Achievement of CIS Interoperability – NATO Policy and Processes Dick Whittingham NATO HQ C3 Staff Principal Technical Co-ordinator At our last meeting in July I briefly introduced this subject under AOB. Since there was no opportunity at that time to discuss the subject, I will start today by setting the scene in the same way, and I will then update you on the current NC3B activity.

Expeditionary Reality Vision OUTLINE Framework Expeditionary Reality Vision

NATO C3 System Interoperability Policy FRAMEWORK - POLICY NATO C3 System Interoperability Policy NATO C3 System Interoperability Directive (NID) NATO C3 System Architectural Framework (NAF) v2 Guiding Principles for C3 System Interoperability Experimentation, Test and Validation (IETV) in support of NATO Response Force (NRF) and NATO Network Enabled Capability (NNEC) NATO C3 System Interoperability Policy AC/322-D(2004)0039 NATO C3 System Interoperability Directive (NID) AC/322-D(2004)0040 NATO C3 System Architectural Framework (NAF) v2 AC/322-D(2004)0041

DEFENCE PLANNING PROCESS (EXTRACT) RESOURCE PLANNING -SRB (NATO FUNDED PROGRAMMES) BASELINE ARCHITECTURE TARGET ARCHITECTURES REFERENCE ARCHITECTURES C3 OVERARCHING ARCHITECTURE C3 REQUIREMENTS C3 NNEC CAPABILITY TO MATCH NATO NEEDS ARMAMENTS PLANNING - CNAD (MULTINATIONAL PROGRAMMES) FORCE PLANNING – DRC (NATIONS’ CAPABILITIES) NMA requirement statement(s) need to be consistent across all planning disciplines OA covers C3 aspects of all Defence Planning disciplines: focuses on overall requirement and inter-system relationships For Resource Planning: RA part of Capability Packages TA part of TBCE Baselines to be handed over to Operating authority ( normally NCSA) Functional aspects may be drawn as specialist view of single architecture or group of architectures

BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY NATO C3 INTEROPERABILITY PROCESS NHQC3S ANALYSIS NC3B DIRECTION NATIONAL CONTRIBUTION CATEGORISATION IOR IOR SOURCES SOURCE ANALYSIS/ DEFINE IOR IOR DEFENCE PLANNING PLANNING LESSONS LEARNED FEEDBACK NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FEEDBACK IOR RESOLUTION BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY NEW FIELDED CAPABILITY NEW STANDARDS PROCEDURES E.G. SUPPORT TO CERTIFICATION OF FORCES INTEROPERABILITY TESTING

NATO C3 TESTING CYCLE NCT NIETI CATEGORISATION PROCESS MASTER TEST SCHEDULE OF NATO IOTRS IOTR TEST EVENT MATCHING NCT NATO INTEROPERABILITY REQUIREMENTS NATO, NATIONAL AND CO-OPERATIVE TEST EVENTS NIETI FEEDBACK I wish to relate these different IOR sources to the work of the Bi-SCs, the NHQC3Staff, the NC3B and its substructure and the Nations NC3 PORTAL NIE IT RESULTS

EXPEDITIONARY OPERATIONS - CHALLENGE ACO HQ NATO JFC HQ Static DJTF HQ AIR CC HQ LAND MARITIME Deployed SOCC INFORMATION FLOW APOD APOD SPOD SPOD DCAOC DCAOC NATIONAL FORCES NATO TASK FORCE AIR FORCES & BASES Here is a generic Command and Control diagram for the NRF The static elements are at the top with the deployed joint task force HQ and the Component Commands in the centre and the force elements at the bottom As you will be aware, the component commands (both NATO and National) including the Special Forces CC, and the subordinate National forces rotate independently, normally at 6 monthly intervals. The interoperability challenge is that [CLICK] there is a need for information flow from top to bottom and side to side of this dynamic multinational structure

The common NATO CIS services (e. g The common NATO CIS services (e.g. NATO secure voice) required at each node is then identified against the relevant node. So the community of Interest requiring access to the common CIS service is indicated in each column. The complete list has some 80 rows. This this operational view in place the system and technical impact can be assessed, resulting, for each NRF, in a summary of interoperability status and actions required.

EXPEDITIONARY OPERATIONS - CHALLENGE ACO HQ NATO JFC HQ Static DJTF HQ AIR CC HQ LAND MARITIME Deployed SOCC APOD SPOD DCAOC NATIONAL FORCES NATO TASK FORCE AIR FORCES & BASES So, going back to the NRF, in general terms the process identifies (CLICK) the locations where interoperability between systems is necessary, and how it may be achieved and proven Quite a few in this case: it is, of course a bit more complicated than that…

INTEROPERABILITY STATUS – OPERATION XXX This is another small extract for NRF 7. You can see from the question marks that this is definitely work in progress, but it gives an indication of the ability of each boundary point between one system and another to pass the required NATO common CIS service (e.g. secure voice). We only class it Green when the interoperability has actually been proven via live tests: there are also a number of red areas where the full requirement is not being met or where we still need to identify technical solutions. From this analysis, we identify shortfalls in interoperability and their resolution mechanisms and drive the test activities to prove interoperability. The test results are then taken by the Commanders to assist their certification of the forces concerned.

EXPEDITIONARY REALITY – PROVIDES: Focus for Interoperability Experimentation and Test: NIETI Core Team co-ordinate test activity NATO Coalition Warrior Interoperability Demonstration (CWID), Steadfast Cathode, [Combined Endeavor] NC3A IETV capability development and use Basis for NC3B Interoperability Sub-Committee to identify and solve interoperability challenges with Joint Force Commanders (JFCs) Basis for ACT, NC3O and Industrial experimentation to enhance technical capability

VISION Progressive move to NNEC capability One to network paradigm Uniformity and ‘standardization’ Architectures Standards and profiles NATO Maturity Level (NML) models Test and Certification Process improvement

NETWORKING AND INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE (NII) NATO STATIC STRUCTURE ACCS ALTMD DCAOC APOD SPOD ACO HQ NATO JFC HQ NATIONAL FORCES NATO TASK FORCE AIR FORCES & BASES DJTF HQ AIR CC HQ LAND MARITIME Static Deployed SOCC NATIONAL CAPABILITY NATIONAL CAPABILITY Networking and Information Infrastructure (NII). The federated network of NATO and national information infrastructures and communications infrastructures necessary to achieve NNEC EAPC(AC/322)D(2006)0002-REV1-ADD1-AS1

NNEC CAPABILITY AREAS - NII ARCHITECTURE USERS AND MISSIONS INFOR- MATION ASSUR- ANCE SERVICE MANGE- MENT CONTROL COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST INFORMATION & INTEGRATION SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES Overarching Architecture Community of Interest RA NII Enterprise Reference Architecture

NATO C3 System Architectural Framework (NAF) v3 (currently draft) VISION NATO C3 System Architectural Framework (NAF) v3 (currently draft) NATO architecture Meta-Model (NMM) NATO Architecture Repository (NAR) NAR linked with NATO Interoperability Standards and Profiles (NISP) (former NC3TA) repository, the NML repository and the NATO Interoperability Environment (NIE) Interoperability Tool

NAF V3 PERSPECTIVES AND VIEWS NATO CAPABILITY VIEW NATO ALL VIEW NATO OPERATIONAL VIEW NATO PROGRAMME VIEW NATO SERVICES VIEW NATO SYSTEM VIEW NATO TECHNICAL VIEW

TEST AND CERTIFICATION Proving interoperable capability is critical for success Good progress so far, but more needed Knowledge and process baseline enhancement - NC3A Improved linkage to Force certification Willingness of Nations to offer the right equipment at the right time

PROCESS The processes are complex Process cohesion essential for capability delivery (especially NNEC) Key activities: Document process: use architectures Provide consistent requirement baseline Prove capability: document solutions

CONCLUSION Interoperability is a challenge, especially for expeditionary operations: but we are making progress! It is a challenge for everyone Process and architecture developments are key to progress NNEC associated improvement Progress depends upon Nations’ willingness to follow standardized solutions and to expend effort on testing.