The NATO Industrial Advisory Group (NIAG) Studies Exploratory Group Briefing Liviu LAZAR IS - Staff Officer NIAG Guyonne Le Fournis IS – Secretary NIAG

Where NIAG fits under CNAD: NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL National Armament Directors Representatives Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) NADREPs NAAG ARMY NAFAG AIR NNAG NAVY NIAG (Industry) NATO Army / Airforce / Navy Armament Groups

& in the broader “NATO Community” NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL Military Committee Defence Investment Division Emerging Security Challenges Division C3O Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) A C T NADREPs NAAG ARMY NAFAG AIR NNAG NAVY NIAG (Industry) STO (Science & Technology Organization) Life Cycle Management PROJECTS

NIAG Charter NIAG is a high-level consultative and advisory body of senior industrialists of NATO member countries, acting under the Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD), with the aims of: Advising National Armament Directors on industrial perspectives and issues – “High Level Advice” Bringing industrial know-how and ideas to the work in CNAD and other NATO Bodies addressing NATO military capability requirements – “Technical Studies Advice”

How does NIAG operate ? Plenary Meetings: NIAG ‘Services’: 3 per year – February / June / October) NATO and Partner formats NIAG ‘Services’: Study Sub-Groups – “High Level” Strategic Advice, - “Pre-feasibility” Studies, - Workshop Organisation/Support, - Demonstration preparation//analysis. Industrial Network - Responding to information requests. Representation in meetings – Industrial viewpoints, “Pre-feasibility” studies: What is the current state-of-the art? What do future technologies offer? What is practical and achievable? What is the best way to achieve “interoperability” ?

NIAG Studies – Nine Steps to Implementation Responsible: Timeline: Step 1 Studies Submission – to CNAD and CBC MAGs By June Study Year -1 Step 2 Study and Tasking Request – to NIAG Study Sponsor Group 8 weeks before Step 3 Step 3 NIAG Exploratory Group (EG) Meeting NIAG Vice-Chairman One month before Step 5 Step 4 Study Proposal Document – to CNAD for approval NIAG Staff Officer Immediately after Step 3 Step 5 Study Sub-Group Kick-Off Meeting NIAG SG Chair Study Start Step 6 Study Conducted Step 7 Study Reporting – to Sponsor Group and NIAG Step 8 Study Assessment – to CNAD/NIAG One month after Step 7 Step 9 Study Administration Completion – study payments Three months after Step 7.

Exploratory Group Meeting Agenda 1. OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS NIAG Vice-Chairman : Mr. Martin HILL 2. INTRODUCTION TO NIAG STUDY PROCEDURES Brief by International Staff – NIAG Staff Officer BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSED STUDY Brief by Study Sponsor 4. REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION NOMINATION OF STUDY CHAIR, DEPUTY CHAIR, RAPPORTEUR AND NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS STUDY ORGANISATION – WORK TEAMS ALLOCATION AND WAY AHEAD 7. STUDY CONTRACTING ARRANGEMENTS, BUDGET PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION – By NIAG Secretary 8. STUDY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS – By NIAG Staff Officer 9. DATE OF KICK-OFF MEETING OF STUDY GROUP

At this meeting: The Secretary will collect and collate your Business Cards/Contact Information. You, the Industry experts, are invited to: Understand and give consideration to the study objectives and requirement; determine your/your company interest in study, and your potential role and contribution; Consider volunteering to the study leadership team as Chair, or Deputy Chair, or Rapporteur. The Sponsor group will be invited to nominate a ‘Quick Reaction Team’ to support the study activity. The Secretary will provide follow-up notes of the meeting presenting the study objectives and organisation agreed at this meeting, the study way ahead and all contacts information.

For information: NIAG Chairman – Mr Wayne Fujito (US) wayne.fujito@dac.us NIAG Vice-Chairman – Mr Martin Hill (UK) martin.hill@thalesgroup.com IS – Staff Officer– Mr Liviu Lazar lazar.liviu@hq.nato.int NIAG Secretary – Ms Guyonne Le Fournis Lefournis.guyonne@hq.nato.int ………………………………………………………………………………….. NIAG Website – https://niag.hq.nato.int (password protected) STO Website - www.sto.nato.int

Item 7 - Study Administration Reference: NIAG-WP(2006)0003 dated 24 April 2006 Contracting Arrangements. NIAG ‘Study Order’ sent to each participating company Lays out Study Objectives, payments, security, proprietary rights AT THE KICK-OFF MEETING: Please list the Participating Companies and experts for the study SG. For each participating company, please collate and forward to the Secretary the name and address that the Study Order is to be sent to. Budget/Payment NATO Formula - €412 per “man day”, “Man Days” = Meeting Days + Study Days + Travel Day. Please provide Secretary with name and address of each participating company’s Financial Office to which she may write to request the payment invoice.

Item 8 - Studies Reporting Reference: NIAG-WP(2006)0003 dated 24 April 2006 (On CD ROM issued to SG Chairman) Interim Report to NIAG Plenary 4 ‘Power Point’ slides. (11 Oct 2011) Interim reports to Sponsor Group responsibility of QRT Final Report Summary briefs by Chairman (or delegated SG member) to: Sponsor Group NIAG Plenary (8 power point slides) Final Report (Written) Executive Summary - 2 pages Main Body - 20 pages Annexes (Microsoft ‘Word’ & “Adobe Acrobate” Formats/ Send to Secretary) Summary Report for NIAG Studies Historical Record

BACK UP SLIDES

SUB-GROUP PAYMENT SPREADSHEET Payment Management SUB-GROUP PAYMENT SPREADSHEET NIAG SUB-GROUP NO. …... Meeting Number/Name   Mtg1 Mtg2 Mtg3 Mtg4 NIAG1 Scheduled start date Scheduled end date Sheduled duration Meeting venue Europe/ USA Canada ATTENDANCE RECORD Name Company Country For Attendance - mark 'Y' BUDGETED CLAIMS TOTALS Claim Days Euro GRAND TOTAL DATE: SIGNED - SG Chair

Technology Readiness Levels Basic principles observed and reported. Technology concept and/or application formulated. Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept. Technology component and/or basic technology sub-system validation in laboratory environment. Technology component and/or basic sub-system validation in relevant environment. Technology system/sub-system model or prototype demonstration in relevant environment. Technology system/sub-system prototype demonstration in an operational environment. Actual technology system completed and qualified through test and demonstration. Actual technology system “mission proven” /“qualified” through successful mission operations.

Technology Readiness Level Description 1. Basic principles observed and reported in context of a relevant Military Capability Shortfall Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be evaluated for military applications and translated into applied research and development. Examples might include paper studies of a technology's basic properties. 2. Technology concept and/or application formulated Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be postulated. Applications are speculative and there may be no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are limited to analytic paper studies. 3. Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept Active research and development is initiated. This includes analytical and laboratory studies to physically validate the analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or representative. 4. Technology component and/or breadboard (system / sub-system representation) validation in laboratory environment Basic technological components are integrated to establish that the pieces will work together. This is relatively "low fidelity" compared with the eventual system. Examples include integration of "ad hoc" hardware in a laboratory. 5. Technology component and/or breadboard (system / sub-system representation) validation in relevant environment Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so the technology can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include "high-fidelity" laboratory integration of components. 6. Technology system/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond the breadboard (representation) tested for TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology’s demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high fidelity laboratory environment or in a simulated operational environment. 7. Technology system prototype demonstration in an operational environment Prototype near, or at, planned operational system. Represents a major step up from TRL 6, requiring the demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment (e.g., in an aircraft, in a vehicle, or in space). Information to allow supportability assessments is obtained. Examples include testing the prototype in a test bed aircraft. 8. Actual technology system completed and qualified through test and demonstration Technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development and demonstration. Examples include developmental test and evaluation of the system in its intended weapon system to determine if it meets design specifications, including those relating to supportability. 9. Actual technology system “mission proven” / “qualified” through successful mission operations Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation and reliability trials. In almost all cases, this is the end of the last “bug fixing” aspects of true system development. Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions.