Transcript NATO`s Step Towards Interoperable Mobile and Deployable

Communications Interoperability
‘down to the desk level !?’
AFCEA Europe
16 June 2010
Mons (SHAPE) Belgium
Gerard Elzinga
NATO HQ C3 Staff/CINNB
Outline
 NATO Environment
 Communications environment
 Communications Interoperability /
Developments:
 Deployable tactical networks
 New Concepts
 Security
 Wireless networks
 Software Defined radio
 SATCOM
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
2
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
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
3
NCW / NEC / NNEC
“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”
 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
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
4
Federation of Networks
NATO
Nation
Nation
C3 Static
e.g. NGCS
C2 Fixed
Deployed
Extending
Static Domain
into Theatre,
e.g. FOC+
C2 Deployable
e.g. Tactical WAN
4/2/2017
C2 Mobile
(Sensors/
Effectors)
e.g. CNR
Communications Interoperability
Tactical 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
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
6
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 ??
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
7
Communications Interoperability
 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
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
8
Communications Interoperability
(Policy)
 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
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
9
Communications Interoperability
(Policy)
 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
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
10
TACOMS
• 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…)
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
11
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
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
12
Protected Core Network
E
LAN
(e.g. HQ)
PCS
(WAN segment)
Z
LAN
(e.g. HQ)
E
E
Z
E
E
E
LAN
(e.g. HQ)
PCS
E
(WAN segment)
E
PCS
(WAN segment)
E
Z
Z
LAN
(e.g. HQ)
PCS= Protected Core Segment
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
13
Wireless Communications
SHF
UHF
UHF
EHF
HF
UHF
HF
VHF
↓VLF
4/2/2017
14
3-Apr-08
Jan 09
UNCLASSIFIED
UHF
14
Waveforms
 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 !!
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
15
15
SATCOM
LITFref
ELOS
AITFref
ELOS
LITFref
LOS
LITFref
ELOS
LITFref
BLOS
LITFref
LOS
LITFref
BLOS
MITFref
ELOS
LITFref
LOS
LITFref
4/2/2017
14
Jan 09
UNCLASSIFIED
16
NBWF Requirements
Interoperability Point
Nation D
Nation C
Nation A
Interoperability Point
Nation A
RBCI
Nation B
Interoperability Point
1
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
17
NBWF
 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
Network Layer
 Draft STANAG for Physical Layer
 Work ongoing for MAC Layer
 Security Principles under discussion
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
Media Access Layer
On air encryption
Physical Layer
18
18
WBWF
 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
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
19
19
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
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
20
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)
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
21
SDR UG - Sharing Framework
 Framework addresses:
Waveform definition
Waveform implementation
Interoperability testing
Waveform use
feedback
WF Definition
architecture
WF Implementation
requirements
WF Use
WF comps
WF
prototype
WF comps
Tgt WF
s/w
WF Spec
Fn Ref s/w
Base WF
s/w
WF Spec
requirements
IoP Ref s/w
s/w
tes
t
Base/ target s/w
IoP ref s/w
WF Spec
Interoperability Testing
National
Use
radios
NATO Use
Test results
Tgt WF
s/w
architecture
radios
Tgt WF
s/w
NATO sy accred
WF comps
Nat’l sy accred
CONEMP
CONEMP
 Software quality and
performance
 Compliance with open
software architecture
 Intellectual Property Rights
 Security
feedback
acceptance
 Each step in life cycle needs to
address same issues but their
impact differs:
iteration




Base WF
s/w
Tgt WF
s/w
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
22
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
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
23
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
4/2/2017
UNCLASSIFIED
24
Questions
4/2/2017