The United Kingdom invited Intelligenceand Information Warfare Directorate person-nel to participate in a series of technical testsas a part of the Coalition CombatIdentification Advanced Concept TechnologyDemonstration. This exercise verified inter-operability between British and Americanmillimeter wave combat identificationdevices.British and American equipment validated

many of the requirements stated in the

NATO Standardization Agreement(STANAG) by identifying each other beyondthe prescribed range as well as through var-ious conditions including smoke, rain andfog. In addition, the American system wasable to demonstrate the digital data linkcapability at nearly twice the prescribedrange for that feature.

"We met or exceeded all of the technicalrequirements that we tested. Based on thepositive

Finding ways to reduce fratricide is a missionforemost in the minds of leadership at all levelsof the American mili-tary and its NATOallies.

Recently, U.S. JointForces Command(USJFCOM) conclud-ed the DismountedSoldier Identification(DSID) Demonstration,a two-week assess-ment of new technolo-gies, training and tac-tics to provide infantry-men an improved abili-ty to engage theenemy and minimizethe risk of fratricide."The goals of our field

assessment are trace-able to the needs ofinfantrymen to identifyother friendly infantry-men, U.S. and coali-tion, in the heat of bat-tle, improve their owncombat effectiveness and minimize the inci-dence of fratricide," explained John Miller of

USJFCOM's Coalition Combat Identification(CCID) team.

NATO has selectedthe Laser/RadioFrequency Query andResponse concept foraiding infantrymen inthis and is in theprocess of developinga NATO standard."These devices have

never really beentaken to the field andput in the hands ofinfantrymen in aforce-on-force sce-nario. That's whatACTDs (AdvancedConcept TechnologyDemonstration) areabout. We take atechnical proposal tohelp solve an urgentmilitary need and weget the warfightersengaged as early aspossible to go out and

see if that solution makes sense. If the tech-nologies are

January 2004

Combat IdentificationBulletin

“Working Together to Prevent Friendly Fire”

COMBAT ID DEMONSTRATION EMPHASIZES

GLOBAL PRIORITY

Supreme AlliedCommander

Transformation/Commander,

U.S. Joint Forces Command

Adm. Edmund P.Giambastiani, Jr.In testimony before theHouse Armed Services

CommitteeOct. 2, 2003

""AAss yyoouu llooookk aatt bbuuddggeettss .... .. aanndd pprrooggrraammss ffrroomm eeaacchhooff tthhee sseerrvviicceess .. .. .. ssccrruuttii-

nniizzee hhooww tthheeiirr ccoommbbaatt iiddeenn-ttiiffiiccaattiioonn aanndd bblluuee ffoorrccee

ttrraacckkiinngg ssoolluuttiioonnss ffiittwwiitthh tthhee ootthheerr sseerrvviicceess

aanndd jjooiinnttllyy..""

""…… iinn tthhee aarreeaa ooff ccaappaabbiillii-ttiieess tthhaatt ffeellll sshhoorrtt ooff oouurr

eexxppeeccttaattiioonnss,, wwhheerree wweenneeeeddeedd ssuubbssttaannttiiaall

iimmpprroovveemmeenntt iinn oouurr vviieeww,,ffrraattrriicciiddee pprreevveennttiioonn iisstthhee ffiirrsstt oonnee tthhaatt II lliisstt..""

""AAlltthhoouugghh ddaattaa …… wwoouullddiinnddiiccaattee tthhaatt wwee hhaadd

iimmpprroovveemmeenntt iinn ffrraattrriicciiddee,,oouurr eeffffoorrttss ffoorr ffrraattrriicciiddee

pprreevveennttiioonn rreeqquuiirreedd ccoonn-ttiinnuuoouuss,, rriiggoorroouuss iinnvveessttii-ggaattiioonn aanndd iimmpprroovveemmeenntt iinn

tthhee ffuuttuurree.. EEvveenn oonneeddeeaatthh dduuee ttoo ffrraattrriicciiddee iiss

ttoooo mmaannyy..""

U.K. HOSTED COALITION INTEROPERABILITY

TESTING OF MILLIMETER WAVE TECHNOLOGYBy: Robert Creighton, U.S. Army RDECOM CERDEC I2WD

Continued on page 7

Continued on page 2

Rear Adm. Richard Gallagher, Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff Joint Experimentation, Exercises

and Assessment Allied Command Transformation, borrows a Land Warrior

to get first-hand experience with potentialfratricide-prevention technology of the future.

www.ccidactd.com

mature and the users determine that theyimprove warfighting then our purpose is toaccelerate getting them fielded and in use."The demonstration was conducted as part

of the CCID ACTD, a multiyear projectintended to identify and demonstrate inter-operable combat identification systems incoalition air-to-ground and ground-to-ground environments, develop commontactics, techniques and procedures forcoalition operations, and encourage alliedteaming and joint acquisition of CID sys-tems. The ACTD is operational-

ly sponsored by USJF-COM and the Army'sIntelligence andInformation WarfareDirectorate provides tech-nical leadership amongthe participating services.The DSID event was thefirst of several fieldassessments planned forthe balance of the ACTDscheduled to conclude in2005.The event included both

day and night operationsand was conducted at thestate-of-the-art trainingfacility for MilitaryOperations in UrbanTerrain (MOUT) at Ft.Benning, Ga. Groundforces were company-sized, made up ofU.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, andCanadian infantry elements. In addition to Canada's participation, the

United Kingdom, Spain, Australia,Germany, Italy, Sweden and France sentobservers to the event."Combat ID is one of NATO's top priori-

ties," began United Kingdom's Royal AirForce Wing Cdr. David M. Beckwith, anoperational concept development staff offi-cer at Allied Command Transformation. "With the expansion of the Alliance, you

have more players coming into the teamwith different colored shirts. So, to be ableto identify them as a friend is, obviously,fundamental.""There has already been a development

of some Standardized NATO Agreements(STANAGs) and that work is ongoing. It'sunder things like the STANAGs that theconceptual framework and the tactics,techniques and procedures can hang. TheSTANAGs that have been worked so far,

have set some important 'must dos' for thetechnical guys to work to - some importantguidelines, so we don't have nations goingoff and developing something that might bemarvelous technology but which, ultimate-ly, is not interoperable within the NATO bat-tlespace," continued Beckwith.Information gathered from the event is

being evaluated by the Joint CombatIdentification Evaluation Team (JCIET),headquartered at Eglin Air Force Base,Fla., a subordinate unified command ofUSJFCOM.

"We assumed the task of looking at thesystems from a purely objective view bycapturing real data points and conductingin-depth analysis," said JCIET GroundCombat Division Chief Lt. Col. MikeFowler. "Using the data from both the livefire range and MOUT operations in con-junction with our survey data, we have acomprehensive report that is supported bydata captured during one or both of thephases and is enhanced by our surveydata."

John Lalonde of the CCID ACTDTechnical Manager's office said the cap-tured data, surveys and overall participa-tion were integral to the success of thedemonstration.

"The integration of Marines, Army andAllied forces in a well-executed event pro-vided us with great insight into how urbanwarfare is conducted and what works anddoesn't work when trying to identify, in mil-liseconds, an individual's allegiance."

COMBAT ID DEMONSTRATION EMPHASIZES

GLOBAL PRIORITY (continued from page 1)

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

2

Combat ID DemonstrationEmphasizes Global Priority

1 - 2U.K. Hosted Coalition

Interoperability Testing ofMillimeter Wave Technology

1 - 7Combat Identification to

Participate in Upcoming Exercise3

Combat ID Program HostsCONOPS Working Group

3Modeling & Simulation Critical in

CID4

An Overview of the CCID ACTD4

NATO Perspectives on CombatIdentification

5The Combat IdentificationTechnical Working Group

5U.K. Target Identification

Programmes6

Combat Identification Programfor the German Army

6Italian Army Combat ID Program

7Combat Identification -

A Canadian Perspective8

Swedish Combat IdentificationActivities

9U.S. Army Mark XIIA Air Defense

Interrogator9

OIF Marine Commander HighlightsNeed for Target ID, SA

10USMC Mounted Cooperative

Target Identification SystemProgram Awarded Foreign

Comparative Testing10

BTID Demonstration11

Combat ID Website11

Radio Based CombatIdentification

11Major Milestones & Events

12CCID In the News

12CCID ACTD Team

12

While securing an airfield, soldiers wearing Land Warriors take cover behind an old pickup

truck as their observer/controller looks on.

January 2004

Two technologies being developedunder the auspices of the CoalitionCombat Identification (CCID) AdvancedConcept Technology Demonstration(ACTD) have been selected to participatein Joint Forces Command's CombinedJoint Task Force Exercise 04-2 (CJTFEX04-2) to be held in June of 2004.The Battlefield Target Identification

Device (BTID) and Radio Based CombatIdentification (RBCI) systems wereselected as two emerging anti-fratricidetechnologies displaying enough maturityin their development to merit participationin the training exercise. “Inclusion of these technologies is

indicative of the degree of emphasis sen-ior leaders are giving to finding ways toreduce incidents of fratricide on the bat-tlefield,” said Pete Glikerdas, theTechnical Manager for the CCID ACTDteam.During the recent CJTFEX 04-2 Mid-

Planning Conference held in Suffolk, Va.,members of the team were able to meet

Soldiers and Marines from units that willbe participating in the exercise, enablingthem to exchange ideas on how best toemploy the systems in a realistic sce-nario.

The Royal Marines Third CommandoBrigade has also been invited to partici-pate in the exercise due to the need toaddress anti-fratricide issues in a coali-tion environment.

CJTFEX 04-2 is the next logical step ina series of increasingly challenging exercises culminating in a multi-nationalexercise to be held in Europe during theSpring of 2005.

Each event is critical to aid in develop-ing the tactics, techniques and proce-dures most appropriate for each systembased on environmental and tacticalconsiderations. The ultimate goal is toprepare a Military Utility Assessment todetermine how well a system can aid inthe reduction of fratricide incidents dur-ing combat operations.

The Coalition Combat Identification(CCID) Advanced Concepts TechnologyDemonstration (ACTD) program recentlyhosted a multi-national working group inUpavon, England to discuss concepts ofoperations for upcoming demonstrationsof air-to-ground and vehicle-to-vehicleanti-fratricide technologies.Representatives from eight nations par-

ticipated in weeklong discussions culmi-nating in the observation of field demon-strations of American and British versionsof the Battlefield Target IdentificationDevice (BTID). While developed independently to meet

the specific needs of each nation, bothsystems were designed to comply withmutually agreed upon standards mandat-ed by NATO countries and were requiredto demonstrate their ability to interoperatewith each other.

Independent sub-groups were formed tobrainstorm how different nations couldpossibly employ the various ACTD tech-nologies in a coalition battlefield environ-ment. One group covered the Ground-to-

Ground mission area utilizing the BTID,while another focused on the Air-to-Ground mission area, looking at severaltechnologies; BTID, Radio BasedCombat ID (RBCI) and Radio Frequency(RF) Tags for both fixed wing and rotarywing applications.Utilizing the broad experiences of the

members of the panels, and incorporatinglessons learned from recent real-worldoperations, valuable insight was obtainedand furthered the overall development ofthe CONOPS for these technologies.Overall, this Multi-National event was acertified success.

COMBAT IDENTIFICATION TO PARTICIPATE IN

UPCOMING EXERCISE

BY: CRAIG PETERSEN, U.S. JOINT FORCES COMMAND, J85

COMBAT ID PROGRAM HOSTS CONOPSWORKING GROUP

BY: CRAIG PETERSEN, U.S. JOINT FORCES COMMAND, J85

3

This newsletter and the information itcontains are provided by the U.S.Army’s Combat Identification SpecialProjects Office and their many partnersinvolved in the Coalition CombatIdentification Advanced ConceptTechnology Demonstration in an effortto improve communications within theCombat Identification community.

The Combat Identification Bulletin isnot an official publication and the viewsand opinions expressed herein are notnecessarily those of the Department ofDefense, the Army, RDECOM,CERDEC or I2WD.

Editors-in-Chief:Pete GlikerdasJohn Miller

Editors:Daphne HartSeymour HershDiane Walsh

Contributing in This Issue:Bobby Cline Robert Creighton Carl FishcherströmLt. Col. Angelo Gervasio Daphne Hart Steve Haught Dr. Folk HorneckBrian Hughes John Lalonde Capt. M.J. (Mark) McNeil Kesny Parent Craig PetersenRussell RuppeJO1(SW) Ron Schafer William Suttie Steve Vasica

Graphic Design:Marie MoulderPaul Olson

Photos:Gregory Brower, page 12Russell Messeroll, page 11Webster Smith, pages 1, 2 Kenneth Thompson, page 7

For information concerning CCIDarticles, additions and corrections

please contact:

daphne.hart@us.army.mil

CCOOMMBBAATT IIDD BBUULLLLEETTIINN

The Coalition Combat Identification(CCID) Advanced Concept TechnologyDemonstration (ACTD) will demonstrateand assess both current and emergingCombat Identification solutions and asso-ciated Tactics, Techniques andProcedures (TTPs) for air-to-ground(rotary wing and close air support) andground-to-ground (mounted anddismounted) mission areas in sup-port of Joint, Allied and Coalitionoperations.The objective is to significantly

reduce fratricide and enhance thecombat effectiveness of U.S. andallied forces operating within bothtraditional alliances (e.g. NATO)and "ad-hoc" coalition task forces,while assisting to accelerate theproduction and fielding of systemsto U.S. and NATO forces and stim-ulate complementary efforts amongother allies.The ACTD will examine technolo-

gies, doctrine and TTPs under themost realistic operational condi-tions achievable, including urbanoperations and joint/combinedoperational concepts.The demonstration will include a pro-

gressively demanding series of systemintegrations, technical tests, modelingand simulation events and field exercises

that place these systems directly in thehands of the warfighters for the bottomline assessment of military utility.The U.S. Army is the CCID ACTD exe-

cuting agent and has appointed the CIDSpecial Projects Office as the TechnicalManager, responsible for coordinationwith other services and allied ACTD par-

ticipants regarding technology selection,development, integration, testing andanticipated transition to acquisition uponcompletion of the demonstration andMilitary Utility Assessment (MUA).

The commander of U.S. Joint ForcesCommand provides the OperationalManager, who is ultimately responsiblefor the CCID ACTD MUA and will developan employment concept of operations(CONOPS), coordinate with the usercommunity to identify the warfighters'Critical Operational Issues and arrange

for appropriate demonstrationvenues.The two major concepts that are

being evaluated within theground-to-ground arena areDismounted Soldier ID and theNATO Standard-compliant mil-limeter wave Battlefield Target IDDevice that will be tested in FY04in preparation for a multinationalMUA scheduled for FY05.For the air-to-ground mission

area, the ACTD is evaluatingRadio Based Combat ID for rotarywing platforms, as well as dis-mounted Forward Air Controllersand Forward Observers, and willundergo a rigorous MUA duringthe multinational exercise inFY05. Modeling and Simulationwill assist in the MUA and devel-

opment of TTPs and CONOPS foremploying these Combat ID technologieswith Virtual Training Exercises preparingthe users to use the technologies prior toactual fielding.

CCID Architecture for Current and Future Forces

www.ccidactd.com

AN OVERVIEW OF THE CCID ACTDBy: Steven Vasica, U.S. Army RDECOM CERDEC I2WD

The Exploitation Technology Test Bed(ETTB) is the Army's Communications -Electronics Research, Developmentand Engineering Center's (CERDEC)Intelligence and Information WarfareDirectorate's (I2WD) rapid prototype ini-tiative that assists in addressing the future challenges of ArmyTransformation. These challenges focus on the ability to

detect and identify threats before theyare within engagement thresholds andBlue Force Tracking, giving a more com-plete assessment of the environmentand the development of a common rele-vant operating picture. The ETTB receives both live and simu-

lated sources, fuses this data into rele-vant information and collaborates itamong battlefield commanders.

The overall goal of the ETTB effort is todemonstrate the ability to "bridge"knowledge between the Command andControl and the Intelligence,Surveillance, Reconnaissance opera-tional environment. Among the current ETTB technologies

that exist are: multi-source GMTI track-ing, SIGINT tracking, multi-source sen-sor fusion, motion analysis tools, inte-grated visualization, image productlibrary, and collaborative exploitationcapabilities that utilize an open softwareinfrastructure known as adaptive sensorfusion.The Sensor Exploitation and

Management System (SEAMS) environ-ment is a real-time data collection andmanagement system for I2WD's sensorexploitation test bed initiative.

The purpose of the ETTB is to providethe U.S. Army acquisition communitywith a capability to evaluate exploitationtechnologies such as: information fusionalgorithms, knowledge managementsystems (e.g. database, storage/retrieval), visualization, interfacing, andthe software framework (infrastructure)in which these technologies are hostedon.The current SEAMS environment can be

adapted to support any C4ISR-relatedexperiments and demonstrations.The core SEAMS system contains inter-

faces for: visual display; sensor data;data enhancers, including MTI Tracker/AllSource Tracker and identification fusion;as well as Quarterback (SIGINT correla-tion); image product library; and mobilecommand and control.

MODELING & SIMULATION CRITICAL IN CIDBy: Kesny Parent, U.S. Army RDECOM CERDEC I2WD

4

The Combat Identification TechnicalWorking Group (CITWG) has been activefor nearly nine years addressing techni-cal solutions for Combat Identification inthe ground battle.

It began as a four-nation group, withFrance, Germany, the United Kingdomand the United States operating underthe auspices of the Senior NationalRepresentatives (Army) Memorandum ofUnderstanding. Recently, Italy has joinedthe group.

The CITWG reports directly to theCombat Identification Working Group(CIWG), which is responsible for defininguser requirements for CombatIdentification systems and developstechnical solutions that meet thoserequirements. Under this working arrangement, the

CIWG developed the NATO StaffRequirement for the Battlefield TargetIdentification Device (BTID) and theCITWG developed STANAG 4579, whichdefines a system to meet those require-ments. A significant effort was required to

develop STANAG 4579. Firstly, the mostappropriate technology had to be select-ed. After extensive hardware trials, oper-ational analysis and cost benefit analy-sis, KA Band Question and Answer wasselected as the preferred technology.Then the STANAG, which defines theminimum interoperability requirementsfor a BTID, was developed.

In parallel with the technology selectionand STANAG development, close con-tact had to be maintained with NATO toensure that other NATO nations under-stood the technology selection processand the basis of the STANAG so thatthey could ratify the STANAG when itwas complete. The group is now coordinating the BTID

technical trials being carried out underthe CCID ACTD umbrella and working ona STANAG for Dismounted SoldierIdentification. The CITWG has been supported by two

subgroups covering Cryptographicaspects and Waveform definition. The CITWG has always been a very

focused group, as proven by BTID tech-nology selection activities and STANAGdevelopment works successfully carriedout against very demanding timescalesfor an international project.

C o m b i n e doperations arepolitically desir-able and inmany cases

operationally necessary; however, lack ofAllied and Partner combat identificationcan thwart meaningful and effective use ofcoalition forces as well as run the risk offratricide.A strategy is unfolding within NATO for

identification that addresses prioritizedgoals and objectives as well as ways andmeans for implementation of new capabilities.Key to effective attainment of Allied and

Partner interoperability is coordination andcollaboration to achieve standards; ensur-ing interoperability; synchronizing imple-mentation of new capabilities; and devel-oping associated tactics, techniques andprocedures.A number of identification requirements,

initiatives and assigned tasks form thebasis of the work on identification withinNATO. The primary requirement is theMilitary Operational Requirement (MOR)for Identification in NATO.

The Strategic Commands have also sep-arately endorsed a position paper statingthe need for a replacement to the existingMk XII Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)system and have subsequently agreedwithin the 2004 Force Proposals thatnations should implement this capabilityby 2008.

At the 1999 Washington Summit theNATO Heads of State and Governmentagreed, among 58 initiatives for improvingAlliance capability, to develop with a viewto fielding a joint interoperable combatidentification capability.

This objective is supported by theStrategic Commands' Long TermRequirement for the NATO IdentificationSystem, or systems-of-systems, toaddress identification of foes, friends andneutrals for all mission areas.

A new initiative of the StrategicCommands, known as the Long TermCapability Requirements, includes theStrategic Commands' top priorities, anumber of which emphasize improvedidentification.

The NATO Identification SystemCoordination Office provides coordinationand support for NATO and multinational IDactivities. NATO and multinational groupshave made considerable progress ondeveloping requirements, architecturedocuments and StandardizationAgreements (STANAGs).

Yet, no number of STANAGs canimprove interoperable joint identificationand prevent fratricide without nationalcommitment to fund coordinated pro-grams for implementation of systems andensuring operational interoperability.

NATO relies on the contributions of itsmember states and therefore offers anexcellent opportunity for U.S. leadership.However, the U.S. cannot afford to consid-er Allied and Partner combat identificationinteroperability as an afterthought.

Such capabilities are essential for con-ducting modern network-centric opera-tions and will go a long way in bolsteringthe military and political viability of theAlliance and future coalition operations.

NATO PERSPECTIVES ON COMBAT IDENTIFICATION

By: Brian Hughes, U.S. Representative to the NATO Identification Systems Coordination Office

THE COMBAT IDENTIFICATION TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPBy: William Suttie, CITWG Chairman

January 2004 5

Evaluation of recent coalition mis-sions has shown a significant rate offratricide and collateral damage. Inorder to reduce those risks, the FourPower Combat Identification WorkingGroup (CIWG) was formed, consistingof representatives from France,Germany, United Kingdom, and theUnited States. The CIWG led to atechnology demonstration from whicha "question and answer" system in mil-limetric wave technology emerged.

The German identification programZEFF (target identification friend or

foe) is funded and consists of: identi-fication of friendly platforms on theground, including the helicopter usingthe millimetric wave technology; andidentification of dismountedsoldiers/land warriors, which is per-formed with a laser query and a radiofrequency (RF) answer.

In order to provide a joint and com-bined interoperable capability, the fun-damental part of the applied technolo-gies is documented in agreed uponand implemented NATO Standardiza-tion Agreements (STANAGs).

STANAG 4579, Battlefield TargetIdentification Device, describes theminimum interoperability requirementsfor the millimetric wave technology.Preparations for the Laser/RFSTANAG are underway.

In November 2003, additional fundingfor this effort became available.Therefore, hardware and software arebeing prepared for the CoalitionCombat Identification AdvancedConcept Technology Demonstration tobe held in Germany during 2005.

COMBAT IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR THE

GERMAN ARMYBy: Dr. Folk Horneck, German Representative for Combat Identification

The reduction of fratricide on the bat-tlefield is a priority for the UnitedKingdom, especially after experiencesin the first Gulf War; a priority reinforcedby recent experiences in Iraq.

The U.K. has been an active contribu-tor to the work of the Senior NationalRepresentative - Army [SNR(A)]Combat Identification Working Groupand the associated Technical WorkingGroup.

The U.K. acted as author for theBattlefield Target Identification Device(BTID) NATO Staff Requirements(NSR) and the associated STANAG4579 and continues to be active in thedevelopment of a STANAG for dis-mounted soldier identification.

Following the selection of KA bandQuestion and Answer as the BTID tech-

nology, the United Kingdom put inplace an active "risk reduction" pro-gramme to address technical aspectsof BTID.

Potential technologies demonstratedfor BTID have included a steerableinterrogator, reduced vulnerabilitythrough directional reply, the use of areprogrammable cryptography moduleand the use of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components to reducecost.

The steerable interrogator is seen asimportant as it will enable theChallenger 2 MBT to fully retain itsHunter-Killer capability, allows interro-gations without pointing the gun at thepotential target, allows interrogationsduring silent watch without turning theturret and provides benefits when set-ting up.

The U.K. is supporting the CCIDACTD and will be providing two mainbattle tanks with full systems and threetransponders mounted on other plat-forms. In addition, the U.K. is unique inthat it will be demonstrating an anti-tank guided weapon firing post with anintegrated lightweight interrogator.

The U.K. has funding in place to pro-cure BTID. Enough units will be pro-cured initially to support a mediumscale deployment.

Funding is also available to procure aninitial implementation of air-to-surfacesolutions for attack helicopter and fixedwing platforms.

The United Kingdom will review theutility of RBCI and DRaFT as well asinvestigating the use of BTID interroga-tors in an air-to-ground role.

U.K. TARGET IDENTIFICATION PROGRAMMESBy: William Suttie, British Representative for Combat Identification

www.ccidactd.com6

results from this event we look forward tothe next phase of testing with France andthe U.K.," explained Willie Johnson, U.S.representative to the Battlefield TargetIdentification Device(BTID) WaveformSubgroup.

The interoperabilitydemonstrated by thisexercise is a milestoneresulting from severalyears of internationalcooperation between theCombat IdentificationWorking Group (CIWG)member nations ofFrance, Germany, Italy,the United Kingdom andthe United States.

"The five nations have had a terrificworking relationship which has allowedus to make great strides in the develop-ment and evaluation of affordable com-bat identification technologies," said PeteGlikerdas, the head of the U.S. delega-tion to the CIWG.

The CIWG has been meeting sinceOctober 1992 to develop a coalition solu-tion to help reduce fratricide on the bat-tlefield. Their efforts resulted in a NATOStandardization Agreement (STANAG),

which specifies thetechnical characteristicsrequired for an interop-erable combat identifi-cation system.

"A lot of emphasis isbeing placed on findinga coalition solution forcombat identification,"Glikerdas said. "On themodern battlefield alliesare operating in closeproximity whichrequires them to be ableto identify one another

with a high degree of accuracy in order toprevent friendly fire."

Previous tests, hosted in the UnitedStates, were conducted in a laboratoryenvironment. These tests were toensure that the American devices wereable to communicate with the French and

British devices at the hardware level.Upon successful completion of thosetests, Britain invited the French and theAmericans to their Larkhill, U.K. facilityfor the next phase of testing.Results from these demonstrations are

significant steps to verifying the STANAGso that other nations can use the docu-ment to build interoperable millimeterwave combat identification devices.

January 2004

U.K. HOSTED COALITION INTEROPERABILITY TESTING

OF MILLIMETER WAVE TECHNOLOGY (continued from page 1)

American and British Interrogatorsmounted on a remotely steerableplatform at the fully instrumented

Qinetiq test range in Larkhill, EnglandAmerican BTIDTransponder mounted on British Land Rover

As a full member of the Five PowerCombat ID Working Group, the ItalianArmy strongly supports the initiatives forinteroperability among the forces thatparticipate in the present and futurecoalition.

In particular, the Italian Army has a proj-ect called "Digitization of the ManoeuvreSpace," which will guide the Armythrough a transformation processtowards the realization of a digitizedforce, able to operate following theNetwork Centric Warfare concepts.

Full Combat ID capability is part of thisoverarching project. The final objectiveis the realization of a Combat ID Pictureas part of the Common OperationalPicture (COP), available to all the plat-

forms and systems deployed. ThisCombat ID Picture will be achieved bycombining data received from dedicatedsensors, intelligence, network and gener-al sources.

The solutions for the Combat ID deviceswill be the same as those adopted byNATO and by the principal partners, suchas the Five Power nations.

Specifically, the Italian Army has a pro-gram for the realization of a BattlefieldTarget Identification Device (BTID) forcombat vehicle identification, which ful-fills the STANAG 4579.

This BTID will be integrated in a specif-ic interface that will also have a laserdevice for Dismounted Soldier

Identification Device (DSID) interoper-ability. This solution will guarantee com-plete coverage of the battlefield, togetherwith the implementation of future technology selected for air platform inter-operability.

In this field, the Italian Army, togetherwith the Air Force, has developed theNew Generation Identification Friend orFoe (NGIFF), which is the first realizationof Mode 5 and Mode S devices for airplatform identification. The intention is tointegrate NGIFF, BTID and DSID infor-mation into the COP. The project is opento future implementations, such as theRadio Based Combat Identification andother solutions that will be designed inthe future.

ITALIAN ARMY COMBAT ID PROGRAMBy: Lt. Col. Angelo Gervasio, Italian Representative for Combat Identification

7

www.ccidactd.com

The tragic friendly fire incident dur-ing operations in Afghanistan in April2002, costing the lives of four soldiersof the 3rd Battalion PrincessPatricia's Canadian Light, pushedfratricide into the national spotlightand heightened attention to this his-torically troubling problem; fratricideis a multi-service, joint problem.

And for those hoping the problemwill go away, it will not. History notonly serves to remind us that it is nota new phenomenon, but a recurringand deadly problem in combat identi-fication.

Combat identification is a problemas old as armed conflict, and withevolving developments in weapons'capabilities the Canadian military, likeother militaries, finds itself with anability to engage at distances thatnow greatly outstrip its ability to iden-tify.

Canada is seeking solutions to sig-nificantly reduce "fratricide" andenhance the combat effectiveness ofits Forces when operating in eithertraditional alliances or ad-hoc coali-tions.

Over the past few years, Canadahas developed the CombatIdentification Capability DevelopmentWorking Group to identify, champion,and coordinate the development ofCombat Identification capabilities,concepts, and technologies.

This group is a subordinate organi-zation of the Command & Control andInformation and Intelligence JointCapability Assessment Team.

It is hoped that a Battlefield CombatIdentification System will be in serviceby the 2006/09 timeframe and thatparticipation in the Coalition CombatIdentification (CCID) Advanced

Concept Technology Demonstration(ACTD) will assist in the selectionprocess.

Conceptually, Canada includesCombat Identification as a compo-nent of what is often referred to asnetwork centric warfare within theC4ISR Campaign Plan. One of thetasks, just beginning, is defining howCombat Identification capabilities willbe selected and then integrated intothe overall plan in the future.

To this end, funding begins in2007/08 for a joint CombatIdentification capital equipment program.

In the interim the joint focus will beon drafting and seeking approval ofCF Combat Identification policy.

Future activities will see an expand-ing of the active role of the WorkingGroup to include identifying andreviewing the requirements ofCombat ID doctrine, policy and strat-egy; determining and recommendingappropriate levels of Combat IDcapability; and generating appropri-ate plans to address identified issues.

These roles will evolve as the tech-nologies and doctrine currently beingconsidered within the NATO forumand the CCID ACTD develop andmature.

As we are now witnessing inAfghanistan, the Canadian Forceswill conduct future operations in thecontext of coalition and combinedforces, and units will be organizedinto Task Forces and rapidlydeployed.

It is highly likely that most militaryoperations will include both traditionaland non-traditional allies employing adiverse array of equipment of varyinginteroperability and possibly employ-

ing Tactics, Techniques andProcedures other than the Canadianand NATO standards.

This is an operational setting thatcan limit the effective employment ofCanadian systems and inhibit com-manders' tactical alternatives forcombined operations, as well asincrease the risk of fratricide.

Since deploying ground forces inAfghanistan in 2002, the CanadianForces have and are continuing toprocure combat identification equip-ment similar to the package of quickfix solutions used by our allies.These include: a disposable infraredtransmitter, infrared patches andtape, and a Canadian Flag IR reflec-tive marker backed with a Velcrohook or adhesive designed for mili-tary field uniforms. Visually, the flagprovides a subdued National Flagmarking which is generally attachedto the shoulder of the combat uni-form.

As this article has annotated, combatidentification is a complex problemand it is recognized that a commoncoalition solution is essential for com-bat identification.

In the near-term Canada has adopt-ed interim solutions for overseasoperations and continues to pursueadvanced combat identification capa-bilities through participation in trialssuch as the Dismounted SoldierIdentification Demo at Fort Benning inSeptember 2003.

Canada will continue to be an activeparticipant in the Coalition CombatIdentification Advanced ConceptTechnology Demonstration with aview towards monitoring U.S. andNATO integration developments andimplementing the appropriate solu-tions when technology permits.

COMBAT IDENTIFICATION — A CANADIAN

PERSPECTIVEBy: Capt. M.J. (Mark) McNeil, Canadian Representative for Combat Identification

8

January 2004

The Swedish Armed Forces haveembarked on the road towards adefence based on Network CentricWarfare, or Network Based Defence(NBD), as we term it in Sweden.

In pursuing this there are no easydecisions to be made. We are fore-seeing a long period of evaluation ofdifferent options and different solu-tions. A method in doing this is usingdemonstrations.

In the years to come, Sweden willperform yearly demonstrations focus-ing on the various aspects of NBD;among them the Revolution in MilitaryAffairs (RMA), the cornerstone of situ-ational awareness; decision superior-ity; precision engagement, etc. apartfrom other issues as architecture ordesign principles.

In the summer of 2005, the firstmajor demonstration in a projectcalled LedsystT (an acronym thatroughly translates to "Command and

Control - Technology") will take place.The focus then will be situationalawareness, in which CombatIdentification (CID) is considered akey component.

The Swedish experience of CID isrestricted to our present Air Defencesystem called PN-79, a radar-basedsystem similar to the NATO-usedIdentification Friend or Foe (IFF) sys-tem.

In Sweden there is an ongoing proj-ect called SWIFF, or Swedish IFF,aimed at replacing the old PN-79 for amodern NATO-compatible IFF sys-tem.

The CID problem for ground forces isunsolved and Sweden has justrecently procured systems for botharmed vehicles (the British version ofBTID, with delivery expected in 2004)and dismounted soldiers (the Swissversion of DSID called SIMLAS,which currently has field evaluations

taking place). These systems will beused mainly for competence buildingand technology evaluation. At about the same time these sys-

tems were ordered, Sweden wasinvited to participate at the CCIDACTD. Up until today we have partic-ipated on the observer level only, butthe interest is surely to participatemore actively. Evaluation is going ontowards what this means in terms ofeconomy and personnel needed.

I believe everybody can agree uponthe importance of every country,NATO or coalition, having these typesof systems, especially with the ever-increasing multinational engagementsaround the world. For Sweden this is even more impor-

tant since we, as a non-NATO coun-try, can't rely on others to supply uswith the knowledge or technology weneed to be interoperable with ourallies in international operations.

SWEDISH COMBAT IDENTIFICATION ACTIVITIESBy: Carl Fishcherström, Swedish Representative for Combat Identification

The U.S. Army awarded a contract onOct. 16, 2003 to Raytheon Companyfor the development of a new MarkXIIA capable interrogator set, referredto as the Air Defense Interrogator.

The basic contract with RaytheonCompany is for the design, develop-ment, test and integration of a MarkXIIA Air Defense Interrogator thatincludes Mode 5 Levels 1 and 2 andMode S capability onto the PATRIOTRadar Set.

Although the Air Defense Interrogatorwill be developed initially for PATRIOT,it will have applicability to all U.S.

Army Air Defense platforms andground radars requiring Mode 5/Scapability.

The Air Defense Interrogator designfor PATRIOT is required to be com-mon to the maximum extent possiblewith future Mark XIIA interrogatordesigns for: the U.S. Army SEN-TINEL, Man Portable Air Defense(MANPAD), AVENGER, LINE-BACKER, Medium Extended AirDefense System (MEADS), and JointLand Attack Cruise Missile DefenseElevated Netted Sensor System(JLENS) Air Defense platforms; aswell as the U.S. Army Air Traffic

Navigation Integration CoordinationSystem (ATNAVICS) Air Traffic ControlRadar Set.

The PATRIOT System Developmentand Demonstration phase will be com-pleted by mid 2006.

The contract includes options fordevelopment programs to leveragethe PATRIOT Air Defense Interrogatordesign for the remaining platforms andincludes several production optionsthat run from 2006 through 2010.

A follow-on production contract isplanned for requirements past 2010.

U.S. ARMY MARK XIIA AIR DEFENSE INTERROGATORBy: Steven Haught, U.S. Army RDECOM CERDEC I2WD

9

Media briefing from Baghdad, Iraqon May 30, 2003

"... we had some devices that we usedin this war. One was called Blue ForceTracker. It gave us position locations andidentification on major units. It helpedsome, I think, with location and identifi-cation of friendly forces. But what wetruly need is something that can identifya friendly vehicle -- it either squawks orbeeps or emits some sort of power

source that tells a shooter -- an airplaneor a tank or whatever -- that they're look-ing at a friendly piece of equipment.

...We've been trying to develop thatnow ever since the Gulf War, withoutsuccess, I might add. And the man thatinvents that, I think, will be very rich,indeed. Because it continues to besomething that we see happen in theU.S. military, and it's really somethingthat we've got to stop."

OIF MARINE COMMANDER HIGHLIGHTS NEED FOR TARGET ID & SA

www.ccidactd.com

The Office of the Deputy UnderSecretary of Defense for AdvancedSystems and Concepts recentlyannounced that the U.S. Marine CorpsMounted Cooperative TargetIdentification System (MCTIS) Programis a recipient of Foreign ComparativeTesting (FCT) Program funding in FY04-05. The FCT Program was authorized by

Congress in 1989 to provide Office of theSecretary of Defense funding for thetesting and evaluation of foreign non-developmental items, to determine ifthey will more quickly and economicallysatisfy Service and U.S. SpecialOperations Command equipmentrequirements. The mission of the MCTIS is to enable

the crews of ground integrated-weapons-systems platforms-such as theExpeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV),formerly the Advanced AmphibiousAssault Vehicles (AAAVs), Light ArmoredVehicles (LAVs), and M1A1 Abramsmain battle tanks-to accurately (99 per-cent probability of correct identification)and rapidly (less than 1 second) discrim-inate between friendly and potentiallyhostile vehicles at ranges in excess of sixkilometers (km). It will provide these and other platforms,

including combat service and combatservice support vehicles, with the capa-bility to identify themselves as friendly to other integrated-weapons-systems

platforms equipped with comparable sys-tems. Its employment will result in reduced

incidents of fratricide and collateral dam-age, and increase the rate and range atwhich targets may be engaged withoutfear of misidentification.The MCTIS will employ encrypted, mil-

limeter wave, "Question and Answer"technology, and be interoperable withother NATO STANAG 4579 compliantJoint, Allied and coalition forces' sys-tems. It will be comprised of four line replace-

able units: an interrogator antenna (IA)and transponder antenna (TA), radio fre-quency transponder, and informationprocessor. The IA module will enable ground inte-

grated-weapons-systems platforms toquestion potential targets with anencrypted message, while the TA modulewill enable the interrogated platforms todecode the interrogation message andrespond with an encrypted answer. The modular design of the MCTIS will

permit two types of general platformapplications: the combined interrogatorand transponder and transponder-onlysystems.The MCTIS FCT initiative will focus on

evaluating the Battlefield TargetIdentification Device (BTID), which wasdeveloped by Thales Missile Electronics(TME) for the British armed forces' use in

the U.S.-sponsored Coalition CombatIdentification (CCID) Advanced ConceptTechnology Demonstration (ACTD).

Its functionality and interoperabilityhave been successfully demonstratedduring recent CCID ACTD laboratory andfield-testing.

Unlike other systems, the TME BTIDfeatures a steerable IA that permits boththe vehicle commander and gunner toindependently interrogate targets withouthaving to aim the main gun at potentialtargets. The directional TA enhancesoperational security by allowing interro-gations to be received from any directionbut restricts replies only toward the inter-rogating platform.

The British Ministry of Defense is alsoinvestigating BTID employment by dis-mounted anti-tank guided missile teams,forward air controllers, and rotary-wingattack aircraft.

Naval Sea Systems Command at theNaval Surface Warfare Center in Crane,Ind., will perform evaluation of the BTIDfor the Marine Corps SystemsCommand.

At its conclusion, the most promisingdesign approach will be translated into astable, interoperable, producible, sup-portable, and cost effective design andproduction system that will ultimately sat-isfy the cooperative target identificationrequirements of the U.S. Marine Corps.

USMC MOUNTED COOPERATIVE TARGET IDENTIFICATION

SYSTEM PROGRAM AWARDED FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTINGBy: Bobby Cline, Anteon Corporation

10

Lt. Gen. James T. Conway

Commanding General, I MarineExpeditionary Force

January 2004

RADIO BASED COMBAT IDENTIFICATIONBy: Russell Ruppe, U.S. Army RDECOM CERDEC I2WD

BTID DEMONSTRATION

Radio frequencies are often used forCombat Identification. Therefore, itmakes sense to explore a Combat IDsolution for the most common radio sys-tem in the Army, the SINCGARS ASIP.

Radio Based Combat Identification(RBCI) is a modification to the SINC-GARS' existing software that allows it toperform target identification interrogationsand provide situational awareness infor-mation.

This modification does not affect any ofthe normal functionality of the radio; it canstill communicate via voice and transmitdata on all of its modes.

Because the system needs no additionalhardware, the software-only updatemeans that Combat ID interrogation capa-bility can be given to forward observers,forward air controllers, fire support coordi-nators and rotary-wing aircraft with noadded weight.

After the software modification, the radiowill have two additional functions that canbe turned on or off by its operator as needed.

There is a new responder mode, whichwould be used by all mounted and dis-mounted radios to prevent a close air sup-port or fire support fratricide incident, aswell as an interrogator mode, which couldbe used for initiating interrogations.

In the interrogator mode, the radio sendsout a GPS coordinate-based interrogationfootprint to see if there are any friends inthe area. Other radios in responder mode

would immediately check their GPS loca-tion upon receipt of the message to see ifthey are within that footprint.

If the responding RBCI SINCGARS iswithin the targeted footprint, the radio willcease all other operations and automati-cally respond to the interrogator with its IDand location.

If, however, the responder radios arelocated outside the interrogation area, theradios continue in their normal operations,making the RBCI functions completelytransparent to their operator.

In order to reduce total fielding costs fora universal Combat ID system, theCoalition Combat Identification AdvancedConcept Technology Demonstration hasbeen looking at other existing SINC-GARS-compatible radios, such as ARC-210, ARC-222, BOWMAN and MBITR, aswell as the future JTRS, whose softwarecould be updated with RBCI.

Other radio waveforms for JTRS thatare also of interest in the future are SLICE(old DARPA SUO SAS), Soldier RadioWaveform (SRW), and WidebandNetworking Waveform (WNW).

As more weapons and engagementsbecome indirect, or beyond line of sight,the awareness that RBCI, the only coordi-nate-based target identification solutionunder development, can provide will beincreasingly important to enhanced com-bat effectiveness and friendly fire prevention.

PEOC3T Deputy John Perrapato and Maj. Gen. WilliamH. Russ, the commanding general of the U.S. ArmyCommunications - Electronics Command and FortMonmouth, attend a multifunctional demonstration of theBattlefield Target Identification Device (BTID) at theIntelligence and Information Warfare Directorate in FortMonmouth, N.J.

The demonstration was held in conjunction with theCoalition Combat Identification Advanced ConceptTechnology Demonstration's In Progress Review on Nov. 13, 2003.

In less than one second, the NATO-compliant millimeterwave technology can correctly identify a friendly vehicle upto three miles, more than 99 percent of the time, regardlessof weather conditions.

11

COMBAT ID WEBSITEBy: Daphne Hart, U.S. Army RDECOM

CERDEC I2WD

Located at www.ccidactd.com, theCoalition Combat Identification (CCID)Advanced Concept TechnologyDemonstration (ACTD) website is aninvaluable tool for members of the CCIDACTD team.

The website was established to helpimprove communication and overcomedifferences due to CCID ACTD membersbeing located on separate continents andin different time zones.

For authorized users only, the password-protected www.ccidactd.com includescontact information for all of the site'susers, important documents, meetinginformation, archives, news and more.

CCID Members interested in gainingaccess to the site should visit www.ccidactd.com, click on the "Not aMember?" link and fill out the requestedinformation.

www.ccidactd.com

www.ccidactd.com

Military operations in Iraq and Afghanistanhave been popular topics for the news mediathis year.As part of that coverage, many print and tel-

evision organizations have also been lookingat friendly fire and the ongoing efforts to prevent it.As the leading proponent for fratricide pre-

vention, the Coalition Combat Identification(CCID) Advanced Concept TechnologyDemonstration (ACTD) has featured promi-nently in many ofthose reports.In August, a British

documentary crewfrom 3BM TelevisionLtd. traveled aroundAmerica to filmCombat Identificationand friendly fire pre-vention technologiesfor each service.One of the visits

they made was to Fort Monmouth'sIntelligence andInformation WarfareDirectorate, wherePete Glikerdas, theCCID ACTD techni-cal manager, is located.Glikerdas offered

interviews, a livedemonstration of the Battlefield TargetIdentification Device (BTID), as well as achance to film other cutting-edge CombatIdentification technology and simulations."This was a good opportunity to show our

allies that the United States Government

takes friendly fire very seriously and we aredoing all that we can to prevent it," Glikerdassaid.CCID ACTD technologies were also show-

cased in Fort Benning, Ga., as part of theDismounted Soldier Identification MilitaryOperations in Urban Terrain Demonstration.A media day was held as part of the two-

weeklong assessment of new technologiesdesigned to help prevent soldier-to-soldierfratricide.

Print and broadcastnews organizations,including “ArmyTimes”, a Canadiandocumentary crew,and local CBS andABC television affili-ates, were given abrief overview of theevent, a tour of thefacility, as well asaccess to the equip-ment and the soldiersinvolved in its testing.

In addition, mem-bers of the JointCombat Identifi-cation EvaluationTeam were also inter-viewed.

Other CCID ACTD media appearances with-in the past year include the “CBS EveningNews”, the History Channel's “From Tactical toPractical”, and an interview with the NBC affil-iate in New York that subsequently aired onMSNBC.

Operational Manager

Lt. Col. William McKeanAnn Arnold John Miller

Craig Petersen Rich SeeversDon Turner

Technical Manager

Pete GlikerdasManuel Bobbio

Robert CreightonWillie Johnson John Lalonde Russell RuppeSteven Vasica

Transitional Manager

Lt. Col. Doug KuehlWayne Deutscher

Chapin HortonDan Schwartz

MajorMilestones and

Events

JFCOM Industry

Day

March 17-118, 2004

Combined Joint

Task Force Exercise

(CJTFEX)

June 2004

C4I On the Move

September 2004

Military Utility

Assessment (MUA)

2005

Extended User

Evaluations

2005-22006

CCID IN THE NEWSBy: Daphne Hart, U.S. Army RDECOM CERDEC I2WD

CCID ACTD TEAM

The Coalition Combat Identification Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration team consists of:

Allied participation includes Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Bob Creighton of the Intelligence andInformation Warfare Directorate discusses the

Battlefield Target Identification Device on a test range at Fort Dix, N.J., for a British

documentary on preventing friendly fire.