Communications Interoperability ‘down to the desk level !?’

1. Communications Interoperability‘down to the desk level !?’ AFCEA Europe 16 June 2010 Mons (SHAPE) Belgium Gerard Elzinga NATO HQ C3 Staff/CINNB

2. Outline NATO Environment Communications environment Communications Interoperability / Developments: Deployable tactical networks New Concepts Security Wireless networks Software Defined radio SATCOM UNCLASSIFIED 2

3. Military Context • Expeditionary operations - Out of Area • Multinational and multi-agency • Coalition of NATO and non-NATO nations • High multinational mix and fine level of granularity • Non-military organisations and elements play a key part • Broad spectrum of conflict • Humanitarian to Peace Making/’War’ • Often at the same time in the same Theatre of Operations • Difficult to predict threat (‘Plan for worst case’) • Driving need for increased levels of agility, flexibility and mobility • Dispersed in Theatre UNCLASSIFIED 3

4. NCW / NEC / NNEC Tenets: Robustly networked forces Information sharing Shared understanding Improved effectiveness Networking of sensors, command and control nodes and effectors This requires a Networking and Information Infrastructure - Federated Technology – People - Information “The NATO Network Enabled Capability (NNEC) is the Alliance’s cognitive and technical ability to federate the various components of the operational environment from the strategic level (including NATO HQ) down to the tactical level, through a networking and information infrastructure” UNCLASSIFIED 4

5. Federation of Networks NATO Nation C3 Static e.g. NGCS Nation C2 Fixed Deployed Extending Static Domain into Theatre, e.g. FOC+ C2 Deployable e.g. Tactical WAN C2 Mobile (Sensors/ Effectors) e.g. CNR

6. Communications InteroperabilityTactical Level • NATO Assets • NCCAP • Deployable CIS • National Assets • Bulk of the Equipment • Interoperability non assured • Different Operational requirements • Various Implementations of same equipment types • Security • Are all systems in theatres result of proper planning or simply crisis acquisitions • Role of NATO in Improving Interoperability UNCLASSIFIED

7. Deployable CIS NATO CIS Contingency Assets Pool (NCCAP): Set up in the Past to support land deployments (ACCAP), Part for maritime NATO HQs afloat (MCCAP) Concept revisited, now transformed into Deployable CIS Modules (DCM) T/D SGTs, HF, RR LOS, COM and IS Modules Equipment added, replaced, modernized and/or upgraded Interim Solutions (LINC(E)) implemented However….Interim ?? UNCLASSIFIED 7

8. Communications Interoperability UNCLASSIFIED • Policy level • Standards • Concepts of Employment • Interoperability Policies • Architectures • Key multinational initiatives: • TACOMS (Post 2000) • Security • Waveform development • Software Defined Radio • SATCOM • But also note: • Large installed base of national systems, not easily changed 8

9. Communications Interoperability(Policy) UNCLASSIFIED 9 • Standards • The beauty of our current sets of Standards is that there are so many to choose from • Identification of those standards that will be key to achieving interoperability within NNEC (IP capable, modern technologies) • Life Cycle of Standards: Concept to Implementation • Standards themselves are not sufficient (too many options, context): Concepts of Employment • Concepts of Employment • Defines context (Operational) • Communications Profiles • Standards • Implementation options 9

10. Communications Interoperability(Policy) UNCLASSIFIED 10 • Architectures • Operational, System, Technical Views • Provides guidance on how to implement Capabilities • Not prescriptive for nations, applicable for NATO, nations can benefit from it • Policies • Communications Profiles to de defined depending on Role • ‘Enforcement at appropriate levels and by relevant directives’ • MC Documentation – e.g. MC 195 • Coordination Defence/Force Planning 10

11. TACOMS UNCLASSIFIED • TACOMS Vision: • “Robust, highly available federated network based on interconnectivity via converged, high-speed IP interoperability points that support any application and multiple simultaneous classification levels” • Wired, Tactical Level but nothing would limit wider implementation (e.g. in Strategic Systems) • Based on Mature Commercial Technologies and Standards • Phase 1 STANAGs Promulgated – Implemenmtations ongoing • Phase 2 started: Evolution (IPv6, Mobility…) 11

12. Security Secure Communications Interoperability Protocol End-to-End Security over heterogeneous networks Strategic down to Tactical Level Based on a nationally developed set of specifications SATCOM, IP, TDM, Tactical radio Networks TACOMS NII IP Network Encryption (NINE) Future standard for IP – encryption Based on Commercial IPSec specifications Using National Standard (HAIPE) as a basis for a Alliance standard Strategic down to Tactical Domain UNCLASSIFIED 12

13. Protected Core Network LAN (e.g. HQ) PCS (WAN segment) Z E E LAN (e.g. HQ) E Z E E PCS (WAN segment) PCS (WAN segment) E E E E LAN (e.g. HQ) Z LAN (e.g. HQ) Z PCS= Protected Core Segment UNCLASSIFIED

14. Wireless Communications SHF UHF UHF EHF HF UHF HF VHF ↓VLF 14 Jan 09 3-Apr-08 UNCLASSIFIED 14 UHF

15. Waveforms UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 15 15 • HF • Well Defined set of Limited HF Waveforms • Upgrade to IP • Wide Band HF • BLOS (Non HF, Non SATCOM) • Troposcatter revival ?? • UAV, balloons ?? • V/UHF • Limited Interoperability (Capacity, Services) • SATCOM • Standards defined: UHF, SHF, EHF • SHF being Upgraded • Never Forget: Large Installed Base, need sound Business Case to support implementation new waveforms, radios and alignment of national plans !!

16. SATCOM LITFref ELOS AITFref ELOS LITFref LOS LITFref Wide Band Waveform (WBWF) Narrow Band Waveform (NBWF) ELOS LITFref BLOS LITFref LOS LITFref BLOS MITFref ELOS LITFref LOS LITFref 14 Jan 09 UNCLASSIFIED 16

17. NBWF Requirements RBCI UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 17 17

18. NBWF Network Layer Media Access Layer On air encryption Physical Layer UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 18 18 18 • Basic Requirements: • Secure voice and data communications • Radio Based Combat Identification (RBCI) • Basic networking capability, sharing of situational awareness • Spectrally efficient • Initially a non-EPM version, then EPM • Basis of solution: • Contributors: CAN, GBR, NLD, NOR, NC3A • Physical layer based on CPM, fixed frequency, frequency hopping • Time based media access layer • Basic routing protocols • Overall waveform architecture • Draft STANAG for Physical Layer • Work ongoing for MAC Layer • Security Principles under discussion

19. WBWF UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 19 19 19 • Operational Requirements: • Draft Available • Discussions ongoing with other int’l initiatives • COALWNW • 9 Nations , USA Lead • ESSOR • 6 Nations, European Lead • Secure voice and data communications • RBCI not part of requirements

20. Mobile Network Evaluation • NCOIC Working Group • Technology Tenets: • IP architecture tenets • Information Assurance tenets • Mobility tenets • Use Cases: • Coalition Defence • Mobile Emergency Communications Interoperability (MECI) • Evaluation of existing standards UNCLASSIFIED

21. Software Defined Radio • Strands of work within NATO: • NATO Industrial Advisory Group study • Business Models for SDR Cooperation • Aim to improve Interoperability • Report: Waveform standardization, IPR, Security etc. • Research and Technology Organization (RTO) Regular Task Group • Demonstrate Portability SDR SCA Compliant Waveform (ST 4285) & Interoperability • SDR User’s Group Framework for sharing of waveform software • Working new model for SDR standardisation (w/ EDA), architectectural bits: 3 baskets model: 1 part open , 1 part restricterd to coalition partners, 1 private for nations • Interaction EDA, OCCAR, ESSOR, Wireless Innovation Forum (SDRForum) UNCLASSIFIED

22. feedback WF Use feedback WF Definition WF Implementation architecture requirements CONEMP WF Spec Tgt WF s/w WF comps Nat’l sy accred radios National Use iteration WF comps WF prototype acceptance Base WF s/w Tgt WF s/w WF comps Fn Ref s/w NATO Use WF Spec radios Tgt WF s/w NATO sy accred Test results Base/ target s/w CONEMP WF Spec IoP ref s/w Interoperability Testing architecture test Base WF s/w IoP Ref s/w s/w requirements Tgt WF s/w SDR UG - Sharing Framework • Framework addresses: • Waveform definition • Waveform implementation • Interoperability testing • Waveform use • Each step in life cycle needs to address same issues but their impact differs: • Software quality and performance • Compliance with open software architecture • Intellectual Property Rights • Security UNCLASSIFIED

23. SATCOM • Standards developed in UHF, SHF, EHF Frequency bands • UHF – Making more Efficient use of Available Spectrum (DAMA – IW) • SHF – Updating existing Standards to be fully NNEC Compliant, IP capable • Comms On The Move: Multiple approaches to use COTM – SHF • EHF – Existing Set of Standards, likely to be expanded UNCLASSIFIED

24. Summary Operating in a complex environment which is difficult to predict Several initiatives underway to improve multinational communications capabilities especially interoperability down to the lower levels Wired Wireless Domain However whilst technical challenges exist the greater challenges are political and organizational UNCLASSIFIED 24

25. Questions