Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Communications Interoperability ‘down to the desk level !?’

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Communications Interoperability ‘down to the desk level !?’"— Presentation transcript:

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 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED 2 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 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED 3

4 NCW / NEC / NNEC Tenets: Robustly networked forces Information sharing
“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 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED 4 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 4/1/2017 5

6 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 4/1/2017 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 ?? 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED 7 7

8 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 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED 8 8

9 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 Implementation options 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED 9 9 9 9

10 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 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED 10 10 10 10

11 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…) 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED 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 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED 12 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 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED

14 Wireless Communications

15 Waveforms HF V/UHF BLOS (Non HF, Non SATCOM) SATCOM
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 !! 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 15 15 15

16 Wide Band Waveform (WBWF) Narrow Band Waveform (NBWF)
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 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED 16

17 NBWF Requirements RBCI 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 17 17 17

18 NBWF Basic Requirements: Basis of solution:
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 Physical Layer Media Access Layer Network Layer On air encryption 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 18 18 18 18 18

19 WBWF Operational Requirements: RBCI not part of 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 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 19 19 19 19 19

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 4/1/2017 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) 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED

22 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 WF Definition WF Implementation WF Use Interoperability Testing requirements CONEMP WF Spec Fn Ref s/w IoP ref s/w radios WF comps iteration WF prototype Base WF s/w Tgt WF IoP Ref s/w acceptance Base/ target s/w test Nat’l sy accred NATO sy accred National Use NATO Use architecture Test results feedback 4/1/2017 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 4/1/2017 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 To summarize this presentation I would like to draw out three main points: First we are operating in complex operational environments where it has become more difficult to predict the capabilities needed for the future. This means that flexibility and adaptability are key requirements. As I have explained there are several initiatives underway that aim to improve communications, principally communications interoperability. however at the NATO and multinational level the key challenges are not so much technical but of a political and organizational nature. 4/1/2017 UNCLASSIFIED 24 24

25 Questions 4/1/2017

Download ppt "Communications Interoperability ‘down to the desk level !?’"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google