1. Achievement of CIS Interoperability – NATO Policy and Processes
Dick Whittingham
NATO HQ C3 Staff
Principal Technical Co-ordinator
At our last meeting in July I briefly introduced this subject under AOB. Since there was no opportunity at that time to discuss the subject, I will start today by setting the scene in the same way, and I will then update you on the current NC3B activity.

2. Expeditionary Reality Vision
OUTLINE
Framework
Expeditionary Reality
Vision

3. NATO C3 System Interoperability Policy
FRAMEWORK - POLICY
NATO C3 System Interoperability Policy
NATO C3 System Interoperability Directive (NID)
NATO C3 System Architectural Framework (NAF) v2
Guiding Principles for C3 System Interoperability Experimentation, Test and Validation (IETV) in support of NATO Response Force (NRF) and NATO Network Enabled Capability (NNEC)
NATO C3 System Interoperability Policy
AC/322-D(2004)0039
NATO C3 System Interoperability Directive (NID)
AC/322-D(2004)0040
NATO C3 System Architectural Framework (NAF) v2
AC/322-D(2004)0041

4. DEFENCE PLANNING PROCESS (EXTRACT)
RESOURCE PLANNING -SRB
(NATO FUNDED PROGRAMMES)
BASELINE ARCHITECTURE
TARGET ARCHITECTURES
REFERENCE ARCHITECTURES
C3 OVERARCHING ARCHITECTURE
C3 REQUIREMENTS
C3 NNEC
CAPABILITY
TO MATCH
NATO
NEEDS
ARMAMENTS PLANNING - CNAD
(MULTINATIONAL PROGRAMMES)
FORCE PLANNING – DRC
(NATIONS’ CAPABILITIES)
NMA requirement statement(s) need to be consistent across all planning disciplines
OA covers C3 aspects of all Defence Planning disciplines: focuses on overall requirement and inter-system relationships
For Resource Planning:
RA part of Capability Packages
TA part of TBCE
Baselines to be handed over to Operating authority ( normally NCSA)
Functional aspects may be drawn as specialist view of single architecture or group of architectures

5. BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
NATO C3 INTEROPERABILITY PROCESS
NHQC3S
ANALYSIS
NC3B
DIRECTION
NATIONAL
CONTRIBUTION
CATEGORISATION
IOR
IOR
SOURCES
SOURCE
ANALYSIS/
DEFINE
IOR
IOR
DEFENCE
PLANNING
PLANNING
LESSONS LEARNED
FEEDBACK
NATIONAL
PROGRAMMES
FEEDBACK
IOR
RESOLUTION
BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
NEW FIELDED
CAPABILITY
NEW
STANDARDS
PROCEDURES
E.G.
SUPPORT TO CERTIFICATION OF FORCES
INTEROPERABILITY TESTING

6. NATO C3 TESTING CYCLE NCT NIETI CATEGORISATION PROCESS
MASTER TEST SCHEDULE OF NATO IOTRS
IOTR
TEST EVENT MATCHING
NCT
NATO INTEROPERABILITY REQUIREMENTS
NATO, NATIONAL AND CO-OPERATIVE TEST EVENTS
NIETI
FEEDBACK
I wish to relate these different IOR sources to the work of the Bi-SCs, the NHQC3Staff, the NC3B and its substructure and the Nations
NC3
PORTAL
NIE IT
RESULTS

7. EXPEDITIONARY OPERATIONS - CHALLENGE
ACO
HQ NATO
JFC HQ
Static
DJTF HQ
AIR
CC HQ
LAND
MARITIME
Deployed
SOCC
INFORMATION FLOW
APOD
APOD
SPOD
SPOD
DCAOC
DCAOC
NATIONAL
FORCES
NATO
TASK
FORCE
AIR FORCES
& BASES
Here is a generic Command and Control diagram for the NRF
The static elements are at the top with the deployed joint task force HQ and the Component Commands in the centre and the force elements at the bottom
As you will be aware, the component commands (both NATO and National) including the Special Forces CC, and the subordinate National forces rotate independently, normally at 6 monthly intervals.
The interoperability challenge is that [CLICK] there is a need for information flow from top to bottom and side to side of this dynamic multinational structure

9. The common NATO CIS services (e. g
The common NATO CIS services (e.g. NATO secure voice) required at each node is then identified against the relevant node. So the community of Interest requiring access to the common CIS service is indicated in each column.
The complete list has some 80 rows.
This this operational view in place the system and technical impact can be assessed, resulting, for each NRF, in a summary of interoperability status and actions required.

11. EXPEDITIONARY OPERATIONS - CHALLENGE
ACO
HQ NATO
JFC HQ
Static
DJTF HQ
AIR
CC HQ
LAND
MARITIME
Deployed
SOCC
APOD
SPOD
DCAOC
NATIONAL
FORCES
NATO
TASK
FORCE
AIR FORCES
& BASES
So, going back to the NRF, in general terms the process identifies (CLICK) the locations where interoperability between systems is necessary, and how it may be achieved and proven
Quite a few in this case: it is, of course a bit more complicated than that…

12. INTEROPERABILITY STATUS – OPERATION XXX
This is another small extract for NRF 7.
You can see from the question marks that this is definitely work in progress, but it gives an indication of the ability of each boundary point between one system and another to pass the required NATO common CIS service (e.g. secure voice).
We only class it Green when the interoperability has actually been proven via live tests: there are also a number of red areas where the full requirement is not being met or where we still need to identify technical solutions.
From this analysis, we identify shortfalls in interoperability and their resolution mechanisms and drive the test activities to prove interoperability.
The test results are then taken by the Commanders to assist their certification of the forces concerned.

13. EXPEDITIONARY REALITY – PROVIDES:
Focus for Interoperability Experimentation and Test:
NIETI Core Team co-ordinate test activity
NATO Coalition Warrior Interoperability Demonstration (CWID), Steadfast Cathode, [Combined Endeavor]
NC3A IETV capability development and use
Basis for NC3B Interoperability Sub-Committee to identify and solve interoperability challenges with Joint Force Commanders (JFCs)
Basis for ACT, NC3O and Industrial experimentation to enhance technical capability

14. VISION
Progressive move to NNEC capability
One to network paradigm
Uniformity and ‘standardization’
Architectures
Standards and profiles
NATO Maturity Level (NML) models
Test and Certification
Process improvement

15. NETWORKING AND INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE (NII)
NATO STATIC
STRUCTURE
ACCS
ALTMD
DCAOC
APOD
SPOD
ACO
HQ NATO
JFC HQ
NATIONAL
FORCES
NATO
TASK
FORCE
AIR FORCES
& BASES
DJTF HQ
AIR
CC HQ
LAND
MARITIME
Static
Deployed
SOCC
NATIONAL
CAPABILITY
NATIONAL
CAPABILITY
Networking and Information Infrastructure (NII).
The federated network of NATO and national information infrastructures and communications infrastructures necessary to achieve NNEC
EAPC(AC/322)D(2006)0002-REV1-ADD1-AS1

16. NNEC CAPABILITY AREAS - NII ARCHITECTURE
USERS AND MISSIONS
INFOR-
MATION
ASSUR-
ANCE
SERVICE
MANGE-
MENT
CONTROL
COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
INFORMATION & INTEGRATION SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
Overarching Architecture
Community of Interest RA
NII Enterprise Reference Architecture

17. NATO C3 System Architectural Framework (NAF) v3 (currently draft)
VISION
NATO C3 System Architectural Framework (NAF) v3 (currently draft)
NATO architecture Meta-Model (NMM)
NATO Architecture Repository (NAR)
NAR linked with NATO Interoperability Standards and Profiles (NISP) (former NC3TA) repository, the NML repository and the NATO Interoperability Environment (NIE) Interoperability Tool

18. NAF V3 PERSPECTIVES AND VIEWS
NATO
CAPABILITY
VIEW
NATO
ALL
VIEW
NATO OPERATIONAL VIEW
NATO PROGRAMME VIEW
NATO SERVICES VIEW
NATO SYSTEM VIEW
NATO TECHNICAL VIEW

19. TEST AND CERTIFICATION
Proving interoperable capability is critical for success
Good progress so far, but more needed
Knowledge and process baseline enhancement - NC3A
Improved linkage to Force certification
Willingness of Nations to offer the right equipment at the right time

20. PROCESS
The processes are complex
Process cohesion essential for capability delivery (especially NNEC)
Key activities:
Document process: use architectures
Provide consistent requirement baseline
Prove capability: document solutions

21. CONCLUSION
Interoperability is a challenge, especially for expeditionary operations: but we are making progress!
It is a challenge for everyone
Process and architecture developments are key to progress NNEC associated improvement
Progress depends upon Nations’ willingness to follow standardized solutions and to expend effort on testing.