The ‘Simple and Lethal’ Solution To Tackling Interoperability Challenges

One U.S. Army official proclaimed the need for the branch to develop a flexible and scalable intelligence architecture. The creation and implementation of a flexible and scalable intelligence architecture can help prevent new and shatter existing obstacles surrounding interoperability, stressed Chief Warrant Officer 3 Paul Crawford, an all-source intelligence technician at the 4th Infantry Division.

If implemented, this solution will be a standardized information format that can absorb and ingest data autonomously or via human-in-the-loop infusion. During the automated digital process, after collecting the data, the platform sends a report detailing the information to a network. Once the report arrives at the network, the data can then live and be accessible in the common intelligence picture. On the other hand, if the standardized information format tool loses connectivity or connection to those assets, personnel can still input data manually into the system. After the platform re-establishes connection, it can then disseminate this information. With this ecosystem in place, substantially more individuals can access the data, and more commanders can be in sync with each other regardless of their geographic positions or countries of origin.

Launching a flexible and scalable intelligence architecture is crucial because it can help supply soldiers with redundancy, which is something they need, Crawford emphasized. 

“I don’t want any intelligence professional to be able to say, ‘I can’t do my job because I don’t have connectivity,’ or, ‘We can’t do anything because we can’t see what’s forward of us,’” Crawford said during an interview with SIGNAL Media. “And you don’t want to isolate yourself by echelon because I have this collection asset and they have this one, but they don’t talk, and on top of that, they use a different data format, and I have to use translation software, and I have to do all this other stuff, so now you’re adding more layers and more complexity, which means more problems.”

Crawford elaborated by saying that the framework provides the answer to this major disruption. “I want simple and lethal, and from an intelligence perspective, what I described to you, I think that’s how we achieve it, and that’s why I want a scalable intelligence architecture like that,” he said.

The proposal comes as systems and capabilities are constantly evolving to become more knowledgeable and complex. A progression such as this one can noticeably help warfighters and greatly assist in operations on the battlefield, but it can expose and expand existing cracks in interoperability while also causing additional concerns to arise. These compatibility-related issues emerge for two main reasons. The development and integration of new platforms are happening at rapid speeds, so each country might have access to capabilities with different degrees of complexity than their partners. Also, depending on the technologies available to a nation, each country might have a varying understanding or application of certain systems, which can lead to miscommunication and an uncollaborative relationship. 

Furthermore, the trend is comparable to the surging influx of data into seemingly every facet of the military, including the construction and production of next-generation capabilities, as data is now the backbone of these advanced technologies. Without having the same access and/or comprehension of the data, armed forces from across the globe will encounter difficulties concerning interoperability because they are basing their decisions on inconsistent or outdated information. 

The creation of a flexible and scalable intelligence architecture can eliminate these barriers and elevate interoperability between the United States and its allies, urged Crawford.

The all-source intelligence technician at the 4th Infantry Division said he has had discussions about this idea, and he hopes leaders will implement the framework. However, Crawford noted he doesn’t have direct access to information about whether that integration is occurring, and he acknowledged there are a bunch of competing priorities.

Enforcing a flexible and scalable intelligence architecture would play a significant role in the Army improving interoperability by also helping the branch utilize its valuable time in a rare state Crawford invented and called the interoperability window. During the interview, he defined the interoperability window as a specific time when U.S. and multinational formations are on the same process, have access to and understand the same data language and see the same common operating picture. In other words, interoperability can be most effective during this time. As briefly mentioned above, this window is extremely narrow due to information and capabilities continuously changing in this landscape. Because of this condition, it is unfeasible for the Army or any military force to reside and remain in the interoperability window, which makes it all the more important for commanders to leverage this momentary period of optimal cohesiveness.

“To maintain that state—I witnessed over the course of years working with NATO and doing multiple exercises—it’s not possible, and it’s not possible for a multitude of reasons,” Crawford said. “We can achieve some form of it, but we can’t sustain a specific percentage or state. So, why don’t we just focus on the time [we spend in the interoperability window], very similar to a convergence window, where you’re not trying to dominate the enemy the entire time? You want to create a period of advantage, and I think the interoperability window does that with the multinational force.”

Crawford went on to explain why attaining this desired status is so demanding and suggested an arduous, yet practical, way to prolong the interoperability window.

“Every military formation is different, and NATO is no different either,” he said. “Even though there’s common doctrine, there’s a common military structure or similar, maybe not identical, military structure, [and even though] there are some commonalities, but the challenging part that I identified is that the U.S. military operates in a high-information environment. What that basically means is we need a lot of data to do a lot of things, whereas our NATO allies and partners need a little bit of data to do a little bit of things, meaning not that they’re not capable of executing military operations, but that difference is pretty substantial.”

“We need to figure out a way to get them to understand how to operate in a high information environment, and we need to understand how to operate in a low information environment,” Crawford added.

The U.S. and NATO partnership was the prime focal point for this conversation because Crawford has experience in this area, these forces have a strong alliance and there are decades of norms and infrastructure already in place, according to Crawford. 

Expanding the interoperability window would lead to numerous changes on the battlefield. The move would likely not result in new capabilities, but rather it could lead to the inception of new standards, such as a common data format, a standardized network and the common operating picture.

Building off this element, U.S. defense leaders could then deploy fewer warfighters forward. If their allies have similar data formats, networks and common operating pictures, the United States can send capabilities, intelligence and data instead of risking human lives, Crawford assured. 

Crawford offered advice on how to materialize the plan to extend the interoperability window. He recommended that Army leaders should pair the growth with convergence. In fact, Crawford asserted that this method would be the smoothest route. 

“Multinational partner capabilities—effects specifically—can be integrated to achieve convergence,” Crawford said. “I think that is probably the easiest and simplest way to do it. When you look at multinational operations, interoperability is a state. The interoperability window is a military operation because it’s going to require robust network access and robust procedural integration and personnel that can mitigate those issues at echelon.” 

Convergence refers to “an outcome created by the concerted employment of capabilities against combinations of decisive points in any domain to create effects against a driven outcome from the senior Army tactical echelon,” per the Army Field Manual 3-0.

Crawford concluded the interview by cautioning that interoperability might not always be possible due to connectivity issues present in denied, degraded, intermittent and low-bandwidth environments and due to the always-progressing jamming and spoofing attacks discharged by adversaries. Because of these threats, the Army needs to perpetually equip itself with technologies that can operate even when disconnected from the network. 

“It’s so easy to get caught in the ‘I want more and I need more to be effective’ [mindset],” Crawford warned. “But there’s always that risk of going back to World War II-like operations, and what I fear is that we are going to get to a point where there will be intelligence professionals that say I can’t do my job without an internet connection. If that day comes, then that’s a credible vulnerability, and I think that we are going to mitigate that in various ways. But that’s a fear that I have. I think the interoperability window mitigates that fear because we’re bridging a gap with the understanding that we have to be able to fight no matter what and no matter where.”