Common Imagery Ground Surface System (CIGSS)
Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS)
Test and Evaluation (T&E) Integrated Product Team (IPT) Meeting
14 April 1999



Jason Frye, Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) called the DCGS T&E IPT to order at 0800 and introduced himself as the new chair for this IPT, replacing Aleksandar Lazarevich. Mr. Frye reaffirmed the basic purpose of the T&E IPT to develop a corporate cost-effective approach to DCGS testing. Patrick Jarvis, JITC/TRW, was the meeting recorder. After general attendee introductions, Dave Schreiner, JITC/TRW, reviewed the minutes and action items from the 4 November 1998 meeting. The minutes were accepted as written.

DCGS IPT Structure

Pat Branch, Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (C4ISR)/Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), summarized how the DCGS IPT structure has evolved during the past 18 months. Terry Ryan, C4ISR, will chair the DCGS Council. Members include all five IPT Chairs [Imagery Intelligence (IMINT), Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), Measurements and Signatures Intelligence (MASINT), Infrastructure, and T&E] and Service leads. The council will replace the Core IPT and O6 level Steering Group and coordinate IPT actions as necessary. Quarterly reviews will be presented to Terry Ryan. A major council objective is to influence the funding process for DCGS (e.g., Defense Planning Guidance (DPG)). Individual IPTs may operate on their own charters as developed. There will be no overall DCGS charter. The DCGS Handbook was discussed. The focus of the document will change to "DCGS strategy and concepts". A small writing team will convene on 15 April 1999 to outline the general structure and objectives of the document.

Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) Discussion

A general discussion concluded that a capstone DCGS TEMPS would play a significant role in bringing planned INT TEMPS (i.e., United States Imagery and Geospatial Service (USIGS), Joint Interoperable Operators Network (JION), MASINT and Services) under one general standard umbrella for Multi-INT ground stations of the future. Dave Schreiner suggested that all INTs should consider the CIGSS TEMP as a model from a compliance perspective. Fred Myers, Director, Test Systems Engineering and Evaluation (DTSE&E), and Elliot Parkin, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOTE)/IDA, expressed concern that without a overarching or capstone DCGS TEMP to guide the DCGS T&E program, the community may end up spinning it's wheels. Keith Thorneloe, SAF-AQ/MRJ, stressed the importance of the Service Operational Requirements Documents (ORDs) in preparation of future TEMPs. Keith also suggested a DCGS-IMINT, DCGS-SIGINT, and DCGS-MASINT TEMPs.

Mr. Mike Meenehan brought up that the Imagery Capstone Requirements Document (ICRD) should be compared to the CIGSS Joint ORD (JORD) and bounced against the Critical Technical Parameters (CTPs) in the CIGSS TEMP.

Jason Frye raised the concern for a well-defined Multi-INT strategy and that if we separate T&E; we lose the potential efficiencies of a thoroughly interoperable Multi-INT capability. Pat Branch said the burden lies on the Services to develop Capstone Requirements Documents (CRDs) that meet their needs. They can then be used to build the test programs to assess if new systems satisfy their needs.

CIGSS/DCGS Working Groups

Jose Gotay, National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) presented a list of initiatives that NIMA is taking to satisfy imagery requirements. He discussed the Master Test Activity Schedule (MTAS) as well as the integration of NIMA components. Status of Image Product Library (IPL) will be discussed at the IMINT IPT on 15 April 1999. NIMA is also responsible for reviewing new requirements from the Services. (i.e. video imagery on the Predator system). NIMA is committed to move towards the multi-INT environment. NIMA's CIGSS program was recently briefed to Terry Ryan. NIMA-SOSE is actively managing the Softcopy Exploitation Management (SEM) integration and fielding schedule. NIMA is redefining the USIGS program baseline. MG King, NIMA Director, will be sending a memo describing this new baseline to the community. They are working to improve delivery commitments to the user, realizing this has been an area of concern. NIMA is looking at validated requirements that have been approved but not funded. CIGSS continues to be NIMA priority. "CIGSS has not changed" There is no impact under this change to the baseline CIGSS program and the components to be delivered. The NIMA Airborne team will be moving to Reston, VA effective 19 April 1999.

C4ISR Interoperability

Maj John Murphy, C4ISR, discussed reengineering the DCGS Process to improve C4ISR interoperability. Decision Support Center was tasked to recommend changes to the current instructions and oversight process, and to improve coordination for attainment of Department of Defense (DoD) interoperability goals. What does it mean to be interoperable across disciplines (IMINT to SIGINT to MASINT, etc.)? Under the CIGSS architecture, the question was "What does it mean to be interoperable?" The lack of definition for "interoperability" causes problems in defining requirements. We need to field Joint systems that are interoperable. Atlantic Command (ACOM) set up a J9 function for joint experimentation and working interoperability issues. This organization will play a big role in establishing interoperability requirements. JITC plays a significant role in the interoperability testing. The bottom line is to ensure that new systems are Joint interoperable. A clear definition of interoperable requirements needs to be determined, so that new systems, Program Managers (PMs), and the community at large can develop Joint interoperable systems. Overall recommendation is to define interoperability and it's requirements.

Jason Frye took an action as chair, to have the Joint Information Exchange Requirements (JIER) mission briefing at the next T&E IPT.

Maj Murphy concluded that the DCGS community should start looking at cross-INT database integration. The DCGS community needs to define joint interoperable requirements and document those requirements so systems are joint interoperable from the concept stage. We need to focus on what does the analyst (IMINT/SIGINT/MASINT) need to accomplish his mission to support the warfighter. Focus on the end user requirements to develop a multi-INT system.

SIGINT/JION Systems and T&E update Perri Nejib, National Security Agency (NSA)/TASC, briefed actions of the JION, IPT. Perri stated the need to work more multi-INT into the DCGS IPT. Currently, a JION Concept of Operations (CONOPS) is being developed and staffed. Need to find out what existing communications systems are out there to support JION. There is an Air Force team traveling to collect data on current architectures for airborne platforms. A relationship is under development with JITC to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for T&E and interoperability, based on the current CIGSS testing. Dave Schreiner requested that NSA work with JITC as a T&E IPT sub-working group to evaluate existing TEMPs in order to start building the knowledge base for future T&E activities and documentation. Perri agreed on NSA's behalf. Elliot Parkin, DOT&E/IDA requested to participate.

DCGS T&E IPT Action items

ACTION ITEM: Request JIER brief at the next DCGS IPT. (Chair)

ACTION ITEM: Define what interoperable means from a DCGS viewpoint. (Infrastructure IPT)

ACTION ITEM: JITC and NSA will conduct TEMP reviews as a sub-working group. (JITC lead)

ACTION ITEM: What assistance could the DCGS T&E IPT offer sister DCGS IPT to develop DCGS requirements and the development of the DCGS TEMP (Infrastructure IPT).


The chair, Jose Gotay, convened the CIGSS WIPT and outlined the agenda objectives of the session.

CIGSS Compliance Objective Database

Jose distributed the Secretary of Defense (SecDef), Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) letter for FY 1999-2003 that requires CIGSS compliance by the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2003. Mike Meenehan, Army Space Program Office (ASPO), raised the question that this SecDef letter was directed to Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) and that since they are gone, who is responsible for CIGSS? Jose responded that NIMA is now responsible for CIGSS and implementing the TEMP. Therefore, NIMA expects all CIGSS elements be Compliance Level (CL) 4 by 2003.

Jose said this defines the lifespan of the CIGSS program. However, we are building to CASH and NIMA will put the essential pieces of the CASH v1.0 into future acquisition handbooks as required. Therefore, the CIGSS program will migrate to DCGS and DCGS will begin in the year 2003. Joe Rowan, United States Marine Corps (USMC)/SAIC, stated firmly that the life of the CIGSS TEMP must not be lost in the transition to the DCGS environment. He indicated we finally have a clear set of testing guidelines that we never had before and that they should not be set aside but maintained as long as those systems and components are in the field.

Jose's response was that by 2003, we should start working the DCGS TEMP. However, we are building to an outdated CASH and NIMA will put the essential pieces of the CASH into the JTA. The acquisition handbook topic will be discussed at IMINT IPT.

CIGSS Testbed Update

Kelly Mahoney, Electronic Systems Center (ESC) /SAIC, provided an update briefing on the CIGSS Testbed. The Common Imagery Processor (CIP) efforts as well as the F-18 pallet Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS) were briefed. Standards for the screener will be discussed at the IMINT IPT. There is no standard screener within DoD. Other CIGSS activities were briefed including the Global Hawk program. The testbed is still on line to work with the Global Hawk program in the September timeframe. Issue was brought up as to excessive equipment with the clip in kit from the Tactical Exploitation Group (TEG) standpoint. Kelly stated that these issues are being worked. Joint Expeditionary Forces Experiment (EFX 99) (Jul- Aug) (Air Force) exercise to pass imagery might a good opportunity to conduct some testing.

Issue was brought up as to why we don't use the CIGSS Testbed to shake out the Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL) issues.

Dave Schreiner referred to the DCGS Handbook, T&E chapter that identified a DCGS Testbed and that the thought was focused on expanding the current CIGSS Testbed into that capability. What would have to be done to accomplish this and meet SIGINT/MASINT test requirements? Overall security classification was raised as a significant issue. This would restrict access to people who currently use the testbed. First step is to determine the components for a DCGS Multi-INT station and reassess the current testbed at that time.


Dave Schreiner outlined the objectives of the MTAS. The remaining FY 99 schedule was discussed. Members were asked to review the FY 2000 compliance targets and help expand the detail. TCDL was also brought up as far as testing at JITC TCDL lab. Jason Frye stated that we are hoping to be able to combine TCDL testing currently with our CIGSS program.

CIGSS Compliance Register (CCR)

Dave Schreiner provided an update on the CCR. The CCR contains entries for CL 1 on Dissemination Element (DE) 1.2, Imagery Exploitation Support System (IESS) 3.1, and CIP 3.3.2. Dave provided a brief overview of the CIGSS CL 1 testing methodology that incorporates CIGSS Critical Technical Parameters (CTPs) into Department of Defense Intelligence Information Systems (DODIIS) test plans.

Kerry Clawson briefed the results of the IESS 3.1 and DE 1.2 testing conducted at United States Space Command (USSPACECOM) in Colorado Springs CO, in September 1998. Kerry's briefing discussed the CTPs tested, results of the test and some techniques used during the test. LTC Larry Turner, ASPO, applauded the results and considers the effort well on its way to meeting the Service needs for early compliance testing.

Pat Jarvis briefed the results of the CIP 3.3.2 CL1 test conducted at the CIGSS Testbed currently located in China Lake, CA. The CL 1 recommendation letter is in processing at NIMA. A CL2-3 test was conducted at the CIGSS Testbed also. The CL2-3 recommendation letter and test report are currently in preparation. Pat also discussed the CIGSS CTPs tested and test results. Jack Cavalier, TEC, pointed out that the compliance test should be " limited" and not "full" due to the unavailability of all required sensor platforms that must work with the CIP. Dave Schreiner pointed to this interaction as one of the key products of this working group. The test will provide a "limited" CL determination.

Pat then briefed the purpose, scope, and scheduled dates for the Korean Combat Operations Intelligence Center (KCOIC) site survey. He then provided an overview of the KCOIC CL determination test, test objectives, and test plan.

Pat also provided an overview on the United States Air Force (USAF) Combined Test Force (CTF) concept derived from the CTF charter. Note: this briefing was initially to be provided by ESC.

Dave Schreiner briefly outlined the purpose of the CIGSS Test and Evaluation Strategy (CTES) as the implementation strategy for the CIGSS TEMP.

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Can we use the CIGSS Testbed to shake out the problems with TCDL? (JITC/ESC)

ACTION ITEM: Clarify the different CRDs as they relate to DCGS testing and any TEMPs (T&E w sub IPTs) (JITC)

ACTION ITEM: Scrub MTAS and correct testing dates on the MTAS. (Program Managers and Services) S: 3 weeks

ACTION ITEM: ASPO will provide CIP/Enhance Tactical Radar Correlator (ETRAC) Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar System (ASARS) 2 and Senior Year Electro-Optical Reconnaissance System (SYERS) test data to JITC for CL determination. (ASPO) 30 days

ACTION ITEM: Assess the impact of ICRD on the CIGSS TEMP. (JITC)


ACTION ITEM: Ensure that the distribution is correct on the NIMA Compliance Determination Letters (NIMA)

Closing notes

Next DCGS/CIGSS WIPT is tentatively scheduled for September at JITC, Fort Huachuca, AZ