Presentation on theme: "Achievement of CIS Interoperability – NATO Policy and Processes"— Presentation transcript:
1 Achievement of CIS Interoperability – NATO Policy and Processes Dick WhittinghamNATO HQ C3 StaffPrincipal Technical Co-ordinatorAt 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.
3 NATO C3 System Interoperability Policy FRAMEWORK - POLICYNATO C3 System Interoperability PolicyNATO C3 System Interoperability Directive (NID)NATO C3 System Architectural Framework (NAF) v2Guiding 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 PolicyAC/322-D(2004)0039NATO C3 System Interoperability Directive (NID)AC/322-D(2004)0040NATO C3 System Architectural Framework (NAF) v2AC/322-D(2004)0041
4 DEFENCE PLANNING PROCESS (EXTRACT) RESOURCE PLANNING -SRB(NATO FUNDED PROGRAMMES)BASELINE ARCHITECTURETARGET ARCHITECTURESREFERENCE ARCHITECTURESC3 OVERARCHING ARCHITECTUREC3 REQUIREMENTSC3 NNECCAPABILITYTO MATCHNATONEEDSARMAMENTS PLANNING - CNAD(MULTINATIONAL PROGRAMMES)FORCE PLANNING – DRC(NATIONS’ CAPABILITIES)NMA requirement statement(s) need to be consistent across all planning disciplinesOA covers C3 aspects of all Defence Planning disciplines: focuses on overall requirement and inter-system relationshipsFor Resource Planning:RA part of Capability PackagesTA part of TBCEBaselines 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 PROCESSNHQC3SANALYSISNC3BDIRECTIONNATIONALCONTRIBUTIONCATEGORISATIONIORIORSOURCESSOURCEANALYSIS/DEFINEIORIORDEFENCEPLANNINGPLANNINGLESSONS LEARNEDFEEDBACKNATIONALPROGRAMMESFEEDBACKIORRESOLUTIONBY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITYNEW FIELDEDCAPABILITYNEWSTANDARDSPROCEDURESE.G.SUPPORT TO CERTIFICATION OF FORCESINTEROPERABILITY TESTING
6 NATO C3 TESTING CYCLE NCT NIETI CATEGORISATION PROCESS MASTER TEST SCHEDULE OF NATO IOTRSIOTRTEST EVENT MATCHINGNCTNATO INTEROPERABILITY REQUIREMENTSNATO, NATIONAL AND CO-OPERATIVE TEST EVENTSNIETIFEEDBACKI wish to relate these different IOR sources to the work of the Bi-SCs, the NHQC3Staff, the NC3B and its substructure and the NationsNC3PORTALNIE ITRESULTS
7 EXPEDITIONARY OPERATIONS - CHALLENGE ACOHQ NATOJFC HQStaticDJTF HQAIRCC HQLANDMARITIMEDeployedSOCCINFORMATION FLOWAPODAPODSPODSPODDCAOCDCAOCNATIONALFORCESNATOTASKFORCEAIR FORCES& BASESHere is a generic Command and Control diagram for the NRFThe 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 bottomAs 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 ACOHQ NATOJFC HQStaticDJTF HQAIRCC HQLANDMARITIMEDeployedSOCCAPODSPODDCAOCNATIONALFORCESNATOTASKFORCEAIR FORCES& BASESSo, 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 provenQuite 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 activityNATO Coalition Warrior Interoperability Demonstration (CWID), Steadfast Cathode, [Combined Endeavor]NC3A IETV capability development and useBasis 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 VISIONProgressive move to NNEC capabilityOne to network paradigmUniformity and ‘standardization’ArchitecturesStandards and profilesNATO Maturity Level (NML) modelsTest and CertificationProcess improvement
15 NETWORKING AND INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE (NII) NATO STATICSTRUCTUREACCSALTMDDCAOCAPODSPODACOHQ NATOJFC HQNATIONALFORCESNATOTASKFORCEAIR FORCES& BASESDJTF HQAIRCC HQLANDMARITIMEStaticDeployedSOCCNATIONALCAPABILITYNATIONALCAPABILITYNetworking and Information Infrastructure (NII).The federated network of NATO and national information infrastructures and communications infrastructures necessary to achieve NNECEAPC(AC/322)D(2006)0002-REV1-ADD1-AS1
16 NNEC CAPABILITY AREAS - NII ARCHITECTURE USERS AND MISSIONSINFOR-MATIONASSUR-ANCESERVICEMANGE-MENTCONTROLCOMMUNITIES OF INTERESTINFORMATION & INTEGRATION SERVICESCOMMUNICATIONS SERVICESOverarching ArchitectureCommunity of Interest RANII Enterprise Reference Architecture
17 NATO C3 System Architectural Framework (NAF) v3 (currently draft) VISIONNATO 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 NATOCAPABILITYVIEWNATOALLVIEWNATO OPERATIONAL VIEWNATO PROGRAMME VIEWNATO SERVICES VIEWNATO SYSTEM VIEWNATO TECHNICAL VIEW
19 TEST AND CERTIFICATION Proving interoperable capability is critical for successGood progress so far, but more neededKnowledge and process baseline enhancement - NC3AImproved linkage to Force certificationWillingness of Nations to offer the right equipment at the right time
20 PROCESSThe processes are complexProcess cohesion essential for capability delivery (especially NNEC)Key activities:Document process: use architecturesProvide consistent requirement baselineProve capability: document solutions
21 CONCLUSIONInteroperability is a challenge, especially for expeditionary operations: but we are making progress!It is a challenge for everyoneProcess and architecture developments are key to progress NNEC associated improvementProgress depends upon Nations’ willingness to follow standardized solutions and to expend effort on testing.