Peter Dooley C4I team Chairman, NATO/NAAG/Topical Group 1 Antalya, 10 th October 2003

1. Presentation Soldier system information interoperability Peter Dooley C4I team Chairman, NATO/NAAG/Topical Group 1 Antalya, 10th October 2003

2. Scope of presentation Part 1 • Overview work of TG/1. • System analysis – C4I.Part 2 • Tactical data interoperability. • STANAG associated. • Experimental programme. • Achievements. • Challenges.

3. History • Formerly WG/3 under LG/3. • WG/3 examined feasibility of a NATO Soldier. • Recommendation: not achievable, but interoperability needed. • NAAG directed formation of Level 2 Group: Topical Group 1 (TG/1): Soldier system interoperability.

4. Australia Belgium Canada Denmark France Greece Germany Italy Hungary Current participating nations • The Netherlands • Norway • Portugal • Spain • Turkey • United Kingdom • United States • Czech Republic • Australia • Austria • Azerbaijan • Romania • Slovakia • Slovenia • Sweden • Switzerland • Ireland • Ukraine • Finland

5. Work of Topical Group 1 • To develop STANAGs in 5 focus areas. • To foster information exchange on soldier systems. • To broaden and deepen interaction between groups in the NAAG.

6. The 5 focus areas • Dismounted soldier electrical supply systems. • Architecture focusing on: - electrical interfaces; - data protocols. • Clothing, equipment & protection – seeking to establish current standardisation work already underway within NAAG. • Weapons – a newly defined area of work. • C4I: - low-level tactical data exchange.

7. Broaden and deepen interaction between groups in the NAAG • Link with work underway elsewhere in the NAAG is focus towards meeting the needs of the dismounted soldier e.g.: - vehicle system interfaces; - combat identification.

8. Systems analysis • Commenced under LG3 WGE3. • To provide guidance to the modelling and simulation community. • Generated from a military perspective. • Undertook analysis of dismounted tasks. • Generated an effectiveness measurement framework. • MoEs at the mission level defined.

9. Low level mission analysis - overview • Example mission: to attack and hold an enemy position, could comprise of the following vignettes: - planning and preparation; - close target recce; - advance; - attack; - re-org; - defence; - re-org.

10. Collective measures of effectiveness • Close target recce CMoEs could be: - Detection avoidance (Y/N?); - Consumables employed; - Time taken (as in orders?); - Own casualties; - Quality of information obtained; - Physical and mental state of soldiers.

11. C2 related capabilities • A. Orders pre mission • B. Navigation • C. Maintain direct situational awareness • D. Maintain indirect situational awareness • E. Operate covertly • F. Achieve key event timings • G. Manage unforeseen situations • H. Post mission de-brief • I. Manage re-organisation

12. MoEs associated with C2 • Time but not always. • C2 feeds to other MoE at mission level. • Enabler that contributes to effective delivery of other capabilities. • Generally relatively easy to define except: ‘G. Manage unforeseen situations’. Ability to do this termed ‘Command agility’.

13. Command agility analysis (1) • Did the mission go according to the original plan? • If No, what caused the need to deviate from the plan? • Was this change communicated efficiently to those concerned? Was it implemented as intended? • Was the commander’s situational awareness adequate when the change was defined?

14. Command agility analysis (2) • If not, what information did the commander need and what would the best way of accessing this information have been? • Could anything be done to improve the way the change was implemented? • Did the change, as implemented, have a critical impact on the outcome?

15. Use of command agility • UK C4I field trials.-establish the effectiveness of current C4I -comparison of C4I solutions. • Concept being explored in the tool CAEn. • Mission difficulty assessment?

16. Publication of work • The work has been published by NATO Measurements for Analysis - a framework for modelling and trials (NATO Measurement Framework), NATO/AC/225(LG/3)D/25(Multi-Ref), 04 Oct 99. Requires updating following experience in its use on field trials. .

17. Low-level tactical data exchange • Requirement? • STANAG relating to data formats for achieving low-level tactical interoperability. • Diversity of national software approaches. • Experimental (& demonstration) programme. • Key challenges.

18. Scope of tactical data • Positional data. • Force boundaries. • Positions of key features: - minefields; - text information; - lines of departure; - APP6a symbols generally. • Need to update APP6a.

19. Data definition • Definition of tactical objects and their attributes. • Example information includes: - Co-ordinate (lat/long as floating point based on WGS84 datum grid); - Object identity size (integer); - Object identity (e.g. callsign as text); - Object nation (e.g. UK as fixed text field of 2 characters); - Date/time (e.g. DDMMYYhhmmss as fixed text field of 12 characters). • Format Backus-Naur Form (BNF). • Basis of low-level tactical data interoperability STANAG.

20. NATO data library • The definition together with the object/attribute list provides the basis for the creation of an appropriate interchange data reader and writer: - termed ‘NATO library’; - a ‘country-neutral’ definition. • Available for WINDOWS 98/NT, WINDOWS CE & Linux operating systems - supporting experimental programme only.

21. Experimental process (1) • ICO (International Collaborative Opportunities) link. • Open to partners. • Conducted ‘inside’. • WLAN 802.11b, email server.

22. Experimental process (2) • Tactical overlays sent as attachment to e-mail (e-mail server functioning over WLAN) termed ‘NATO overlay’). • Overlay opened on receipt. • Overlay processed through NATO library and displayed as ‘NATO layer’. • Information correctly geo-referenced. • Actual symbols used may vary - a national choice. • File sizes ~ 1k.

23. Experimental progress • September 02 UK - Canada (exchange using floppy disks). • March 03 UK - Norway (exchange over WLAN 802.11b). • June 03 UK - France & US (exchange over WLAN 802.11b with limited success). • September 03 progress? • October 03 (TG/1) and 04 (NATO) demonstrations.

24. Norway - UK experiment (1)

25. Norway - UK experiment (2) Norway UK

26. Norway - UK experiment (3) C4I team

27. Challenges • Communications bearer. • Security. • Encryption. • Unauthorised use of systems. • Information conflict. • Situating data model within the overall NATO data model. • STANAG maintenance.

28. Immediate topics • Need for another ‘ data model ’ STANAG? • STANAG maintenance. • Use of XML. • NATO policy. • National policy.

29. Australia Belgium Canada Denmark France Greece Germany Italy Hungary *Army and Marines CurrentC4I experiment participants • The Netherlands • Norway • Portugal • Spain • Turkey • United Kingdom • United States* • Czech Republic • Australia • Austria • Azerbaijan • Romania • Slovakia • Slovenia • Sweden • Switzerland • Ireland • Ukraine • Finland

30. Summary • A framework for assessing C4I has been produced within an overall measurement framework. • A mechanism for low-level tactical interoperability has been developed. • Process has been demonstrated in experimental set- up. • Experimental process is genuine international co-operation.