of the Center for Joint Urban Operations’ agenda. Improved C4ISR in
urban environments could give U.S. forces better means to engage enemies and
deny them sanctuary—using both lethal and non-lethal “precision effects”—and
identify their critical vulnerabilities, officials say. An important aspect of
operating more successfully in cities will be a better understanding of a given
location's geography, infrastructure and culture, and looking at the city as if it is
something like a living organism.
• Among the potential capabilities the Master Plan says should be investigated
include: sensors that look through walls and that “tag” target individuals or
vehicles, and three-dimensional maps that include an urban area’s subterranean
structures, as well as the interiors of key buildings, and activity levels.
4.1.5 Leadership and Education

OF leaders will be required to employ a Rapid Decision Making (RDM) approach to
battlefield decision-making and management. The current Military Decision Making
Process (MDMP) will not survive the pace of OF operations. In place of the linear and
time-consuming MDMP approach, leaders will have to employ a type of RDM that
employs a rapid situational assessment and corresponding response. This type of
decision-making will demand early and frequent decision-making conditioning for new
leaders. Instead of using the Plan, Prepare, and Execute (PPE) format for framing the OE,
the leader must rely on the Detect, Decide, Destroy, and Evaluate (DDE) format. The
36

OFW leader will not have the luxury of time to study and prepare for the next action. The
OFW operational requirement for “continuous operation” will dictate that the leader
responds in a “gunfighter” reflex-response pattern.64 When we consider MDMP
applicability by echelon, we may be better served by emphasizing troop leading
procedures at units below brigade level for most operations rather than a rigid adherence
to MDMP.65
The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC documents provide a description of OFW
leadership and educational implications, especially those derived from the FCS MAA,
MNA and ORD, and the UA O&O.
4.1.6 Personnel
Unit Manning. OFW OA products must address the impacts of the current Army
Personnel System’s manning policies and may be required to address the implications of
a new manning configuration. The centerpiece of the Army’s Personnel Transformation
is a comprehensive effort focused on a potential Army-wide implementation of unit
manning and unit rotation. The Army is examining the feasibility of a unit manning and
rotation system that would better support the new national defense strategy, improve
cohesion and combat readiness within the operational Army, provide highly cohesive
well-trained units to Combatant Commanders, and improve well-being for families by
providing greater stability and predictability in assignments. The Army currently uses
unit rotations in support of operational missions in the Balkans, Sinai, and Afghanistan.
The Army is studying the use of unit rotations for other locations and in the war on
terrorism.
In August 2002 the Army established a task force to explore how such a unit manning
system might work. The Army Staff is to identify a brigade as a “pilot” program to help
prepare the Army for the switch and begin moving other brigades to unit manning before
the program is completed over the next three years. Based on current schedules, senior
Army leadership decisions are to be made for unit manning and unit rotation in July
2003.
A unit rotation based manning system has the potential to create the biggest cultural
change in the Army in decades. Such a system would have significant second and third
order effects across the force—training and leader development, recruiting and retention,
how the Army assigns and deploys soldiers and units, unit readiness levels, promotions,
command assignments, and total Army end-strength, among others.
The Army is considering various potential “unit rotation options” both with regard to the
level of rotation—brigade, battalion or lower levels—and the types of units to be rotated.
A unit rotation based manning policy may, in fact, facilitate implementation of the OFW
OA. A key issue is how well, and in what ways, the members of a unit are personally
known and connected to each other. This is the classic level of social network analysis,
where strong personal ties, often ones that rest on close friendship or bonding
37

experiences, ensure high degrees of personal trust and loyalty. To function well, networks
seem to require higher degrees of interpersonal trust than do other forms of organization,
like hierarchies. This traditional level remains important in the information age.66 The
brigades would be filled with soldiers straight out of advanced individual training, other
soldiers and NCOs who would transfer to the unit in permanent-change-of-station moves,
lieutenants fresh from officer basic course, and captains straight from the captain’s career
course. Once fully manned, the unit would go through an intensive training period that
probably would last six to eight months, then the brigade would conduct a major
readiness exercise — a combat training center (CTC) rotation, or perhaps an externally
evaluated home station exercise — in order to be certified as “mission-ready.” The
brigade would spend the next two years training and would be available for deployments.
The soldiers would stay with the unit for its entire three-year life cycle. At the end of the
three years, the unit would stand down, and the process would begin all over again. The
biggest advantage of a unit manning system is that it ensures that a unit going to war will
be made up of soldiers and leaders who have had time to form cohesive teams.
The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC document provide a robust and holistic
documents for a complete description of OFW personnel implications, especially those
derived from the FCS MAA, MNA and ORD, and the UA O&O.
4.1.7 Facilities
The FCS ORD states that the ability for the FCS to conduct fully embedded training
across the UA in an interactive and constructive environment will bring a new dimension
to facility support. The reliance on separate training devices will be for the most part
eliminated. This will place additional demands on the use of the base system for
individual, crew and collective training events. To support the use of the OFW in this
mode, security and frequency management issues in a home-station environment will
drive a need to provide electronic connectivity to each OFW system, SoS, and FoS
without requiring organic power or using organic communications (emissions) systems
by plugging into a Local Area Network-like system.
The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC document provide a description of OFW
facilities implications, especially those derived from the FCS MAA, MNA and ORD, and
the UA O&O.
4.2 OFW System, SoS, and FoS, and O&O Concepts

The Wolfpack OFW SoS Concept and O&OC documents provide descriptions of O&O
concepts for OF small units, soldiers and leaders. The most significant concepts to the
OFW are outlined below.
38

4.2.1 Combined Arms Capability Concept
An underpinning conceptual notion for development of the OFW small unit OCs and the
technology to enable them is the creation of a micro-variant of the Combined Arms
Capabilities (CAC) resident in the Combined Arms Battalion (CAB).
Such a capability becomes essential when the UA is engaging in large scale operations in
urban or other restricted terrain in which UE and UA sensors are limited in their ability to
penetrate the environment or limited in their availability to cover aspects of ongoing
combat operations. Moreover, if the sensors are unable to penetrate the environment,
netted fires may not be applied with the rapidity with which they would perform in more
open terrain. Early analytical work by TRADOC in examining UA designs has begun to
identify the difficulties some kinds of terrain pose for UA sensors and netted fires
operations. These difficulties must be addressed and are resolvable in our opinion
through the introduction of technology and other changes:
• In environments involving restricted terrain, it would not be surprising to find that

in most, if not all, situations, the enemy sees friendly forces first, initiates fire
first, and dominates local action.
• Additionally, early analytical work will tend to play netted fires with a limitless
amount of ammunition and without the necessary realities of time and space
relationships (relevance of shooter-target equation to the need of forces on the
ground in contact particularly in restricted terrain).
• While embracing the power of sensors to see most of the battlefield and netted
fires to attack many if not most targets in open terrain, the Wolfpack concepts and
associated technology approach takes on the difficulties of restricted terrain,
which historically has provided a central need for Infantry in combat over the past
50 years.
4.2.2 Missions
The following OF Small Unit Mission statement was created by the Wolfpack CAT:
“OFW small units conduct violent close combat across the spectrum of conflict under
any conditions of light, weather or geography at the direction of the unit of action and
in support of the Joint or combined force commander.”
4.2.3 Tasks—OF Small Unit Mission Tasks

The Small Unit tasks shown in Exhibit 18 must be conducted under the following
conditions:
a. Limited Visibility (Night, Fog, Dust, Smoke, Pollutants)
39

b. All types of chemical/biological/radiological environments
c. All types of weather (extreme cold, heat, wet, dry, windy, high altitude)
DEVELOP INTELLIGENCE
No. Task Offense Defense Stability Support

1 Report Tactical Information X X X X
2 Conduct an Area or Zone Reconnaissance X X X
3 Conduct a Route Reconnaissance X X X X
4 Reconnoiter a Built-up Area X X X X
5 Operate in an Electronic Warfare Environment X X X
6 Establish an Observation Post (OP) X X X X
7 Develop and Exploit Combat Information X X X
8 Process Captured Documents and Equipment X X X
9 Handle Enemy Prisoners of War or Detainees X X X X
DEPLOY/CONDUCT MANEUVER

10 Breach an Obstacle X X X
11 Conduct a Passage of Lines as the Stationary Unit X X
12 Take Action on Contact X X X
13 Conduct a Screen X X X
14 Conduct Tactical Movement in a Built up Area X X X X
15 React to Snipers X X X
16 Conduct a Movement to Contact X X X
17 Conduct a Raid X X X
18 Conduct an Ambush X X X
19 Attack a Facility X X X
20 Attack a Bunker X X X
21 Clear a Trench Line X X
22 Conduct Stay Behind Operations X X
23 Conduct a Strong Point Defense of a Building X X
24 Conduct a Delay X X
25 Conduct a Tactical Road March X X X X
26 Cross a Water Obstacle X X X X
27 Conduct Actions at Danger Areas X X X
28 Conduct an Infiltration or Exfiltration X X X
Conduct Operations with Armored or Mechanized Vehicles in an
29 X X X X
Urban Environment
40

30 Employ Protective Obstacles X X X X
31 Attack by Fire X X X
32 Conduct a Passage of Lines as the Passing Unit X X X
33 Conduct Convoy Escort X X X X
34 Conduct Combat Patrol X X X
35 Conduct a Presence Patrol X X
36 Conduct a Search X X X
37 Employ Obscurants X X X
38 Conduct an Anti-Armor Ambush X X X
39 React to Civil Disturbance X X
40 Establish a Check Point X X X X
41 Secure Lines of Communications X X X
42 Search a Building X X
43 Perform Deployment or Redeployment Activities X X X X
44 Prepare Vehicles for Deployment or Redeployment X X X X
45 Assault an Objective X X
46 Conduct a Link-up X X X X
47 Perform Air Assault Operations X X X X
48 Conduct Tactical Movement X X X X
49 Conduct a Relief in Place X X X X
50 Conduct a Bypass X X X
51 Conduct Detention of Civilians and Non-hostile Personnel X X X X
41

PROTECT THE FORCE

52 Maintain Operations Security X X X X
53 Establish and Maintain Small Unit Camouflage X X X
54 Establish and Maintain Small Unit Communication (Internal/External) X X X X
55 Establish and Maintain Anti-Fratricide Measures X X X
56 Conduct Passive Air Defense Measures X X X
57 Conduct Active Air Defense Measures Against Hostile Aircraft X X X
PERFORM CSS AND SUSTAINMENT

58 Secure Civilians During Operations X X X X
59 Destroy Enemy Vehicles and Equipment X X X
60 Perform Re-supply Operations X X X X
61 Treat and Evacuate Casualties X X X X
62 Conduct Equipment Maintenance Operations X X X X
EXERCISE COMMAND AND CONTROL

63 Establish and Maintain Redundant Communications X X X X
64 Conduct Consolidation and Reorganization X X X
65 Prepare for Combat X X X
66 Conduct Troop-Leading Procedures X X X X
67 Occupy an Assembly Area X X X X
68 Conduct a Rehearsal X X X X
69 Mark Friendly Unit Positions X X X
70 Mark Enemy Positions X X X
DEFEND
71 Conduct Defense Offense Defense Stability Support

a. Hasty X X X
b. Deliberate X
c. Built Up Area X X
d. Battle Position X
e. Sector X
72 Break Contact X X
73 Disengage Enemy Forces X X X
42

75 Call For and Adjust Fires X X X
a. Mortars X X X
b. Artillery X X X
c. Naval Gun Fire X X X
d. Aviation Assets X X X
e. Fixed Wing CAS X X X
f. UAV X X X
76 Provide Terminal Guidance for Laser Guided Smart Munitions X X X
77 Plan Fires to Support the Offense (Squad Organic Assets) X X X
78 Plan Fires to Support the Defense (Squad Organic Assets) X X X
79 Plan Fires to Support Urban Operations X X X
80 Plan for Area Denial Munitions X
Exhibit 18. OF Small Unit Task List

OF Infantry squads and platoons should be focused primarily on offensive operations,
with defensive operations as secondary missions and must be capable of separate67,
distributed68 and pulsed69 operations.
OF Infantry squads and platoons require on-demand logistics support to ensure rapid
response or the units will outrun logistics arrangements as practiced in the LF.
OF Infantry squad can perform all missions of a LF Infantry platoon in all conditions but
the capabilities resident at the LF Infantry platoon level will have to be pushed down to
the OF Infantry squad level. This direction is being implemented in the Infantry rifle
squads of the SBCTs.
OF Infantry squads must have the means to perform some missions currently performed
by the LF Infantry platoon. These missions include attack, ambush, and raid. The size and
complexity of some targets or objectives will necessitate the combining of OF Infantry
squads into a platoon formation to overwhelm the enemy.
OF Infantry squads must be designed to carry out missions separated from other units in
space and time and or separated from the platoon (or its higher HQ).
Wolfpack identified two sets of potential OF Infantry platoon designs:
• The first set comprises a 44-man OF Infantry platoon (Exhibit 19) for OF Infantry
organizations not equipped with FCS manned platforms and a 53-man OF
Infantry platoon for OF Infantry organizations equipped with FCS manned
platforms (versus the 49-man UA O&O design). The difference between the two
CAT types of platoons within the set is nine vehicle drivers70 (the platoon HQ is
transported in a FCS manned platform and each squad is transported in two FCS
manned platforms in Infantry organizations equipped with FCS manned
platforms).
43

• The second set comprises a 56-man OF Infantry platoon (Exhibit 20) for OF
Infantry organizations not equipped with FCS manned platforms and a 65-man
OF Infantry platoon for OF Infantry organizations equipped with FCS manned
platforms (versus the 49-man UA O&O design). The difference between the two
CAT types of platoons is nine vehicle drivers (the platoon HQ is transported in an
FCS manned platform and each squad is transported in two FCS manned
platforms in Infantry organizations equipped with FCS manned platforms).
Platoon Commander (CPT) SC 11

OFW Platoon Deputy Commander (2LT/1LT) SC 11
2 OFF/ 24 NCO/ 18 EM
Total: 44
Platoon Sergeant (SFC) MOS 11X4
Asst Platoon Sergeant (SSG) MOS 11X3
OFW
Sniper
2 NCO/2EM
OFW OFW OFW OFW
5 NCO/4 EM 5 NCO/ 4 EM 5 NCO/ 4 EM 5 NCO/4 EM
Exhibit 19. OF Infantry Platoon—9-Man Squad Based
Exhibit 20. OF Infantry Platoon—12-Man Squad Based
44

Both alternative sets have four man sniper squads. The snipers would be transported, in
OF Infantry organizations equipped with FCS manned platforms, either with the platoon
HQ’s manned platform or one or more of the FCS manned platforms for the squads.
The first set of CAT alternative OF Infantry platoons optimally would provide a 44-man
dismounted strength versus the typical 40-man dismounted strength of the UA O&O
design—a 10% increase. The second set of CAT alternative OF Infantry platoons
optimally would provide a 56-man dismounted strength versus the typical 40-man
dismounted strength of the UA O&O design—a 25% increase.
Wolfpack identified two potential OF Infantry squad design alternatives:
• The first alternative (Exhibit 21) is very similar to the UA O&O design, but
comprises four nine-man squads that subsume the LF and UA O&O rifle and
weapons squads’ capabilities and functions. The CAT recommended OF Infantry
squad organization contains a Sergeant First Class/ Staff Sergeant (SFC/SSG)
squad leader, weapons (direct and indirect), communications, fire support,
medical, sapper and sniper capabilities.
• The second alternative (refer to Exhibit 22) comprises four 12-man squads (versus
the four nine-man squads proposed by the UA O&O design), which also subsume
the LF and UA O&O rifle and weapons squads’ capabilities and functions. The
CAT-recommended OF Infantry squad organization contains an SFC/SSG Squad
Leader, an SSG Deputy Squad Commander/Intelligence Sergeant,
communications, fire support, medical, sapper, sniper, and enhanced and weapons
(direct and indirect) capabilities.
45

Squad Leader
SFC/SSG
MOS 11X3/4
Senior Infantry Weapons Junior Infantry Weapons

Sergeant Specialist
SSG CPL-PVT
MOS 11X3 MOS 11X1
Senior Infantry Junior Infantry

Communication/Terminal Communication/Terminal
Guidance Sergeant Guidance Sergeant
SGT/CPL CPL-PVT
MOS 11X2 MOS 11X1
Senior Infantry Breacher Junior Infantry Breacher

SGT/CPL CPL-PVT
MOS 11X2 MOS 11X1
Senior Infantry Close Combat Junior Infantry Close Combat

Lifesaver Specialist Lifesaver Specialist
SGT/CPL CPL-PVT
MOS 11X2 MOS 11X1
Exhibit 21. Objective Force Infantry Squad—9-Man Alternative
46

Squad Commander Deputy Squad
SFC/SSG Commander/Intelligence
MOS 11X3/4 Sergeant
SSG
MOS 11X3
Senior Infantry Weapons Junior Infantry

Sergeant Weapons Specialists
SSG CPL-PVT
MOS 11X3 MOS 11X1
Senior Infantry Junior Infantry

Communications/Terminal Communications/
Guidance Sergeant Terminal Guidance
SGT/CPL CPL-PVT
MOS 11X2 MOS 11X1
Senior Infantry Breacher Junior Infantry Breacher

SGT/CPL CPL-PVT
MOS 11X2 MOS 11X1
Senior Infantry Close Junior Infantry Close

Combat Lifesaver Combat Lifesaver
SGT/CPL CPL-PVT
MOS 11X2 MOS 11X1
Exhibit 22. OF Infantry Squad—12-Man Alternative

The Wolfpack approach to OFW has been to define capabilities at the small unit level,
which is enabled by a modular and distributed approach. This enables the small unit to
configure itself across the spectrum of perceived need, from the very specialized to the
very broad, minimizing the need to “leave capabilities behind.”
The Wolfpack designs assume two robotic multi-functional vehicles per OF Infantry
squad.
47

Neither Wolfpack OF Infantry squad has hierarchical teams; rather, the Wolfpack OF
Infantry squads are capable of task organization into assault, support, and security teams
as required by mission, providing a more flexible team organization for combat to allow
task organization into assault, support, or security elements as required. The Wolfpack
OF Infantry squads continue fire-and-movement and fire-and-maneuver as foundation
capabilities. The Wolfpack OF Infantry squad design creates patrolling, reconnaissance,
and surveillance capabilities for the squad.
4.3 OFW OA Required Capabilities

OF soldiers, leaders, and small units must have the agility to deal with the variety of
conditions they will encounter on the non-contiguous, complex battlefield. They must be
able to seamlessly transition from vertical maneuver, to mounted operations, to foot
movement in any environment with a level of redundancy necessary for information
assurance. This demands C4ISR systems that are vertically and horizontally layered and
integrated from the strategic to the tactical level across all systems. Drawing information
and tailored intelligence products, updated in near-real time, from a wide variety of
automated and human sources will provide a knowledge backbone that can revolutionize
and expedite the decision-action cycle. This architecture will provide the means for small
units to achieve situational understanding (SU), and establish, maintain, and distribute a
COP tailored to unit and mission.
4.3.1 Battle Command—Anytime, Anywhere
OF small unit leaders must be able to command from LF, SBCT, and FCS C2 or combat
vehicles, or dismounted. When dismounted OF Infantry squad and platoon leaders must
maintain connectivity to the network to integrate ISR, maneuver, and fires.
4.3.2 “Space to Mud, Factory to Foxhole”

The Army is following an enterprise strategy that supports digitization by implementing
an integrated IT architecture and Horizontal Technology Integration. This strategy
incorporates a “Space to Mud” C4ISR approach.
The OF will employ combined arms at lower tactical levels to maximize versatility and
agility and improve capabilities for the close fight. OF units are being designed with
functional capabilities that currently reside in higher echelons.
4.3.3 “Linking Joint Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance”

The OF is to employ advanced technologies coupled with an array of networked ground,
air, and space sensors. Together, these offer the squad and platoon commander an
unprecedented picture of the battlefield. Sensors, reconnaissance formations, and data
fusion systems, like the Joint GIG, coupled with innovative leader training, will enable
OF small units to view a synthesized, CROP of the battlefield. This CROP will provide
near-real-time status and locations of friendly forces. This will enable small units to
48

develop and evaluate effective offensive and defensive courses of action while
minimizing fratricide. The CROP will also enable small units to know enemy locations
and strengths, ascertain his intentions, and defeat him decisively. The CROP is to allow
small units to understand what the enemy is doing, better anticipate his intentions, and
proactively respond to his initiatives. Leaders down to the squad level will observe the
CROP and simultaneously analyze and share assessments through a collaborative
planning process enabled by ITs.
4.3.4 “Every Soldier a Sensor, Shooter, and Assessor”
The Army regards the individual soldier as possessing the ability to become the ultimate
sensor for the UA. A soldier observes, listens, feels, and processes information. He
analyzes, judges, thinks, prioritizes, decides, and communicates what he knows and does
so in real time. The soldier is a shooter, who designates, directs, or calls for PE. He does
this from inches away to the limit of his technology—enhanced Line of Sight (LOS) with
his eyes, laser, or gun sight on the target, in all weather conditions and terrain sets. Most
importantly, he is disciplined and trained, understands purpose and intent, and can assess,
firsthand, the battle damage and the effects of PE. In effect, the soldier on the ground is
the ultimate precision weapon.
Through programs like OFW the Army intends to make every Infantry soldier a shooter
in his own right and capable of providing a decisive component of an assault but also a
sensor, shooter, and assessor for the full range of Joint Fires, and to provide the means
and methods to master future military operations.
The OFW fusion architecture, operating over integrated communications networks, must
be capable of accepting data from all Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
(ISR) sources (organic and external). This includes sensors on board combat vehicles and
soldiers, organic manned and unmanned R&S platforms, and external sensor
constellations. Three distinct links must be supported by fusion for OF soldiers, leaders,
and small units. These are sensor to shooter, sensor to decider and maneuver, and sensor
to analysis node.
The OFW ISR architecture needs to fuse artificial and human intelligence coming from
many sources in such a way that it is fused at the source and provided directly to the
action agent. It is required to provide data directly to weapon systems with tight sensor-
to-shooter links, satisfy Commander’s Critical Information Requirements (CCIRs), and
empower squads and platoons with responsiveness, agility, and an ability to operate with
greater competence, confidence, and purpose.
At each echelon, from soldier to platoon to the UA, information must be processed and
fused to contribute to a localized and relevant COP. A series of intelligent agents,
profiles, and filters built into the processors and modified to suit specific situations during
pre-combat preparations ensures actionable information reaches the proper points of
fusion at other echelons.
49

4.3.5 Networked Dismounted Elements71
Networked dismounted elements equipped with OFW like capabilities are to integrate
support from mounted elements and from battalion and brigade fires, achieving a
dismounted overmatch at tactical standoff.
Brigade and battalion capabilities are to be responsive to squads and platoons in contact.
Sensor coverage is to be maintained throughout an assault to see enemy reactions, exploit
enemy vulnerabilities, and confirm Battle Damage Assessment (BDA).
Squads and platoons in contact are to provide spot reports, which are immediately shared
with adjacent units and higher commanders. Platoons, and squads are to be able to
conduct decentralized execution of mission orders to finish engagements.
Squads and platoons are to operate as lethal teams and prepared to respond against enemy
engagement from hide positions. Dismounted squads and platoons are to maintain
overwatch with precision fires within the building as they enter and clear rooms.
Additionally, squads and platoons in the building are to receive mutual support by precise
Beyond Line-of-Sight (BLOS) fires. The network must ensure that LOS, BLOS, and
external and internal Non Line-of-Sight (NLOS) fires as well as close support by RAH 66
are available on demand to support the squads and platoons as they move through the
objective. Force cohesion is to be maintained through a reliable network that provides
C4ISR communications within the building and in the subterranean spaces below the
building and streets where squads and platoons may need to maneuver.
As commanders collaborate and decide on a course of action, they immediately

disseminate their intent down to the squad level, affording maximum time for subordinate
commands to conduct requisite troop leading procedures. Squads and platoons
disseminate combat information from troops in contact to higher echelons and
horizontally to other units that need the information to the level of fidelity needed.
Squads and platoons are to operate as lethal teams and prepared to respond against enemy
engagement from hide positions. Dismounted squads and platoons maintain are to
overwatch with precision fires within the building as they enter and clear rooms.
Additionally, squads and platoons in the building are to receive mutual support by precise
BLOS fires. The network must ensure that LOS, BLOS, and external and internal NLOS
fires as well as close support by RAH 66 are available on demand to support the squads
and platoons as they move through the objective. Force cohesion is to be maintained
through a reliable network that provides C4ISR communications within the building and
in the subterranean spaces below the building and streets where squads and platoons may
need to maneuver.
Squads and platoons focus on most dangerous targets, using networked external and
organic fires and determine CID to prevent fratricide. The combination of situational
awareness, organic sensors, and forward presence by squads and platoons leaders enables
them to make CID decisions.
50

Squads and platoons BLOS and NLOS systems permit mutual support between squads
and platoons operating on dispersed axes; the network enables fire control and
distribution between separated units.
The integration of sensors down to the squad level with precision LOS, BLOS, and
NLOS fires enables immediate reaction to surprise fire from the enemy.
The UA’s aviation detachment and other supporting Army and joint aviation can
communicate with and collaborate with UA squads and platoons.
Networked squads and platoons use massed effects to create lethal overmatch.
The C4ISR architecture must include embedded training from individual soldier and
leader to collective (squads and platoons). Training implications include: Software to
support training must be “as capable” as how to fight doctrine—very adaptable and
updateable; the training model must support combinations of virtual, constructive, and
live training; and training to order—a National Simulation Center capable of providing
scenario, threat, terrain, weather—full spectrum.
4.4 Wolfpack OA Products

Wolfpack Operational Architecture documents provided in the Appendices include the
following:
• AV 1 Overview and Summary Information – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see

Appendix C
• OV 1 High-Level OC Graphic – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see Appendix D
• OV 2 Operational Node Connectivity Description – OFW Equipped OF Small

Unit; see Appendix E
• OV3 Operational IER Matrix – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see Appendix F
• Wolfpack Use Cases – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see Appendix G
• OV 4 Organizational Relationship Chart – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see

Appendix H
• OV 5 Activity Model – OFW Equipped OF Small Unit; see Appendix I
• OV6 Operational Event/Trace Diagram (Mission Thread) – OFW Equipped OF

Small Unit; see Appendix J.
51

5. Use of OA Products
5.1 Wolfpack OFW System of Systems Architecture
The Wolfpack OFW OA is the defining foundation of the Wolfpack OFW SoSA because
it characterizes the capabilities the SoSA must provide. This capabilities-based focus is
not based on specific technologies, providing an opportunity for innovation unrestricted
by technology biases.
The Wolfpack approach to OFW has been to define capabilities at the small unit level,
which is enabled by a modular and distributed approach. This enables the small unit to
configure itself across the spectrum of perceived need, from the very specialized to the
very broad, minimizing the need to “leave capabilities behind.” This perspective allows
for analysis and definition of which systems must interact to achieve the given
operational function. This level of analysis will effectively provide architecture of
systems required to perform given functions. It will become clear that certain
technologies/systems become critical across multiple areas of combat function. Beyond
the identification of relationships between systems/subsystems, this analysis potentially
enables a quantification of the increased combat effectiveness provided by the given SoS.
SoSs provide increased capabilities due to their synergistic interactions. Systems and
subsystems act in concert, enabling a completely new function. A unique differentiation
from a system is that SoSs tend to avert catastrophic failures and retain a base level of
function represented by the individual functions of the core components.
The Wolfpack SoS Architecture identifies the systems required to achieve the functional
needs described in the Wolfpack SoS Concept and O&O Concept documents, as well as
their relation to one another.
5.2 Wolfpack OFW System/Technical Architectures

As noted in the recent OSD Acquisition guidance, the OFW SV and TV must
characterize available technology and systems functionality in response to the OFW OV
and identify the kinds of systems and integration needed to achieve the desired
operational capability.
5.2.1 Wolfpack OFW System Architecture

The Information System Services (ISS) infrastructure, the five major subsystems
(Knowledge Management Subsystem [KMS], NC Subsystem, Squad Ensemble
Subsystem, Force Application Subsystem, and Non-Organic Subsystems), and the
interfaces described by the Wolfpack SA also respond to the capability needs derived
from Wolfpack’s description of the missions, tasks, and capabilities of OF soldiers and
leaders, and small units in the OE described in the Wolfpack SoS Concept and O&OC
documents.
52

The flexibility embedded in the architecture reflects the demands of the various
configuration needs, tactical functions, and tasks suggested by the variety of soldier,
leader, and small unit concepts described in those documents and supports the requisite
collaboration demanded during the separate72, distributed,73and pulsed74 operations by
OF soldiers, leaders, and small units.
5.2.2 Wolfpack OFW Technical Architecture

The Wolfpack TA provides a coordinating framework and a top-level definition of the
OFW system partition and functional allocation. These govern the specification and
design of the subsystems and components that will operate together to provide the force
multiplication and reach required to ensure success in OF small unit operations. In the
context of that top-level structure, the Wolfpack TA will provide a coherent set of
governing standards that ensure that OFW subsystems and components operate
effectively with the soldiers who rely on them, and with each other, and that OFW will
operate successfully with other elements of the UA. The TA is specific to the needs of the
OFW concepts and is focused to address its particular needs and provide the specific
capabilities envisioned by the OFW OA. The interfaces and interactions it seeks to
control are based on the capability needs derived from Wolfpack’s description of the
missions, tasks, and capabilities of OF soldiers, leaders, and small units in the OE.
6. Summary
The Wolfpack OA Document provides an unambiguous DOTMLPF basis for completion
of the Concept and Technology Development phase of the OFW program. It, however,
only represents a first step in an iterative development process integral to the spiral
development of OFW system concepts and designs, and corresponding TRADOC
products.
OFW OA product refinement, via the TRADOC OA development process, database, and
tools must be expanded to accommodate not only maturation of proposed OFW program
technologies, but also the contextual influences of the other concepts, plans and
architectures, the external programmatic and technological influences of Army and Joint
programs, and evolving changes to the DoD DAS and JCIDS.
The evolving DoD DAS guidance concerning concept and technology development
efforts requires in-depth analysis of the implications described by Secretary of Defense
(SECDEF) Memorandum, Defense Acquisition, Attachment 2, Operation of the DAS, 30
October 2002 about development of joint integrated architectures by the Under Secretary
of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) (USD [AT&L]), the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD
[C3I]), the Joint Staff, the Military Departments, the Defense Agencies, the Combatant
Commanders, and other appropriate DoD Components for capability areas agreed to by
the Joint Staff especially concerning the OV.
53

Perhaps more significantly, the parallel evolution of the DoD JCIDS requires a in-depth
analysis of the potential impact of Joint Staff changes to Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
Instruction (CJCSI) 3170.01C concerning JOA/integrated architectures, and reviews and
analyses of capabilities/requirements in the context of these integrated architectures.
Development of a closer relationship to the FCS LSI and Program Management Office
(PMO) and TRADOC OA product effort appears key to success for the OFW program.
Access by the OFW LTI to the FCS ACE and other databases, and sharing of work
completed by the FCS LSI and PMO and TRADOC should be leveraged to provide OFW
program acceleration and cost savings. It is clear that the functional decomposition work
and architecture work performed to date in the FCS program requires detailed interaction
with the OFW CD effort. A key concern is that the FCS system, including its supporting
communications network, is still in the process of being defined and detailed designs are
not scheduled to be finalized until FY05. Therefore, it will be necessary to closely
monitor future FCS developments to ensure interoperability between OFW and FCS.
Finally, representatives of the OFW program must actively participate in FCS working
groups and IPTs to ensure that the overall FCS SoS will serve the needs of the OFW
equipped soldiers, leaders, squads, and platoons.
Similarly, development of a relationship to the LW-SI development effort appears key to

success for the OFW program. Access by the OFW LTI to the LW-SI effort and
databases, and sharing of OA product work completed by TRADOC, should also be
leveraged to provide OFW program acceleration and cost savings.
54

Endnotes
1
Wolfpack Enterprise (Wolfpack) Operational Architecture (OA) Document (Interim),
SLIN 2BR, 27 January 2003.
2
Wolfpack System of Systems (SoS) Concept Document (Interim) (Revision 1), SLIN
2AB, 16 December 2002 and Operational and Organizational Concept (O&OC)
Document (Final) SLIN 2AF, 24 February 2003.
3
Included, to a degree, as elements of TRADOC OA products.
4
Ibid.
5
Wolfpack SoS Concept Document (Interim) (Revision 1), SLIN 2AB, 16 December
2002 and O&OC Document (Final) SLIN 2AF, 24 February 2003.
6
2002.
7
Wolfpack O&OC Document (Final) SLIN 2AF, 24 February 2003.
8
2002.
9
TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-90/O&O, Operational and Organizational Plan (O&OP) for
Maneuver Unit of Action (UA), Change 1, 25 November 2002.
10
TRADOC’s Architecture Integration and Management Directorate (AIMD) is
responsible for producing architecture plans and managing architecture development
resources, and is TRADOC's agent for the Army and Army component segments of
Joint and Coalition architectures. The AIMD has overall architecture responsibility for
policy, procedures, resourcing, and prioritization, and serves as the single point of
entry for Joint and Department of the Army directed/requested architecture support
from TRADOC.
AIMD-South at Fort Gordon (http://aipc.gordon.army.mil) is responsible for overall

integration of all architectural views and types of architectures for the Objective Force
(OF), Interim Force (IF), and Legacy Force (LF), and operates and maintains
TRADOC's architecture repository and tools to ensure consistent application of
architecture information to institutional processes and architecture efforts. AIMD
currently supports the development of the following DoD Architecture products:
55

a. AV (Architecture View) 1 – “Overview and Summary Information” – Described
as: Initially a planning document, sets the viewpoint, scope and purpose of the
architecture, describes how the architecture was built, identifies roles and
responsibilities, provides common lexicons, and focuses capability areas.
Describes: Architecture context, summary, scope, purpose, products and tool sets,
environment, analytical findings, and who did/will build the architecture products.
Level of detail: Two levels - plan and summary.

(Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.)
b. AV2 - “Integrated Dictionary” – Provides common lexicons and facilitates

common understanding.
Describes: All terms in the architecture.
Level of detail: Al acronyms and new conceptual terms not considered common
knowledge.
c. OV1: “High level Operational Concept Graphic” – Described as an OA product

for Concept Exploration/Decision Making. Shows how the user plans to employ
available forces and assets on the battlefield to accomplish the mission. Consists of
one or more sets of illustration and accompanying text that describe, as a minimum,
mission, high-level operations, organizations, and geographical distribution of
assets.
Level of detail: One per Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E), system, or
Battlefield Functional Area (BFA). For the UA: one overarching for the brigade and
one for each separate TO&E organization. For FCS: one per BFA/functional area
within each of the architectures.
d. OV2: “Operational Node Connectivity Description” – Described as an OA

product for Concept Exploration/Decision Making. Describes operational elements
(OEs), organizations and units that are required to exchange information directly
with each other.
Describes requirements for OEs to exchange information directly, both internal and
external connectivity, and rollups of multiple individual information exchanges
sufficient for OV representation.
Level of detail: One per TO&E organization or BFA/function, all operational nodes
to platform or individual system level to National Command Authority (NCA),
56

interagency level are to be described. For the UA: down to Operational Facility
(OPFAC) level. All nodal connectivity will be identified in the database.
Summary/rollup sufficient for OV representation.
e. OV3: “Operational Information Exchange Matrix” – Described as an OA product

for Concept Exploration/Decision Making. Depicts information exchanged between
operational nodes/elements and the relevant attributes of that exchange.
Describes: Requirements for OEs to exchange information directly, relevant

attributes of Information Exchange Requirement (IER), supporting warfighter tasks
and activities, and at a minimum Capstone Requirement Document
(CRD)/Operational Requirements Document (ORD) required fields.
Level of detail: One per TO&E organization or BFA/function, and individual

exchanges for operational nodes to platform or individual system level to NCA,
interagency level. For the UA: down to OPFAC level.
f. OV4: “Organizational Relationship Chart” – Described as an OA product for

Concept Exploration/Decision Making. Depiction of OEs involved in a process and
the lines of command, control and coordination/relationships among those OEs.
Describes: OEs and relationships between OEs.
Level of detail: One per TO&E organization. For the UA: down to section/team
level.
g. OV5: “Activity Model” – Described as an OA product for Concept

Exploration/Decision Making.
Describes: The hierarchical relationships between activities, the inputs, outputs,

controls and mechanisms associated with each activity, graphical and textual
description of the activities performed by/within an organization or system,
activities performed in the process and their Inputs, Controls, Outputs, and
Mechanisms, Task/activity decomposition, Activity Based Costing metrics, and, at
a minimum, output(s) and control(s) for each activity.
Level of detail: Army Universal Task List (AUTL) tasks down 3-5 levels of detail,
Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Pub 183 standards, inputs and
outputs to Interface Exchange Requirement (IER) level, and mechanisms to system
or OPFAC level.
57

h. OV6: “Operational Event/Trace Diagram (Mission Thread)” – Described as an
OA for Concept Exploration/Decision Making.
Describes: The sequencing of functions or information flows, the user’s operational

activity sequence and timing, and actions in a scenario or critical sequence of events
required for mission accomplishment.
Level of detail: One per mission/function down to operational node and IER level.
i. OV7: No title or description identified by AIMD.
j. SV1: ”System Interface Description.” Described as linking together the

operational and systems AVs by depicting the assignments of systems and their
interfaces to the nodes and needlines described in the Operational Node
Connectivity Description.
Describes interface requirements between systems and system hardware and

software.
Level of detail: Internal and external links down to system/subsystem and platform
level.
k. SV2: “System Communication Description.” Described as representing the

specific communications systems pathways or networks and the details of their
configurations through which the physical nodes and systems interface. This
product focuses on the physical aspects of the Operational Node Connectivity
Description and also depicts pertinent information about communications elements
and services (e.g., the kind of processing performed onboard a satellite, the
locations of network switches or routers, etc.).
Describes: communications paths and networks, physical links, and waveforms.
Level of detail: Network, platform and system level, and user nodes.
l. SV3: “System-to-System Matrix.” Described as describing the inter-system

relationships identified in the inter-nodal and intra-nodal perspectives of the System
Interface description.
Describes: system to system interface requirements, when the interface is required,

and type and/or medium used for the interface – physical and data link level.
58

Level of detail: System/subsystem, and physical and data links.
(Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002)
m. SV4: “Systems Functional Description” – No title or description identified by

AIMD.
n. SV5: “Op Activity to System Function Matrix.” Identifies the transformation of an

operational need into a purposeful action performed by a system component.
Describes: The relationship between the OA and SA views by depicting the

mapping of operational activities to system functions, OA to SA traceability, and
proposed system solutions.
Level of detail: Operational tasks and system software functions.

o. SV6: “System Information Exchange Matrix.” Depicts how information will be

physically exchanged between operational nodes/elements and the relevant
attributes of that exchange.
Describes: Physical attributes of, quantitative parameters, and detailed system

solutions to IER.
Level of Detail: Nodes, OEs, OPFACs; AUTL/Universal Joint Task List (UJTL)
activity; message set/data exchange; system/software; and network.
p. SV11: “Data Base Schema” – No title or description identified by AIMD.
q. TV1: “Technical Architecture Profile.” The profile is time-phased to facilitate a

structured, disciplined process of system development and evolution. Time phasing
also promotes the consideration of emerging technologies and the likelihood of
current technologies and standards becoming obsolete.
Describes: Standards/building codes the architecture is based on and emerging

technologies.
Level of detail: Varies; provides interface standards, Military Standards, and data
interchanges.
11
The TRADOC Program Integration Office for the Army Battle Command System
(TPIO-ABCS) defines and integrates all battle command requirements and
59

responsibilities from the theater Army to the individual soldier or platform across the
entire spectrum of Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and
Education, Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF) domains for TRADOC.
12
TRADOC proponent schools and centers are responsible for producing OA products.
13
Per the requirements identified in Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) Memorandum,
Defense Acquisition, Attachment 2, Operation of the DAS, 30 October 2002.
14
For example, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) and Legacy Force (LF)
architectures listed below. The AIMD Product Area web site hosts the architecture
repository - a variety of architecture products developed by AIMD, the TPIO ABCS,
TRADOC proponent centers and schools, and other support agencies. Products
available for download, may either be in initial, draft, or final stages of development.
All information and products available on the web site is considered sensitive in nature
and not releasable to the general public. Access to the TRADOC architecture
repository is password protected and requires AIMD approval. No products
downloaded from the web site can be placed on any other web site without the written
consent of the AIMD. The products available on the AIMD web site include:
OF Architectures:
1. Draft OF Unit of Employment (UE) Headquarters (HQ) Design OA, 13 Dec 2002
2. OF UE HQ Design Database, Dec 2002
U.S. Army Space & Missile Defense Command (USASMDC):

1. 1st Space Battalion System View (SV) – 1, Version (V) 1.0 8, Jan. 2003
2. 1st Space Battalion Horseblanket, V1.5, 23 Jan. 2003
IF Architectures:
1. Interim Division Band, V1.0
2. Interim Division Base Support Battalion V1.0
3. Interim Division Air Cavalry Support Battalion, V1.0
4. Interim Division Maneuver Sustainment Brigade, V 1.0
5. Interim Division Troops Support Battalion, V 1.0
6. Interim Division Engineer Regiment, V 1.0
7. Interim Division Long Range Surveillance Detachment, V 1.0
8. Interim Division Military Intelligence Battalion, V 1.0
9. Interim Division Military Intelligence Company, V 1.0
10. Interim Division Military Police Company, V 1.0
11. Interim Division Signal Battalion, V1.0
SBCT Architectures:
1. Interim Combat Service Support Company, V2.0 netViz
2. Interim Combat Service Support Company Horseblanket V2.0, 2 May 2001
60

3. SBCT - 3 (172d Light Infantry Brigade (Separate)) Approved Operational Facility
Rules (OPFAC), V2.0
4. SBCT –3 (172d Light Infantry Brigade (Separate)) Horseblanket, V2.0
5. SBCT - 3 (172d Light Infantry Brigade (Separate)) Component and System
Rollup Report, V2.0
6. SBCT - 3 (172d Light Infantry Brigade (Separate)) Database V2.0
7. SBCT – 3 (172d Light Infantry Brigade (Separate)) netViz V2.01
8. Combat Service Support Company-3 (172d Light Infantry Brigade (Separate))
V2.0, 28 January 2002
9. SBCT- 4 (2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light)) Horseblanket V1.5, 7 October
2002
10. SBCT- 4 (2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light)) Business Rules V1.5, 8
October 2002
LF Architectures:
1. ADA Brigade V2.0 netViz, 4 Nov. 2002
2. Civil Affairs Brigade V2.0 netViz, 4 Nov. 2002
3. Field Artillery V2.0 netViz, 4 Nov. 2002
4. Psychological Operations Battalion V2.0 netViz, 4 Nov. 2002
5. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment V2.0 netViz, 11 June 2002
6. 75th Ranger Regiment netViz V2.0, 28 Mar. 2002
7. 75th Ranger Regiment V2.0, 28 Mar. 2002
8. 82nd Airborne Division netViz V1.5, 20 May 2002
9. 82nd Airborne Division Horseblanket V1.5, 18 June 2002
10. 82nd Airborne Division Business Rules and Issues V1.5, 16 Oct. 2002
11. 1st Cavalry Division
Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) AIMD products are to include:
1. SBCT-5
2. SBCT-6
3. XVIIIth Airborne Corps
4. 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry)
5. 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized)
15
“NetViz” is hierarchical “visual database” software provided by the “netViz
Corporation” (www.netViz.com).
16
LTG Johnny Riggs, Director Objective Force (OF) Task Force, Briefing at the Space
and Missile Defense Symposium in El Paso, Texas, 11 December 2002.
17
Joint Force Command (JFCOM) is to develop an integrated interoperability plan to
address the following interoperability priorities: Standard operating procedures and
deployable joint command and control processes, organizations, and systems for the
61

Standing Joint Force Headquarters, a common relevant operational picture (CROP) for
joint forces, enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities,
selected sensor-to-shooter linkages prioritized by contribution to the Joint Operating
Concept (JOC), reachback capabilities that provide global information access, and
adaptive mission planning, rehearsal, and joint training linked with C4ISR. (Draft
DOD Transformation Planning Guidance, 20 February 2003.)
18
CJCSI 3170.01C, Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), 20
January 2003 (Draft).
19
The goal is to produce military forces capable of the following types of operations by
the end of the decade, e.g., US forces are to leverage asymmetric advantages to the
fullest extent possible, drawing upon unparalleled C4ISR capabilities that provide joint
common relevant operational situational awareness of the battlespace, rapid and robust
sensor-to-shooter targeting, reachback and other necessary prerequisites for network-
centric warfare. Combined arms forces armed with superior situational awareness will
maneuver more easily around the battlefield and force the enemy to mass where PE
capabilities may be used to maximum effect. (Draft DOD Transformation Planning
Guidance, 20 February 2003.)
20
Integrated architectures describe in greater detail the relationship between the tasks
and activities that generate effects on enemy forces and supporting operations. They
identify where operations intersect and overlap and provide details on interoperability
requirements. The architectures will include not just materiel solutions but also
doctrine, organization, and training requirements. Using these architectures, the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) will be responsible for prioritization of
associated requirements based on analysis of their contribution to realization of the
Joint Operational Concepts. (Draft DOD Transformation Planning Guidance, 20
February 2003.)
21
TP 525-3-92, OF UE Concept, 27 September 2002.
22
TP 525-3-90/O&O, O&OP for Maneuver UA, Change 1, 25 November 2002.
23
Adapting Future Wireless Technologies, Army Science Board (ASB) – 2001 Ad Hoc
Study, January 2002.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
62

26
27
Per TP 71-9 and CJCSI 3170.01B, the Army must determine if an Operational
Requirements Document (ORD) falls under an existing Capstone Requirements
Document (CRD).
28
2002.
29
Wolfpack O&OC Document (Final), SLIN 2AF, 24 February 2003.
30
2002 and O&OC Document (Final), SLIN 2AF, 24 February 2003.
31
For updates go to http://aipc.gordon.army.mil. Access to the TRADOC architecture
repository is password protected and requires AIMD approval. No products
downloaded from the web site can be placed on any other web site without the written
consent of the AIMD.
32
Mr. John Schroeder, FCS LSI, Briefing, “Development Approach for FCS
Architecture Products, 12 November 2002.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
63

35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
37
Ms. Patricia Bray, Deputy Director AIMD-South, Briefing, 18 November 2002.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.
40
ORD for the FCS, Change 2, 22 January 2003.
41
Ibid.
42
“Systems Event-Trace Description” The Systems Event-Trace Description provides a
time-ordered examination of the systems data exchanges between participating
systems nodes as a result of a particular scenario. Each event trace diagram should
have an accompanying description that defines the particular scenario or situation. The
Systems Event-Trace Description in the systems view may reflect system-specific
aspects or refinements of critical sequences of events described in the OV.
43
Mr. John Schroeder, FCS LSI, Briefing, “Development Approach for FCS
Architecture Products, 12 November 2002.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid.
46
ORD for the FCS, Change 2, 22 January 2003.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51
ORD for LW, 31 October 2001.
52
Ibid.
53
Ibid.
64

54
3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, 172nd Light
Infantry Brigade (Separate), 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light), 2nd Brigade, 25th
Infantry Division, and 56th Brigade 28th Infantry Division (Mechanized).
55
2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light) and 56th Brigade 28th Infantry Division
(Mechanized).
56
Infantry Combat Vehicle (ICV), Reconnaissance Vehicle (RV), Commander’s Vehicle
(CV), Engineer Squad Vehicle (ESV), Mortar Carrier Vehicle (MC), Fire Support
Vehicle (FSV), Medical Evacuation Vehicle (MEV), and NBC Reconnaissance
Vehicle (NBCRV).
57
TP 525-X, The Future Operational Environment and World, A View of the World in
2020, 15 June 2002.
58
Wolfpack O&OC Document (Final) SLIN 2AF, 24 February 2003.
59
TP 525-3-0.1 (Coordinating Draft), Objective Force Battle Command (C4ISR)
Concept, 31 October 2002.
60
Ibid.
61
Ibid.
62
Ibid.
63
Ibid.
64
TRAC TR, TRAC-F-TR-03-007, FCS MNA, TRAC-Fort Leavenworth, November
2002. Also, per Brigadier General (Retired) Pat O’Neal’s (one of the MNA authors)
oral statement, the MNA data is based on a Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) study commissioned by the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) (the core
of the study of over 13,000 mid grade officers can be found in “The Future of the
Army Profession,” Don M. Snider and Gayle L. Watkins, The McGraw-Hill
Companies, 2000), papers by General (Retired) Paul Gorman and Brigadier General
(Retired) Huba Wass de Czege, and several monographs from the School for
Advanced Military Study (SAMS) library.
65
TP 525-3-0.1 (Coordinating Draft), Objective Force Battle Command (C4ISR)
Concept, 31 October 2002.
66
“Swarming and the Future of Conflict,” RAND, National Security Research Division,
September 2001.
65

67
Performing a mission apart from the parent platoon.
68
Performing missions under platoon control but at geographically separate locations.
70
Vehicle drivers are “Mobility Specialists.”
71
TP 525-3-90/O&O, O&O Plan for Maneuver Units of Action (UA), Change 1, 25
November 2002.
72
Performing a mission apart from the parent platoon.
73
Performing missions under platoon control but at geographically separate locations.
74
Performing a mission from a forward operating base or operational support base, and
recovering to the base to refit and prepare for follow on missions.
66


Operational Architecture For Individual and Small Unit Soldier Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Operational Architecture For Individual and Small Unit Soldier Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wolfpack Deliverable

Title: Operational Architecture Document (Final)

Agreement No: DAAD16-02-9-0002

Wolfpack Contact: Ray Fitzgerald

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Acronyms and Abbreviations v

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Appendices contained in separate document (“Operational Architecture

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Exhibit 1. OFW/FCS/UA Notional Soldier System 2

Exhibit 2. TRADOC OA Role 5

Exhibit 3. Director OF Task Force Briefing Extract 5

Exhibit 4. Emerging Objective Force Organizational Concepts 7

Exhibit 5. OF Tactical InfoSphere OV-1 8

Exhibit 6. OF SoS Soldier-Centric Architecture 10

Exhibit 7. Army Modernization Schedule 12

Exhibit 8. OF Fielding Schedule 12

Exhibit 9. FCS-equipped UA C4ISR Architecture Concept 14

Exhibit 10. TRADOC/FCS LSI OF UA and FCS Effort 16

Exhibit 11. UA OV1 17

Exhibit 12. UA SV141 18

Exhibit 13. FCS SoS 20

Exhibit 14. FCS ORD UA Rifle Squad OV1 21

Exhibit 15. FCS ORD Training OV1 22

Exhibit 16. LW OV1 25

Exhibit 17. LW SV1 26

Exhibit 18. OF Small Unit Task List 43

Exhibit 19. OF Infantry Platoon—9-Man Squad Based 44

Exhibit 20. OF Infantry Platoon—12-Man Squad Based 44

Exhibit 21. Objective Force Infantry Squad—9-Man Alternative 46

Exhibit 22. OF Infantry Squad—12-Man Alternative 47

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

The Wolfpack OFW OA Document describes concepts and links DOTMLPF

Wolfpack has taken a technical approach in the OFW OA Document to guarantee

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Maneuver Arms Soldier

Maneuver Core OFW Soldier

Exhibit 1. OFW/FCS/UA Notional Soldier System

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

• TRADOC force developers—the Architecture Integration and Management

• Army and TRADOC analysts in their understanding of the likely operational

• Army and TRADOC force developers in their understanding of the organizational

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

• Army and TRADOC Combat/Force and materiel developers in their

• Army and TRADOC personnel managers in their understanding of the personnel

• Army and TRADOC installation planners in their understanding of the facility

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

• The Department of Defense’s Director Architecture and Interoperability (DA&I)

• The GIG enterprise architecture is to provide a description of the GIG, serve as

• GIG and GIG Architectures:

− The GIG is a physical entity—the sum of DoD’s information capabilities,

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Exhibit 4. Emerging Objective Force Organizational Concepts

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

Exhibit 5. OF Tactical InfoSphere OV-1 25

• How do re-organized OF UAs operate when they incorporate soldiers, leaders,

Wolfpack Enterprise · Competition Sensitive

• Further, do they perform their missions in a more strategically responsive,