1. NATO UNCLASSIFIED Dr Michael Street CIS Division NATO C3 Agency
Standards for Network Centric Defence
Dr Michael Street
CIS Division
NATO C3 Agency
Network Centric Defence will rely on a number of systems to support it. Effective communications will be essential. Communication will use a wide variety of networks and communication bearers.
Communication will not only be wide-spread, it must be secure.
Network Centric Defence will need secure, interoperable, bearer-independent* communications.
NC3A is involved in application and exploitation of civil communication standards to support military applications.
*Bearer-independent = will operate over any type of comms network e.g. fixed-lines or mobile, commercial or military, terrestrial or satellite.
NATO UNCLASSIFIED – Releasable to internet
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
5 December 2018

2. Position reporting through TETRA terminal with C2PC software
Military Applications Civil Communications
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Drive for increasing use of COTS equipment
Civil market drives Communications, IT
Position reporting through TETRA terminal with C2PC software
This shows a military Command & Control application running on a PC. The PC is connected to a military network through a TETRA mobile terminal.
TETRA is an ETSI standard for public safety communications and as such it is comparable in many aspects to tactical radios. (For further information see
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
5 December 2018

3. COTS equipment for Defence
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Drive for increasing military use of COTS equipment
Cost, technology
Civil market drives Communications, IT
The commercial - not defence - market drives development in most areas. So military users must consider civil standards where appropriate.
In cases where the defence community require similar equipment or services to the civil community it makes sense to use civil standards. For items or areas which relate specifically to the defence community it may still be necessary to generate standards within a military organisation.
The pictures show a commercial TETRA system in use during exercise Co-operative Partner 2003 in Odessa, Ukraine. The commercial equipment survived “military handling”.
NC3A TETRA system during Ex Cooperative Partner 2003, Odessa
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
5 December 2018

4. Military vs Civil: vocoders
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Intelligibility
(Male speaker)
But this isn’t always the case.
Voice coders digitise speech for transmission over digital media and are widely used. This slide compares the performance of the NATO Stanag 4591 voice coder with that of comparable civil voice coders. Despite lower requirements for throughput, the NATO coder provides better speech intelligibility.
As a result, this voice coder is being considered for adoption in civil standards. Such civil standards will then be interoperable with military, and development of compliant equipment benefits from economies of scale.
NC3A participates in civil standards working groups in order to influence future civil standards.
Military participation in civil standardisation must be a symbiotic relationship, with civil standards able to benefit from military expertise and technology where appropriate. E.g. consideration of Stanag 4591 for inclusion in future civil standards.
6 kbps
RPCELP
4.56 kbps
ACELP
4.56 kbps
ACELP
2.4 kbps
MELPe
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
5 December 2018

5. Pictures courtesy of DERA / Qinetiq (UK)
Deployable GSM
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Deployed military communications using a commercially available GSM system – again using civil standards (from ETSI) for infrastructure and services for military communications.
Pictures courtesy of DERA / Qinetiq (UK)
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
5 December 2018

6. Non-secure links in military communications
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Non-secure links in military communications
GSM is an example of non-secure communications
Valuable capability for certain user groups
Work within security constraints, or …
Military to provide their own security
GSM is a good example … NC3A workshop on “Secure GSM”- details at nc3a.info/GSM
But civil standards don’t always give the military what they need. Particularly in security.
GSM is not secure, to be of real value for military use the security in GSM ‘phones needs to be added afterwards (in the terminals).
Developing military equipment which will operate over an infrastructure based on civil standards needs understanding of the civil infrastructure used (and its standards).
“Bolting on” security to GSM has been a long and costly process for manufacturers of Secure GSM equipment. It is clear that manufacturers did not understand the civil infrastructure. The lengthened development time and poor reliability of some products reflects this.
Reliable products such as that shown on this slide benefited from an understanding that practical implementations in the civil world may differ from that defined in standards documents.
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
5 December 2018