1. Interoperable Command and Control Data Link (IC2DL) STANAG 4660
Status Report
Colin Cooke
March 2007
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

2. NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
Background
Based on number of NATO PG/35 and NIAG studies
dual data link system required to support UAV mission and safety critical needs
to support NATO UAV system interoperability needs these data links need to be standardised
high data rate link - STANAG 7085/TCDL
low data rate link - not defined
GBR defined a baseline specification for NATO application (HIDL)
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

3. NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
Background cont’d
December 2004 NNAG authorised PG/35 to form a Specialist Team
TOR and POW were submitted to NNAG and approved (through silence procedures) on 31 Jan. ’05
Kick-Off/Planning meeting of ST (and industry) held on 24 – 25 Feb. ‘05
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

4. NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
ST Organisation
UK Chairman (Colin Cooke/DSTL)
US Vice Chairman (Rick Greer/PMA 263)
Representatives from participating NATO groups, i.e. JISRCG ISRWG, NC3B
Technical Specialists from participating nations
Industry participants initially via voluntary participation now via NIAG Study Group 101
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

5. Specialist Team ToR - Aim
Define and produce a Standardisation Agreement (STANAG) for a IC2DL
complete set of requirements to support UAV system interoperability
wave-form, link margins, communication protocols, message formats, etc.
solution(s) applicable to all UAV types
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

6. Specialist Team Objectives
Review and update the HIDL architecture defined by previous PG/35 (AC/141(PG/35)D/15) and related (NIAG S/G 53) studies
Identify and harmonise requirements for IC2DL in support of various UAV classes/categories
Identify and leverage existing or emerging, if any, standards/data links, e.g. US Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) that may satisfy some or all of the IC2DL harmonized requirements.
Produce a detailed specification document, a IC2DL STANAG 4660
harmonized requirements
used by various national manufacturers to manufacture an interoperable IC2DL system.
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

7. NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
IC2DL Functionality
The function of IC2DL is to provide a:
command & control (C2) uplink and telemetry downlink for multiple UAVs
digital voice communications for ATC purposes
network enabled capability to support communication with up to 5 active nodes
Large number of passive nodes
node to node relay (beyond line of sight) capability
launch and recovery
optional low data rate sensor downlink for sensors such as EO/IR, ESM and EW
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

8. NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
IC2DL Architecture
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

9. NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
IC2DL Requirements
Parameter
Bit Error Rate (BER)
Link Availability
Environment Conditions
Operating Frequency Band
Waveform Inter-node Range
Reported Inter-node propagation time accuracy
Data rate
Encryption
LPI/LPD(3)
Mode A requirement
10-8
System Dependent
Located within 2 – 5 GHz(2)
0.001 – 100nm
+/- 200 nanoseconds
Network data rate selected by User. See section for details on the full capability (~300kb/s).
External to data link
10 log (bandwidth ratio) in dB
Mode B(1) requirement
Notes :
1. Mode B waveform not yet defined
2. Due to National frequency allocation requirement the final IC2DL frequency may change
3. There is a discussion of LPI/LPD characteristics in Section 2-2 of Attachment 2
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

10. IC2DL Requirements Cont’d
Parameter
Maximum Latency
Launch & Recovery
Air Vehicle C2(non-L&R)
Sensor C2
Voice(4)
Minimum Update rate
Launch & Recovery / Sensor C2
Polarisation
Communication protocol
Ground Data Terminal (GDT)
Air Data Terminal (ATD)
Digital Voice / ATC
Multiple Access Communication
External Timing Source
Air Vehicle node velocity (max)
Mode A requirement
50 – 100 ms
1 second
200 ms
300 ms
20 – 25 Hz / 5 – 10 Hz
Vertical
IP/UDP(5)
IP/UDP
AMBE 4.8 Kb/sec
TDMA
Not required
250 kts (500 kts relative speed.)
Mode B requirement
Notes :
4. Requirement for entire system is 250ms (from Press-To-Talk to decoding at the destination).
5. UDP selected to ensure that the most recent data would be sent from one node to another and is also consistent with the method selected by STANAG 4586.
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

11. NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
IC2DL STANAG 4660 Status
First complete draft of document is now available
Describes signal and critical interfaces with enough detail to support independent development of IC2DL interoperable radios
Defines following layers of the OSI Model
Waveform (Physical Layer -1)
Link Interface (Data Link Layer - 2)
Network (Network Layer - 3)
External (user) interfaces (Application Layer – 7)
plus other issues that impact interoperability e.g. polarisation
Data link design and implementation issues e.g. Link margin, beyond scope of STANAG
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

12. NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
IC2DL STANAG 4660 Issues
Lack of harmonised requirements
Frequency
Bandwidth
Range between nodes
Node velocity
Applicability to all UAV types (small to large)
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

13. Summary of National Positions
POC
Frequency band
Classes of UAV
concerned
Likely Ratification Recommendation
2.3 – 2.4 GHz
4.4 – 5.0 GHz
Canada
Bruce Liao
DRDC Ottawa
2.36 – 2.4 GHz feasible
4.4 – 4.94 GHz feasible
Still under consideration
France
Jean-Claude Le
French MOD
Not feasible
Feasible
TUAV, MALE, HALE, UCAV
No(1)
Germany
Marc Adrat
FGAN
Not available
Italy
Francesco Mininni
MOD Italy Army
Preferred
Mini & micro UAV, TUAV, MALE, UCAV
Netherlands
Auke Kampen
NL Mindef
NATO Preferred
TBD
Norway
Ragnar Wik
Kongsberg
The largest community of UAV’s
Wait for Mode B
Poland
Stanislaw Trytek
PIT
Spain
Manuela Garcia
EADS CASA
Not possible
Should be possible
Turkey
Harun Solmaz
TAI
Yes
United ingdom
Colin Cooke
UK MOD / Dstl
Feasible- but not all the band
Mode A for TUAV primarily. Other UAVs TBD
United States
Rick Greer
NAVAIR
Mode A for TUAV
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

14. Mode A Analysis Summary
Frequency – C Band acceptable to most nations
Coding – sufficient but could be enhanced
Chanelisation – not optimised for C Band
Range – waveform optimised for 100nm
Power efficiency – low due to linear amplifier
ECCM performance – no level of ECCM defined to assess performance against
Link budget – affected by increase in Frequency range e.g. increase output power and or antenna gain
Data types – multiplexing C2 & Voice with sensor data problematic to some nations
Detailed assessments contained in NIAG SG 101 report
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

15. Mode A Analysis Summary Cont’d
Greater flexibility required to address expanded requirements
Frequency
Range
Velocity
Power efficiency
Applicability to all UAV types
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

16. NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
Recommended Way Ahead
Distribute Current Draft to JCGUAV member nations for their review and comment
Review comments/issues provided within 45 – 60 calendar days
National input on requirements for all UAV types
STANAG 4660
NIAG SG 101 report
National requirements / CONOPs
JCGUAV harmonise requirements
ST / NIAG enhance STANAG to address harmonised requirements
JCGUAV request follow on NIAG study to support ST to enhance STANAG
Leverage off national studies (e.g. DEU, FRA)
Develop & incorporate recommendations from NIAG SG 101
If acceptable JCGUAV will need to revise TOR & POW for ST
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

17. NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
Questions
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED