ISTAR - Buzzword Bingo or the way ahead

Discussion in 'Int Corps' started by Bilbobaggoff, Dec 13, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Having been around various HQs lately to listen to so-called clever chaps thrash this one through, the notion of ISTAR and what it actually is seems to be making some people develop stomach ulcers or cause brain storming out of all proportion to the usual dilemmas of beer or lager, Korma or Vindaloo, German porn or Italian porn, etc. It all seems to boild down to equating any modicum of military failure with an intelligence failure, as we seemingly didn't provided some goods when required (make that we probably weren't asked in the first place and Mystic Meg wasn't on hand with the crystal ball, but somebody wants a new panacea for supposed ills and thus the new buzzword is in play).

    I'm generalising a fair bit, but the schools of thought seem to fall into two areas from the discussions I have seen/heard/areas/winced at. It's either regarded as essentially the Collection part of the Int Cycle, in which case most of us in the Corps should be au fait with it and thus now need the buy in of the G3/J3 world to deconflict battlespace for various assets to collect, i.e. no need to reinvent the wheel, especially when you pull apart what ISTAR actually means and how it fits into out working practices. Or it's primarily seen as a J3 function for teeth arm types who are "operators" and believe that the Corps should steer clear as the de facto non-operators and do the analysis bit, leaving collection up to "those who know how to fight the asset". Either way the buzzword tag seems a justified a fair bit of the time as there appeared to be a lot of non-int types who were clueless as to what was involved and seemed keen on reinventing the wheel. Even the light and dark blue seemed to be facing similar battles.

    There's plenty of readily available info on this in the OSINT world, so OPSEC shouldn't be an issue here. So, in the hope that we can enter a cerebral discussion: ISTAR - Buzzword bingo or the way ahead. Discuss. :?
  2. You're waaaaaayyyyyyy behind the curve on this one bilbo.
  3. In the hope of getting a sensible answer, and given how many meetings/working groups/planning groups I have had to sit in on and will be forced to over the coming months, then how come? If it's just me, then it appears to be the majority of head sheds and others who actually run things. If we're that enlightened, the please share (and I'm being serious).
  4. Didn't they merge C3I and ISTAR to come up with C4ISTAR, adding the additional C to demonstate that something had been added as a result of the process.

    Actually, I'm told it's now C5I2STAR. :oops:

  5. There's a very good chance that we've sat in at the same meetings and I for am not going to divulge anything on an open internet forum.
  6. True, but making up new terms and concepts wasn't the gist of these meetings (probably explains why the matelot thinks I am way behind the curve). Having been almsot as confused as everyone else with the C3ISTAR, C4ISTAR developments, the crux of the argument boiled down to ISTAR was starting to be seen as an erroneous term that had been shaped out of all proportion, the wheel had been reinvented and the entire argument boiled down to who was better placed - from a staff procedure point of view - to integrate this into J3 and manage collection better. And if I and people far senior to all of us are so behind the curve, why is the argument not yet resolved?
  7. i think you might be getting it mixed up with this lot :)

    Attached Files:

  8. You're demonstrating your age (and taste) with that post CR.
  9. CR has taste? Some confusion, shurely!
    He dresses like that at work, too. :)
  10. shut up old man, you STILL owe me a bottle of port for kicking your ass on the shoot. pay up or stop bothering me at work :)
  11. Having been exposed to this sort of thing from both sides of the fence (ie civvy and mil) I'd identify the biggest obstacles to successful integration as:

    1. Cap badges - too often some convoluted buzzword heavy paper is presented to justify a parochial decision. Try finding anything from the gunners suggesting anything other then they keep anything to do with UAVs for instance, operational effectiveness be damned. And it usually is.

    2. Overcontrol - the whole point of network centric warfare and lots of gucci ISTAR assets is to allow sensor operator A to talk to user B directly - "left a bit, right a bit, the scrotes's behind them rocks 50 metres in front ..." But all too often messages from A have to go through the OC party, some Tac Party drone in HQ, then to B's OC - and by the time B gets the message it is both garbled and late. Why are management so scared ?

    3. Too many bodies in HQ - all too often HQs are full of very busy, very talented people doing nothing of material use. Powerpoint, getting a good briefing for that OJAR, face time with the CO ... whatever happened to winning the war ?
  12. How true, everyone knows it's lager, vindaloo and German. The others are for civilians!
  13. Hmm. Wheel. Re-invent. Placate the Gunner/Recce element. Seem to remember this one. Can anyone remind me of the tune?
  14. For pies at any rate!!! :p
  15. Woohoo!! An ISTAR thread! I was hoping we'd discuss this....