Who owns ISTAR

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by eye_spy, Dec 6, 2004.

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. On a serious note. What are the gathered opinions of the informed masses of ARRSE on this subject. Who owns or should own ISTAR. Is it a G2 toy or do G3 have the right to decide who can play with the train set. Personally, and this goes against my trade, I believe that G3 should own this area. Your thoughts please
     
  2. I think that J2 should own the assets, but receive tasking from J3. Let the ops guys ask for something and leave it to the experts to decide how to deliver the requirement.
     
  3. I agree it should be G3 and definitely not the Gooners who simply regard it as a targetting asset:roll:

    They have experimented with ISTAR fusion managers who have either been Fmn Recce or RA etc but you can't be at two birdtables at the same time giving input to the planning or running of the battle and the gooners are not good at sharing int
     
  4. Taking the BG as an example, the IO might well 'own the ISTAR' (to the extent that MSTAR doesn't belong to the BC or the FOO, Mk 1 eyeballs to the sect comds/pl comds/OCs etc) but presumably a Lt Col 'owns his captains'. So at that level at least, G2 is a subsidiary tool in the G3 process.

    I think I must be missing the point.
     
  5. It's going to make Astor an interesting place to work! Non int people in the air force don't have a good enough understanding of what products they can receive, and we can normally do better than they expect, so we simply get them to say what they want and then we use the best asset for the job. Sounds like your G2 bods need a big slap around the head.
     
  6. Is this a serious question?
    Commanders have Critical Information Requirements that inform decision making and planning - so it has to be G3.

    fas_et_gloria - that's ISTAR, not MSTAR. MSTAR being an effective means of getting yourself DF'd and knocked out of the game, and ISTAR being a new pneumonic for Intelligence, Surveillance and Target Acquisition. It has the aim of integrating the int section, patrolling, int assets and STAP, without everyone doing their own thing and then having a STAP that's just random states picked out of the TAM by the ops offr after the O group has already started and muttering 'phew' when he's done it before it gets back to his turn.
     
  7. Ha ha ha ha ha!

    I was at a General Dynamics sponsored conference last year (PoD was the star attraction, when his stock was somewhat higher) and asked a similar question, along the lines of "do we need a new staff branch to deal with this and cover all bases?" Unfortunately most of the conference was simply a Bowman lovefest although I got a lovely 32Mb USB memory stick for free that I obviously registered in the hospitality book at work! (Not!)

    The J3/J6 split (Ops/CIS) will be very interesting. I refer you all to the JDP 2/01 "Real Time Exchange of Tactical Data" which tries to provide doctrinal guidance, but which bears no relation whatsoever to the real world.

    The blue suiters will claim ownership of the major airframes under the title of HQ 3 Gp which has dedicated ISTAR Gp Capt (Col) slots. As for the rest of the infrastructure, who knows? PJHQ J6 seemed to be in the lead at when I left, by dint of taking a greater interest than anyone else.
     
  8. Maybe I can refine the question slightly. I believe that G2 should definitely own the information gleaned from ISTAR assets in the run up to and partially during the battle. However, during the battle, the information may be to time critical for it to go through the G2 process and therefore should go straight to the birdtable and those fighting the battle. Obviously G2 would be onhand to provide comment/assessment. My quest for opinion however, focuses on who should own and task the collection assets. Do G2 really have enough experience and expertise to task valuable collection assets?
     
  9. J5 should also have a stakeholders interest, especially as they handover to J3 on D+0 - I believe that all should have access and it should not be coverted by one Branch - whilst knowledge is power - ownership is more powerfull if spread around the branches
     
  10. I'm afraid I don't know very much about army ISTAR assets, so my answer is based on how we use our airborne assets to provide intelligence, however, there's no reason that ISTAR can't work for the army as well as it does for the air force. There's traditionally been a lack of understanding between air and land when it comes to being able to fast close air support and what we can deliver to the guys on the ground, so it's not difficult to see that there will be issues when talking about Joint airborne ISTAR assets. CCIRs don't require the commander to have intimate knowledge of all his assets and how they are going to answer his questions, he should be able to demand something and leave it to the experts to deliver the information. The 3 week battlefield ISTAR course doesn't qualify any ops officer to be an expert in what can be delivered, so G2 (or J2) should be forced to deliver. If that means having more Int Corps officers and SNCOs to support all bird tables and commanders, perhaps manning levels need to be addressed.
     
  11. Someone has to be in overall charge. Preparing the networks takes some time and involves much liaison, particularly in a joint force/coalition operation. A good understanding of the operational requirements and constraints of all users and their data handling systems is vital. Tasking is covered in the JDP 2/01 but the outlined process involves a high degree of inter-branch co-operation that is unattainable in practice. I speak from very painful experience of having to turn to the ever-reliable back of the fag packet!

    Yes, I was a geek in a previous job!
     
  12. Again naive air force int person, but do you not have G2 people embedded in down to at least Bn level such that they already have an understanding of what's required? Our system works exceptionally well in that I spend 2 years on a Sqn of fast jets and become very aware of what's required such that I can prioritise my questions, and push for the answers I need that are most time critical. I appreciate that these are 2 different entities, but a surface to air missile system moving to a new location is exceptionally time critical to air crew and our bureaucratic system can cope with getting that information to the pilots in an impressively short space of time, so why can't the army do that for commander's time critical requirements?
     
  13. Yeah, thanks for that. So MSTAR is not an ISTAR asset then. :roll: Or eyeballs. Must have slept through that lecture as well...

    What's a "pneumonic"? Something to do with being short and full of air presumably?
     
  14. But this bit fairly much sums up what I was really saying! :wink:
     
  15. They can it is called GP3