Standardization in SDR: The military model and its applicability to the civil domain

1. Standardization in SDR: The military model and its applicability to the civil domain Dr Michael Street NATO C3 Agency This presentation contains explanatory notes (in italics) not included in the original workshop presentation

2. NATO C3 Agency The NATO Consultation Command and Control Agency (NC3A) provides unbiased scientific, technological and acquisition support in all areas of consultation, command, and control for NATO. NC3A is a Centre of Excellence in Communications, Command, Control, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities within NATO. With a highly competent staff, extensive laboratories and close links with military users NC3A provides independent and impartial advice for achieving operational enhancements in NATO’s C3 capability and supports the provision and procurement of the most capable C4ISR systems available and their operation in crisis and war. www.nc3a.nato.int

3. Introduction • What do we mean by SDR ? • Common terminology • SDR = “Standards based’ software and radio hardware for SDR • Why do we care about SDR ? • SDR is about implementation, not interoperability • Do we need to standardise it ? • Beyond standards – test, certification and business models • Comparison with the civil community • Commonality and differences between civil and military SDR communities

4. The military “wireless world” The next slide gives an overview of the wireless communications required for NATO operations. This shows the areas addressed by the NATO wireless communication reference architectures. Military operations may require high throughputs, long ranges, communication security, transmission security (e.g. anti-jam, low probability of detection / interception capabilities). Military radios must support different operational needs which can only be met with different waveforms (transmission frequency, modulation scheme, bandwidth, infrastructure e.g. trunked / satcom systems). Historically this has led to many different radio standards, systems and radios. APOD – Airborne port of disembarkation BLOS – Beyond line of sight (typically HF) CJTFHQ – Combined joint task force headquarters CNR – Combat Net Radio (tactical radio) DCM – Deployed communication [and information services] module ELOS – Extended line of sight (typically V/UHF) HF – High frequency (3-30 MHz) IEG – Information exchange gateway LOS – Line of sight MMTF – Multinational maritime task force NDN – National defence network (wired) NGCS – NATO wired network PAN – Personal area network SPOD – Seaborne port of disembarkation SSUBBCST – Subsurface broadcas VLF – Very low frequency WLAN – Wireless local area network

5. Military radio domain

6. Proposed Wireless Net ready Communications Standards (non –SATCOM) Plus Civil-Military cooperation (CIMIC) services : TETRA, GSM This slide shows the terrestrial radio standards identified by NATO as being necessary for the future NATO Network Enabled Capability (NNEC). The number of standards decreases to simplify interoperability. But there is still a need to support many radio standards depending on the operational requirements.

7. SDR in NATO • Military requirements dictate many different radio systems – many standards • JTRS initially identified 40+ current standards • JTRS = US Joint Tactical Radio System programme • National requirements • Flexibility • Interoperability • Economics • Larger supplier base, larger markets, lower costs • NATO SDR Users Group (SDRUG) • Provides a focus in NATO for National SDR programmes in the following nations • AU, CA, ES, FI, FR, GE, IT, PL, TU, SP, SW, UK, US

8. Software Defined Radio • SDR [a radio using software] is not new • S/w definition provides flexibility • Increases lifetime of radios • Aids platform fitting • Especially on aircraft • Eases introduction of new techniques and policies • Frequency management, networking • Portable software to define radios • Requires standards for s/w design & radio h/w • Portability can enable interoperability • Your software + my radio = we interoperate • Portability requires stringent standards on implementation User interface for military SDR implementing Mil-Std 188-141A for HF radio, circa 1992

9. Interoperability and Portability • Interoperability requires air interface standards • NATO has many air interface standards e.g. number on slide 6 • Further modern radio standards are in development e.g. NBW, WBW (narrowband / wideband waveform) • Portability requires implementation standards • Implementation standards can aid proliferation of air interface standards and therefore increase interoperability • NATO nations are following a standard for SDR portability • This standard is the software communications architecture (SCA), a block diagram is shown on the next slide.

10. Software Communications Architecture (SCA)

11. Software Communications Architecture • SCA is a standard for implementing SDR • Developed by US DoD as the standard for the JTRS programme • Now followed by many national military SDR programmes • SCA is rich, robust, capable and secure • It can support the wide range of radio capabilities needed by military radios • This can mean it is too large, complex and slow for Non-military uses • SCA has well-defined interfaces, APIs etc • Although not all of them can be released or shared • SCA compliant software can be ported to SCA compliant hardware “easily” • 70 % software reuse • Depending on the type of radios, complexity of waveform, sophistication of code • SCA compliant radios and waveforms are already fielded • Including an SCA software implementation of TETRA !

12. … but … some SCA issues remain • Ownership of SCA • Long term custodian of SCA not certain • There may be benefits in a long term custodian which is international & has a proven record in standards development. • The current custodian will determine the long-term future. • APIs and security • Release of full standards and on-going standardisation of additional APIs • Test & verification • Of h/w, original s/w and ported s/w • Requirement for test and certification as identified by EDA • With an agreed standard, software can be shared, waveforms ported and interoperability increased

13. Sharing SDR software • Standardised SCA • The SCA standards aids development of portable software • This is a basis for development, not “plug and play” • But our users aren’t “plug and play” either • Usually know months or years in advance who you will need to communicate / interoperate with – there may be time to port s/w • AI standards which meet user requirements • How can these be best proliferated ? • Are standardised SCA compliant software definitions the best way to proliferate use of air interface standards ? • IPR • Pros and cons • Recognise useful effort e.g. s/w development, has value • Software waveform library has been discussed by NATO SDRUG • Model of operation – business model • Type of content – Base waveforms

14. Use of base waveforms • The next slide shows the role of a base waveform. • A base waveform is software which implements the complete functionality of a given radio standard. The software is written entirely in a high level language to run on a general purpose processor. • Base waveform software does not have to run in real time. • The base waveform provides an intermediate step between the text standard document and the eventual optimised code which will run on a given target radio. • Base waveform software is easy to port, but of no operational use. • If implementing a given standard on mulitple radio platforms a base waveform may significantly reduce the overall development effort. This may aid implementation of standards on a wide variety of target radios and in a number of nations. • The following slide gives an example of 3 nations wishing to use the same NATO standard (S4999) and civil standard (EN 399) on different target radios. Each combination of target radio / standard will require dome development effort, but the overall effort is reduced. • While there may be benefit in using base waveforms as an intermedaite step, who provides and maintains a base waveform is unclear.

15. Multinational testing • US have a national test facility = JTeL + JITC • JTeL ensures SCA compliance • Tested against reference SCA implementations • Certification involves porting software to a “reference set” • Software port can be highly automated, but not completely. • Testing of SCA comliance is complemented by interoperability tests against other radios. Both the implementation and overall performance are tested. • National developments will require national testing • Use a national facility for multi-national testing ? • A test and verification facility is a significant investment, multi-national test facility shares cost. • Military requirement is often for multi-national interoperability -> multi-national testing • Who is responsible to tests and failures ? • Standards-based products are determined by the testing, not by the standards documents !

16. Multinational testing • Multiple test laboratories • National developments will require national testing • Use a national facility for multi-national testing ? • Multiple labs -> cross-certification • Single lab • Neutrality, single reference • Governence of any multi-national test facility must be agreed in advance. • What is the scope of required SDR testing ? • Interoperability / compliance • Representative tests vs range of scenarios “Multi-national testing” at NC3A

17. SDR in and beyond NATO • SDR Forum • SCA WG, Public safety SIG, Market trends • Address wider markets • OMG • Software Based Communications • NATO Research & Technology Organisation • Technical focus for national SDR activities • NATO SDR Users Group • “Electro-political” • To establish commitment among nations to exploit the benefits of SDR technology for multinational interoperability • NATO links to ESSOR, LOI etc • NC3A • Support NATO & Alliance on SDR • Waveform porting, development & library

18. Military and civil environments A comparison of factors influencing the military and civilian radio markets

19. Summary - military • SDR is an implementation, standardising SDR is very complex, but can give the military real benefits • SDR enables varied capability: reqs are varied • NATO wireless architecture user reqs & operational views • SCA exists as an accepted standard • Developments still needed e.g. Interfaces and security • Long term, international management unknown • NATO policy on use of civil standards • S/w waveform library can aid interoperability • Need agreed s/w format – based waveforms ? • Distribution model – industry only, govt supported ? • Interoperability defined by testing, not standards

20. Questions for civil SDR • What are the user requirements ? • Is SDR the optimum way to meet them ? • Will the stakeholders support widespread standards for radio implementation / components ? • Currently have long term non-interoperability e.g. Inter-system-interface • Can end users influence the market sufficiently ? • Is interoperability best provided by a single standard ? • GSM, TETRA • Who tests a reconfigured radio ? • Who is responsible if it fails ? • Is civil SDR / CR about technology, interoperability or user needs? • Betamax, CDi, Sinclair C5 … • Will CR benefit users or make spectrum management easier ?

21. Thank you Michael.Street@nc3a.nato.int +31 65 142 1275 Further reading: NATO Waveform library business model User requirements for wireless communications in the land tactical domain Analysis of “network ready” standards for network enabled capability RTO Lecture series on Emerging Wireless Technologies, 2007