Page 19 - Williams Foundation Integrated Force Design Seminar

Designing the Integrated Force: How to Define and Meet the Challenge?

conversation amongst those levels in the organization that are actually doing the design and the thinking
themselves, so they can express some ideas. They can exchange ideas.

It also is a really good way to set up networks, because not too many people are going to go ring up the
chief of the service after a seminar and say, "Hey, I want to ask you about your question." It's not that hard to
ring up one of the one stars who had a conversation and say, "Hey, I heard what you said."

There were some pretty important messages that came out from those one stars that showed they were
thinking deeply about the issue and talking to each other about it. That's the way to get integrated force.

Question: When we're talking about a 21st-century integrated force and why that's important, a lot of
people's minds go back to the network-centric warfare days, and that's not what we're talking about.

You clearly are not talking about connecting platforms after the fact and calling that integration.

How do you see the difference?
Blackburn: Let me go back to the difference between the two. I was head of strategic policy at the time and
we worked with Admiral Cebrowski as he launched the NCW discussion. He told us “NCW is an idea which
we are just getting out there. If 40% of what I'm saying ever comes true, that'll be a fantastic result, because
it's an idea. It's to get the language out there."
The reality is, we're never going to be totally network-connected. It's not going to happen. It's like saying
you're going to have unlimited bandwidth and everybody can actually connect without the adversary
disrupting those networks. You've got to start with the idea. You've got to get people talking about it and to
get the language out there into the debate.
Now where we're at now is moving to the next stage, of applying a bit of thrust as one of the speakers said,
getting on with building this, not just talking about it but building it.

We see elements of force integration in the United States, but the integration there is by service. There's
integrated force happening within Navy with NIFC-CA. The USAF is looking at their future, Aerospace 2034.
We really have to follow the ideas in the U.S. but take one further step.

Because we're small, we might be able to take the step straight to JIFC, the Joint Integrated Fire Control idea
for Australia. We want to learn from the U.S., follow it closely, but actually take a step which is hard for the
U.S. to do because of its size, and that's go truly joint by design.

AVM (Retired) Blackburn led a study on integrated air and missile defense to explore the boundaries of
how design from the outset of integration for the force might proceed.

The Williams Foundation conducted an Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) study between Sep16 and
Feb17 to explore the challenges of building Australia’s IAMD capability and the implications for the Department
of Defence’s integrated force design function.
The study was focused at the Program level of capability.

The study incorporated a visit to the US for a month to explore the IAMD challenge with United States Defense
Forces and Agencies, think tanks and Industry. The initial study findings were then explored in Australia in three
Defence and Industry workshops on 31 Jan17 and 1 Feb 17, using a Chatham House model of unattributed
discussions.

Page 18