TechNet Augusta 2020 Sponsorship and Branding Opportunities

AFCEA has developed an enhanced sponsorship program that will offer maximum visibility to those who participate! What better way to make sure you stand out and increase your exposure at this foremost event in which industry leaders can learn about military requirements and connect with decision makers and operators, where senior military and government officials can gain feedback, and where industry thought leaders will discuss and demonstrate solutions. Sponsorship opportunities are offered at several investment levels, ensuring your ability to participate.

Browse available options below, or jump to specific categories: Patron Packages, Individual Sponsorships, Branding Opportunities.

Solution Abstracts

The Army Cyber Center of Excellence (CCOE) is seeking to address existing or emerging challenges. TechNet Augusta attendees and exhibitors are encouraged to submit potential solutions to one of the questions below.

AFCEA leadership will review the submissions, and the submitters of the top abstracts will be selected to give a 15-minute presentation at TechNet Augusta. There is no cost to submit an abstract; an administrative fee of $975 will be charged to all presenters.

All submitted abstracts will be compiled into a compendium that will be made available to Army leadership and online.

Abstract submissions will close on June 28.

Problem Statements from ACM (Army Capabilities Manager) Networks & Services

Problem Statement 1:

Title: Army Use Case for the Internet of Things (IoT); (e.g., Sensor to Shooter (Fires), Networking Devices, Network Common Operating Picture (NETCOP), and Supply Chain (Sustainment)

Problem Statement: Future Joint All Domain Operations (JADO) are becoming increasingly complex, multifaceted, and unpredictable. As the technological capabilities of allies and adversaries advance, more pressure is put on commanders to anticipate, assess, and take action in increasingly pressurized environments and constrained decision cycles.

Why this is important: The speed of decision-making will be paramount in our ability to fight and win against peer adversaries in congested and contested environments. The Army’s ability to leverage IoT technology and acclimate it into our in integrated logistics systems (ILS), automated security screening systems, and military platforms will play a major role in the success of future combat operations.

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 1.

Problem Statement 2:

Title: Army Migration of Data Analytics, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence Solutions in Army Enterprise Data Centers (AEDCs) that will allow distribution of information between the enterprise level and the tactical edge.

Problem Statement: Today the Army is unable to access, share, and interpret the data across warfighting functions required to ensure commanders have the ability to exploit the power of current and emerging data analytics, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning capabilities.

Why this is important: The Army requires Integrated Enterprise Network/Integrated Tactical Network “Big Data” solutions that help achieve a global, standards-based environment with enduring goals of making data visible, accessible, understandable, trusted, interoperable, and secure. The Army continues to operate in increasingly complex, highly dynamic operating environments on the future multi-domain battlefield. The speed of decision-making will be critical to our ability to fight and win against peer adversaries in congested and contested environments. Information is an instrument of National Power and data is a strategic asset. Seamless access to Army data at echelon, when readily shared, increases readiness, enhances modernization efforts, and ultimately impacts mission effectiveness across all warfighting functions.

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 2.

Problem Statements from ACM (Army Capabilities Manager) Cyber

Problem Statement 3:

Title: Statistical Natural Language Processing (NLP) to support Mission Understanding

Problem Statement: Army systems must ingest unstructured, text-based data in order to extract the relevant information needed to enable automated processes, such as mission mapping, dependency modeling, and or sentiment analysis.

Why this is important: The process by which the military issues orders is done via text-based communication. An Operations Order (OPORD), with applicable annexes, provides critical information (i.e. task, units, timeline, PACE items, etc.) for units to accomplish their assigned missions. The assimilation and understanding of this document takes time and adds cognitive load to commanders and staff. However, NLP applications could lower cognitive loads and hasten understanding by extracting key information from these written documents for further processing in other systems. For example, NLP could identify a defensive task and enumerate it for linkage with a dependency mapping algorithm that identifies mission critical systems needed to support that task. Likewise NLP could identify relationships (i.e., supported vs. supporting) between tasked units so another algorithm could graphically depict such relationships. Furthermore, during mission execution, Mission Command Systems (MCS) frequently share information, such as significant activity (SIGACT) reports, via text. NLP could identify the nature of a SIGACT and develop courses of action (COAs) with minimal human interaction to help address emerging information.

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 3.

Problem Statement 4:

Title: Mission Mapping and Dependency Modeling of Mission Critical Systems

Problem Statement: The Army needs tools capable of determining how the failure or degradation of a mission system(s) impacts their mission tasks and warfighting functions.

Why this is important: The Army relies on many systems to execute its warfighting functions. At any given time, the loss or compromise of one or more of these systems can impact the ability of commanders to execute their warfighting functions. For example, the loss of Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) or a compromise to Blue Force Tracking could compromise the ability of commanders to perform their Fires warfighting function. Similarly, the loss of a radio frequency link could impact a commander’s ability to execute Command and Control (C2). During operations, however, the loss of a mission critical system and its impact may remain unknown until that system is required to execute the unit’s mission objectives. To be more mobile, agile, and lethal, commanders need tools that allow staff to identify mission tasks and associated warfighting functions, link them to mission critical systems, identify other system dependencies, and monitor these systems and dependencies for events in Cyberspace and the electromagnetic operational environment (EMOE) that impact mission objectives. Doing so, will help commanders and staff more quickly observe, orient, decide, and act upon these events and mitigate or eliminate their impact to maintain advantage over adversaries during multi-domain operations.

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 4.

Problem Statement 5:

Title: Common Data Fabric with Cross-Domain Capability

Problem Statement: The Army requires a software-based, system or architecture to serve as a common data fabric for parsing information into a common ontology, storing it, and sharing it with mission systems across security enclaves.

Why this is important: The Army’s convergence of mission systems into a common operating environment (COE) requires a common data fabric for sharing data between multiple systems. Too many military systems are “closed systems”, receiving and hoarding data without providing Application Programming Interface (API) for other mission systems to access, query, or acquire needed information from them. As a result, multiple mission systems must create their own links to multiple other systems and data sources using multiple APIs to acquire disparately formatted data in order to access needed information. In turn, these mission systems also store data and contribute yet another bloated silo of redundant data in an already constrained server infrastructure. These issues make it challenging to scale, innovate, and create synergies between mission systems on tactical networks and across security enclaves. By integrating a common data fabric that is also capable of parsing multiple data formats into a common data ontology with a cross-domain solution, mission systems could access one data source for mission system data and no longer be forced to integrate directly with multiple other systems and data sources. Such an architecture would result in lower costs for compute, storage, and networking, while improving synergies between mission systems.

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 5.

Problem Statement 6:

Title: Offensive Cyberspace Operations (OCO) Access Extension Capabilities

Problem Statement: What efforts are currently being made toward exploring Tactics, Techniques, Procedures, (TTPs) and Vulnerability Analysis (VA) against emergent technologies and protocols to navigate networks of connected devices? Describe what ongoing VA work you are currently focused on and what platforms you’re conducting VA against with special emphasis on inter-platform pivoting. We are defining “emergent technologies and protocols” as any platforms and protocols that have yet to fully saturate their chosen markets worldwide. Specific details about particular platforms and protocols of interest can be provided in other venues.

Problem Statement: The Army requires Vulnerability Analysis (VA) against emergent platforms and protocols to navigate networks of connected devices.

Why this is important: In general, Offensive Cyberspace Operations are limited to what platforms and protocols are in use and vulnerable to exploitation. It will continue to be important for research and development efforts to pace technological advancement.

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 6.

Problem Statement 7:

Title: Security Orchestration and Automation Response (SOAR)

Problem Statement: The Army requires a Security Orchestration and Automation Response that enables the Army to respond quicker to Defensive Cyber Operations (DCO) events.

Why this is important: SOAR integrates disparate tools and technologies together into a cohesive system capable of quick response. SOAR enables technicians with different levels of training to safely and quickly respond to events on network. In addition, SOAR allows products never designed to integrate together to be an integrated solution.

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 7.

Problem Statement 8:

Title: Countering Polymorphic Malware

Problem Statement: How does the Army counter Polymorphic Malware?

Why this is important: Adversaries are increasingly avoiding anti-virus detection tools by rapidly morphing their signatures. Small changes by adversaries create an asymmetric advantage by significantly increasing the work factor to defeat existing malware. The Army needs new techniques that would enable defenders to recognize polymorphic malware in real-time at the perimeter. What are some innovative new ideas to enhance immediate malware recognition? How could they be implemented to defend our networks and reduce the impact of their polymorphic nature? What applications are available to counter fuzzing and signature diversity in an automated fashion where traditional hashes or heuristics fail to detect malware?

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 8.

Problem Statement 9:

Title: Machine Learning

Problem Statement: The Army needs a machine learning system for identifying anomalous behavior in encrypted data streams.

Why this is important: With a significant portion of internet traffic being encrypted identifying anomalous activity in encrypted data streams proves challenging. SSL decryption can be slow and requires special setup and personnel authorized to inspect traffic. How does the Army use machine learning to profile encrypted tunnels for identification of malicious activity?

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 9.

Problem Statements from ACM (Army Capabilities Manager) Tactical Radios

Problem Statement 10:

Title: Resilient Network Transport Capabilities

Problem Statement: The Army requires access to reliable information in contested and congested environments. The Army requests a solution for improved network transport resiliency using intelligent software defined radios to enable secure, multi-path diversity, while minimizing Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) detection.

Why this is important: In Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) the Army requires resilient communications against peer or near peer adversaries. Units must be able to maintain continuity of operations for each radio in the network. Units require software defined radios that allow intelligent networking between multiple transport systems; automatically facilitate Primary-Alternate-Contingency-Emergency (PACE) concept while utilizing antenna solutions that enhance low probability of interception (LPI)/ low probability of detection (LPD).

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 10.

Problem Statement 11:

Title: High Capacity Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) (e.g., Low Earth Orbit (LEO) / Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) [LEO/MEO] / Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO)) Communications

Problem Statement: To achieve Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) enabled capabilities, the Army desires high capacity, low latency, long distance communications for expeditionary forces. The solution should provide approximately 1Gbps bandwidth and 50ms latency. We are primarily focused on a LEO/MEO capability, but would be interested in a GEO or BLOS capability that meets the 1Gbps bandwidth / 50ms latency requirement with a minimum range of 800Km.

Why this is important: This will provide expeditionary, mobile, beyond line of sight (BLOS) communications with increased bandwidth and low latency in order to provide the Warfighter enhanced transport for Mission Command Systems (to include sensor data).

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 11.

Problem Statement 12:

Title: Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance/Electronic Warfare (C4ISR/EW) Modular Open Suite of Standards (CMOSS) Compliant Capability

Problem Statement: The Army is required to execute Mission Command (MC) and Warfighter Functions during Multi-Domain Operations (MDO). As a result, Army vehicles and other platforms are laden with radios, video displays, sensors, electronic warfare tools, antennas, and other vital communication technologies, each with its own power draw and platform footprint. At the core, these C4ISR/EW systems use many of the same building blocks, but they are not shared or distributed between systems (e.g., amplifiers, filters, processors). The C4ISR/EW Modular Open Suite of Standards (CMOSS) was developed to facilitate consolidation of these disparate systems into a common ruggedized chassis, described as the CMOSS Mounted Form Factor (CMFF). The Army requires a materiel solution for the CMFF to facilitate convergence of warfighting capabilities. Solutions should be packaged as a CMOSS compliant chassis system with physical specifications (standards) for capability cards. For capability cards, we would like at a minimum to have a standard proposed for a communications card if the company is unable to capture the other capability functions. CMFF solutions should be available for various environments e.g. chassis-concept integration solutions for use on a Stryker, Abrams, or Bradley in order to provide Commanders with the ability to use current warfighting capabilities. The solution should be adaptable for use in the Command Post (CP) environment.

Why this is important: CMOSS would improve the ease of operation, maintenance, and sustainment of current Warfighting capabilities. CMFF minimizes the need for platform specific integration and allows the fielding of subsequent capabilities (i.e. circuit cards/modules) without the need of any additional cabling or mounts.

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 12.

Problem Statements from ACM (Army Capabilities Manager) Electronic Warfare

Problem Statement 13:

Title: Real Time Spectrum Awareness Visualization

Problem Statement: The Army requires a sensor, or several small sensors, that provide real time electromagnetic operational environment (EMOE) input, is compatible with and displayable on the Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool (EWPMT), and is capable of monitoring friendly emissions and enabling emission control that supports operational planning and deconfliction.

Why this is important: The electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) is increasingly congested and changing at a pace that databased information cannot keep up. The Army requires real-time means to sense the local environment that ensures spectrum dependent devices operate as intended, provide commanders EMS situational awareness of their own systems, and help inform tactical decisions based on current EMS/EMOE.

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 13.

Problem Statement 14:

Title: Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) Deception and Masking

Problem Statement: The Army requires a capability to mask or hide its Electromagnetic (EM) emissions at echelon to include assets. This includes combat vehicles, command posts, radars, etc.

Why this is important: Army forces utilize a multitude of EM enabled devices making their positions identifiable and targetable by adversary forces. Many of these EM enabled devices are unique and/or high powered making them targetable at long ranges.

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 14.

Problem Statement 15:

Title: Small Form-Factor Long Range Sensor and/or Antenna

Problem Statement: The Army requires long-range electronic warfare (EW) sensors and/or antenna built in a small deployable form-factor that can achieve ranges greater than 40 kilometers.

Why this is important: All echelons need to be able to detect, identify, and geolocate electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) signatures at significant distances to provide friendly and adversary situational awareness to enable lethal and non-lethal targeting capabilities in large areas of operations.

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 15.

Problem Statement from Cyber Battle Lab

Problem Statement 16:

Title: Cyber Domain Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Capabilities, and their integration with other domain M&S

Problem Statement: The Army’s current constructive maneuver models, both the entity resolution federation One Semi-Automated Forces (OneSAF), as well as the multi-resolution federation Joint Land Component Constructive Training Capability-Warfighter’s Simulation (JLCCTC-WARSIM), do not adjudicate friendly or enemy actions within the cyber domain. Both the electromagnetic spectrum as well as cyberspace (computers, routers, switches and associated networks) are not replicated in either model, and therefore friendly and enemy activities in the cyber domain have no bearing or impact on the success or failure of kinetic actions and battles. The Army requires an integrated Force on Force cyber domain modeling environment that replicates Cyberspace, Electronic Warfare and Networking across all strategic, operational and tactical echelons (Theater to team), while incorporating all aspects of environmental impacts on the electromagnetic environment. This capability must also federate with the M&S capabilities for the other operational domains, without the need for a high performance computing environment.

Why this is important: The Army lacks a monolithic cyber domain M&S capability able to adjudicate both friendly and competitor actions within both cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum concurrently. This lack of capability in the cyber domain likewise translates into a lack of cyber M&S adjudication within M&S capabilities for other domains (air, land, sea and space). Defense doctrine, including Multi-Domain Operations, considers cyber as a distinct domain, coequal with other the operational domains. However, while Army training, experimentation, and testing and evaluation enterprises have verified, validated and accredited models for the other operational domains across the live, virtual and constructive simulation environments, no such capability exists for the cyber domain.

CLICK HERE to submit an abstract for Problem Statement 16.