C3 INTEROPERABILITY AFCEA ‘INTEROPERABILITY REVISITED’ 16 June 10

1. C3 INTEROPERABILITY • AFCEA ‘INTEROPERABILITY REVISITED’ • 16 June 10 • Dick Whittingham • Principal Technical Coordinator • NATO HQ Consultation, Command and Control Staff

2. CONTENT • Overview • Implications of Interoperability Keys • Actions and Initiatives

3. OVERVIEW • Interoperability is a challenge! • For C3, lack of interoperability means: • No network enabled environment • No information sharing • Move to a federated networked environment makes interoperability central to National as well as NATO activity • Pre-requisite for effective operations in the real world

4. RELATIONSHIPS • For C3, our required capabilities are always in the context of the federated (NATO, national and multinational) networked environment • In NATO, required capabilities are defined and implemented via the NATO Defence Planning Process and the Operational Planning Process • Interoperability is a characteristic of a capability • Standardization is a tool to support interoperability

5. ACO NATO STATIC JFC HQ SOCC NATO DEPLOYED NATIONAL AIR FORCES & BASES HQ NATO NATIONAL FORCES NATIONAL FORCES NATIONAL FORCES DJSE NATIONAL AIR FORCES & BASES NATIONAL AIR FORCES & BASES AIR CC HQ NATO TASK FORCE MARITIME CC HQ LAND CC HQ INFORMATION FLOW NATIONALDEPLOYED INFORMATION FLOW FEDERATED ENVIRONMENT

6. OPERATIONAL REALITY OPERATIONAL PLANNING OPERATIONAL PLANNING Parallel staffing Identification to Endorsement Cost estimation Authorisation Implementation Handover Bridge to the future POLITICAL DIRECTION CONOPS FORCE ACTIVATION DIRECTIVE CJSOR FORCE GENERATION OPLAN CRO PLANNING • Forces come as they are • Interoperability low • Requirements unclear and changing • Dynamic ad hoc solutions needed • Work-arounds • AMN

7. INTEROPERABILITY KEYS • Understanding and documenting the interoperability requirement (IOR) • Identifying solutions to the IOR • Implementation of the solutions by all parties • Test and validation of the implemented solutions

8. 1 Political Guidance 2 Requirements & Shortfalls 3 Set Targets 4 Implement Monitor / Facilitate National / Multi-National Implementation NATO Implementation Support 5 Review NATO Capability Survey Progress Report Annual Capabilities Report NATO DEFENCE PLANNING PROCESS(NDPP) 1 INT PG Pol – Mil Analysis LoA Operations Future Trends Minimum Capabilities Requirements (MCR) PS REQUIREMENT Lessons Learned Surplus Capability NATO and National Existing and Planned Capabilities Compare Fulfilment Exercise 2 RISK Analysis Capability Shortfalls Capabilities to be Maintained Prioritise Shortfalls Note Synopsis of MCR including Priority Shortfall Areas SOLUTION National Targets Develop Targets – apportion Determine Capability Shortfall Solutions Multi-National Targets NATO Targets IMPLEMENT Reasonable Challenge Agree Targets Associated Risk PROVE

9. Step 1 INT PG Pol – Mil Analysis LoA OPERATIONAL PLANNING Operations Future Trends OPERATIONAL PLANNING Minimum Capabilities Requirements Parallel staffing PS Identification to Endorsement Cost estimation Lessons Learned Authorisation Implementation Handover Bridge to the future Surplus Capability NATO and National Existing and Planned Capabilities POLITICAL DIRECTION CJSOR FORCE ACTIVATION DIRECTIVE CONOPS 2 Compare Fulfilment Exercise RISK Analysis Capability Shortfalls Capabilities to be Maintained PLoCS National Targets Acknowledge PLoCS FORCE GENERATION 3 Develop Targets – apportion Determine Capability Shortfall Solutions Multi-National Targets OPLAN NATO Targets CRO PLANNING Associated Risk Reasonable Challenge Agree Targets 4 Monitor / Facilitate National / Multi-National Implementation NATO Implementation Support 5 NATO Capability Survey Progress Report Annual Capabilities Report PROCESSRELATIONSHIPS DEFENCE PLANNING BALANCING REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCES

10. Step 1 INT PG Pol – Mil Analysis LoA OPERATIONAL PLANNING Operations Future Trends OPERATIONAL PLANNING Minimum Capabilities Requirements Parallel staffing PS Identification to Endorsement Cost estimation Lessons Learned Authorisation Implementation Handover Bridge to the future Surplus Capability NATO and National Existing and Planned Capabilities CONOPS CJSOR FORCE ACTIVATION DIRECTIVE POLITICAL DIRECTION 2 Compare Fulfilment Exercise RISK Analysis Capability Shortfalls Capabilities to be Maintained PLoCS National Targets Acknowledge PLoCS FORCE GENERATION 3 Develop Targets – apportion Determine Capability Shortfall Solutions Multi-National Targets MCR OPLAN NATO Targets CRO PLANNING PSA Associated Risk Reasonable Challenge Agree Targets TARGETS 4 Monitor / Facilitate National / Multi-National Implementation NATO Implementation Support 5 NATO Capability Survey Progress Report Annual Capabilities Report PROCESSRELATIONSHIPS DEFENCE PLANNING INTEROPERABILITY COHERENT ARCHITECTURE COHERENT PROCESS

11. ACTIONS AND INITIATIVES • NATO Policies, Processes and Tools • Acquisition Process Reform • Common framework, ownership, funding scope, simpler • Principles for C3 Testing • Reference facilities: certification • Information Management • NIMA, information sharing environment • NATO Interoperability Standards and Profiles • Linkage to architecture: SIOP

12. ACTIONS AND INITIATIVES • Strategic Commands • Develop generic deployed ops C3 requirement • Simplify capability management • Industry • Really adopt open standards • Support establishment of distributed Reference Facilities for testing conformance to NATO agreed standards • Support spiral development and delivery

13. MESSAGES • Interoperability in the C3 environment is now a core attribute for NATO and Nations • Processes need to be re-focussed, funds need to be re-prioritised • We need to solve tomorrow’s problem as well as todays