1

20th August 2008Mike Smith

Chief Engineer – Tactical Data Link Systems

Coalition Interoperability vsFull Standards Compliance – Balancing the Scales

Aerosystems International a Company

2

Overview

– Understanding Coalition Interoperability– The mechanics of NATO Interoperability– MIL-STD-6016C Interoperability Considerations– Interoperability in a wider context

3

Understanding Coalition Interoperability

– Interoperability definitions– Interoperability challenges– Interoperability components– Factors affecting interoperability

4

Interoperability definitions

– IEEE: the ability of two or more systems or components to exchangeinformation and to use the information that has been exchanged.

– NATO: The ability of systems, units or forces to provide services to andaccept services from, other systems, units or forces and to use theservices so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively togetherServices = Information. Information = Data AND Voice

– NCTSI Platform Level Warfare System Certification:“… ensures that all warfare systems meet minimum missionrequirements of assigned roles and functions, are reliable and stableand are interoperable within the projected operational force.”

5

Interoperability Challenges

– Language

– Culture

– National Operational Procedures– Service Operational Procedures– Platform/Unit Role– Platform/Unit Employment– Platform/Unit Capabilities

OK,but what are we

going to do ‘till then?

Bandits at2 o clock !

This is the USS George Washington.Divert your course to the south now!!

This is a lighthouse.Your call…

6

Interoperability Components

– Operator– Training– Understanding/Intellect– Speed of response (A/B team)

– Combat System/Mission System

– Data Link Processor

– Crypto– Terminal– Radio/Media

– Forwarder/Gateway

7

Factors affecting Interoperability

– Legacy system implementations

– Ever evolving requirements

– Single link vs multi link systems

– Forwarders and gateways

– Platform requirements compliance

STANAG MIL-STD

DLCP ICP

8

The mechanics of NATO Interoperability

– Source requirements– Specifying interoperability– Measuring interoperability– The “100% interoperability” myth– Achieving a high level of interoperability

9

Source Requirements

– Message Standards (Link 11/Link 16)– STANAGS 5511, 5516, 5616 (NATO)– MIL-STD 6011, 6016, 6020 (US & non-NATO)– Data Link Change Proposals (DLCPs) (NATO)– Interface Change Proposals (ICPs) (US)

– Operational Requirements (Link 11/Link 16)– ADatP-11, ADatP-16, ADatP-33 (NATO), JMTOP (US)– L11 SLIRS, L16 SLIRS (UK ), MIL-STD-6016C (US & non-NATO)– MLIRS, MLTIDP (UK)– P-SLIRS (UK), PRS (US & non-NATO)

– Examples for other Link types– Link 22: STANAG 5522, 5616 (Vols 2 and 3), L22 SLIRS– JRE : MIL-STD-3011– VMF : MIL-STD-6017, VMF TIDP, VMF SLIRS

10

Specifying Interoperability

– Information exchange requirements (IERs) required at each level– NATO/International– National– Service– Platform

– Selection of standards to employ and versions– STANAGs/MIL-STDs– SLIRS– DLCPs/ICPs

– Specification not just up-front, but Through-Life– Document in accordance with a process (e.g. TULIP/iSMART)

– Deviations from specifications and standards– IO assessments and updates/workarounds

– Understanding of capability maintained through to disposal– Spiral delivery/maintenance cycle

PIR

NRS

SRS

PRS

APIS

iSMARTdocs

CONOPS

URD

SRD

SSRD

MetalBashing

& Coding

Platformdocs

SSDD

11

Measuring Interoperability

– Platform Testing– Standards Conformance testing– Lab/Rig/Live testing– Typically ‘back to back’ or SUT + test system

– Interoperability Testing– Typically TDL Authority responsibility– Paper based assessments

– PRS/APIS review– IOM review– IOIs/IOAs

– Net Ready/Net Worthy testing– Interoperability Test Network– Live Exercise/Trials with

other platforms– Certification

Building Block Approach

StandardsStandardsConformance TestsConformance Tests

InteroperabilityInteroperabilityTestsTests

Live

Laboratory

2. The SNAPE analyses theresults of each NTDLIOT,

validates new IOIs andreviews existing IOIs

3. Where necessary,IOIs are used to create

(or amend) IOAssessments (IOAs)within the IO Matrix

(IOM)

IOI SSUES

( IOIs )

IOA

SSESS

ME

NTS(IO

As)

INTH

EIO

MA

TRIX

(IOM

)

REPORTS

TEST

SERI ALS

NATO

TDL

IO

TESTS

(NTD

LIOTS

)

NTDLIOT REVIEWMEETING(S NAPE )

1.

NTDLIOTs arenormally held in

Apr and Octeach year

4. NATO and NationalReports are used todisseminate Results

andRecommendations

5. InteroperabilityEvaluations (IOEs) use allapplicable IOIs, IOAs and

Reports to assist in thecreation of Test Serials for

the next NTDLIOT

OperationalOperational

CommunityCommunity

2. The SNAPE analyses theresults of each NTDLIOT,

validates new IOIs andreviews existing IOIs

2. The SNAPE analyses theresults of each NTDLIOT,

validates new IOIs andreviews existing IOIs

3. Where necessary,IOIs are used to create

(or amend) IOAssessments (IOAs)within the IO Matrix

(IOM)

3. Where necessary,IOIs are used to create

(or amend) IOAssessments (IOAs)within the IO Matrix

(IOM)

IOI SSUES

( IOIs )

IOA

SSESS

ME

NTS(IO

As)

INTH

EIO

MA

TRIX

(IOM

)

REPORTS

TEST

SERI ALS

NATO

TDL

IO

TESTS

(NTD

LIOTS

)

NTDLIOT REVIEWMEETING(S NAPE )

1.

NTDLIOTs arenormally held in

Apr and Octeach year

1.

NTDLIOTs arenormally held in

Apr and Octeach year

4. NATO and NationalReports are used todisseminate Results

andRecommendations

4. NATO and NationalReports are used todisseminate Results

andRecommendations

5. InteroperabilityEvaluations (IOEs) use allapplicable IOIs, IOAs and

Reports to assist in thecreation of Test Serials for

the next NTDLIOT

5. InteroperabilityEvaluations (IOEs) use allapplicable IOIs, IOAs and

Reports to assist in thecreation of Test Serials for

the next NTDLIOT

OperationalOperational

CommunityCommunity

OperationalOperational

CommunityCommunity

Certification StatusCertification Status

Step 1:

Identify & VerifyInteroperabilityRequirements

DevelopCertificationEvaluationApproach

Step 2:

Collect & AnalyzeInteroperability

Data

Step 3:

Determine theInteroperability

Status

Step 4:

Certification StatusCertification Status

Step 1:

Identify & VerifyInteroperabilityRequirements

DevelopCertificationEvaluationApproach

Step 2:

Collect & AnalyzeInteroperability

Data

Step 3:

Determine theInteroperability

Status

Step 4:

12

T45

JSF

F16

T45

CV

F JSF E-3 F

16 A-1

0

0%

50%

100%

Interoperability

Platform A

Platform B

The “100% Interoperability” myth

– Perfect interoperability is an unrealistic goal

– Effective interoperability is achieved if we can developworkarounds for known shortfalls.

– A platform’s interoperability level is not justa single %

No IO issues- Fully interoperable

0 100

Known IO issues dealt withby Operational Procedures

Known IO issueswith no workaroundand unknown IO issues

A B C DPlatform

0%

100%

13

Achieving a high level of interoperability

– Follow a process for specifying and achieving interoperability– Assess all impacting source requirements– Comply to standards where possible– Use a pragmatic approach rather than slavish compliance

– Be multi-link aware even if you build a single link system– You’ll have to interoperate with multi-link units, forwarders and gateways– You’ll receive from single link users of other links via above– Normalise host interfaces to provide link independence

– Learn from best practice – throw the net wide and deep– Address the interoperability challenges

– Regular exercises – IO through use– Use IO Test Networks– Training

14

MIL-STD-6016C Interoperability Considerations

– The impact of MIL-STD-6016C– Interoperability with legacy system implementations– Interoperability within multi-link operations– Interoperability with forwarders and gateways– UK specific interoperability issues

15

The impact of MIL-STD-6016C

– Historically, MIL-STD-6016 equated to STANAG 5516

– MIL-STD-6016C is not just a new issue– an entirely new document– thousands of new requirements

– MIL-STD-6016C was derived from– L16 Single Link IRS– MIL-STD-6016B

– Non-NATO tendency to specify MIL-STD has led to greater impact of ‘C’– Some NATO nations have decided to specify MIL-STD-6016’C’– What happens next?

– STANAG 5516 Edition 6– MIL-STD-6016D

16

Interoperability with legacy system implementations

– Reality is that legacy platforms rarely changedue to cost of change once in service

– Cost to update all platforms to 6016C standardis prohibitive for most nations

– Potentially significant impact on interoperabilitywith platforms built to– MIL-STD-6016B and earlier– STANAG 5516 Ed 5 and earlier– i.e. virtually all platforms in service

– Whilst 6016C platforms should have high IO witheach other, the onus is on them to design for IOwith these legacy systems - if they want it!!

– System designers must bear this in mind

17

Interoperability within multi-link operations

– Multi-link procedures are defined in ADatP-33 (JMTOP in US)– Forwarding is defined in STANAG 5616/MIL-STD-6020– 6016C doesn’t address multi-link at all - it is a single link standard– Obvious implication is that updates are needed to adopt transactional

approach for– MIL-STD-6020 (status unknown)– MIL-STD-6011 (won’t happen, standard now ‘parked’)– MIL-STD-6017 (unlikely?)– STANAG 5522 (being mooted in DLWG and L22 CIWG)

– Same implication for NATO standards

18

Interoperability with forwarders and gateways

– Forwarders operate iaw STANAG 5616/MIL-STD-6020– Forwarding transmit rules can differ from single link ones– Single link platform information can be lost in translation– Transformation of data can lead to transformation of meaning

– Some also adhere to the guidance in JMTOP/ADatP-33– In UK, there are the Multi-Link TIDP & IRS which provide

a transactional approach. US has no equivalent………yet.MIL-STD-6020 is the obvious candidate.

– Gateways typically don’t operate iaw any documented rules– Consequently, risk of transformation of data and meaning

is far higher– Benefits deemed to outweigh the risks but affects interoperability

19

UK specific interoperability issues

– UK led the way with RN TIDP and then UK SLIRS– All in-service platforms use SLIRS/TIDP (and STANAGs)– UK MoD has mandated DTDL IOR/IRS for UK platforms– DTDL IRS covers multiple links and offers a “common set of precise,

logical and hierarchical requirement specifications”

– UK MoD has ‘mandated’ MIL-STD-6016C (by 2015)– Compromise breaks the DTDL IRS mantra – not the ideal solution?– Impending arrival of STANAG 5516 Ed 6 will raise new questions

IOR

L11 SLIRS L11B SLIRS L16 SLIRS

IRS MLIRS

STDL SLIRS L22 SLIRS VMF SLIRS

20

Interoperability in a wider context

– Interoperability with the Civilian world is the latest buzzword– Global Context (IDLS 2008)– Disaster Relief (IDLS 2007)

– Air traffic (ATC, ADS-B, Mode S, etc)

– Sea traffic (AIS)

– ‘Blue light’ forces

– News gatherers (BBC, CNN)

– Mobile users

– Internet users

21

Summary

– Coalition interoperability is complex and must address– Lingual and cultural challenges– National and service differences– Platform usage

– Interoperability goes wider than just a Data Link Processor– All platform components play a part– Critically, so do other platforms……..!!

– An interoperability process should be used to guide but will not– Guarantee 100% interoperability (especially with older platforms)– Guarantee certification

– MIL-STD-6016C is a great leap forward, but……– Is not a panacea for interoperability problems– Puts a greater onus on designers to plan for legacy platform interoperability

22

Questions?

Aerosystems International a Company