Coalition Interoperability vs Full Standards Compliance – Balancing

Coalition Interoperability vs
Full Standards Compliance – Balancing the Scales
20th August 2008
Mike Smith
Chief Engineer – Tactical Data Link Systems
Aerosystems International a
Company
1
Overview
–
–
–
–
Understanding Coalition Interoperability
The mechanics of NATO Interoperability
MIL-STD-6016C Interoperability Considerations
Interoperability in a wider context
2
Understanding Coalition Interoperability
–
–
–
–
Interoperability definitions
Interoperability challenges
Interoperability components
Factors affecting interoperability
3
Interoperability definitions
– IEEE: the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange
information and to use the information that has been exchanged.
– NATO: The ability of systems, units or forces to provide services to and
accept services from, other systems, units or forces and to use the
services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together
Services = Information. Information = Data AND Voice
– NCTSI Platform Level Warfare System Certification:
“… ensures that all warfare systems meet minimum mission
requirements of assigned roles and functions, are reliable and stable
and are interoperable within the projected operational force.”
4
Bandits at
2 o clock !
Interoperability Challenges
OK,
but what are we
going to do ‘till then?
– Language
This is a lighthouse.
Your call…
– Culture
–
–
–
–
–
This is the USS George Washington.
Divert your course to the south now!!
National Operational Procedures
Service Operational Procedures
Platform/Unit Role
Platform/Unit Employment
Platform/Unit Capabilities
5
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
6
Factors affecting Interoperability
– Legacy system implementations
DLCP
ICP
– Ever evolving requirements
STANAG
MIL-STD
– Single link vs multi link systems
– Forwarders and gateways
– Platform requirements compliance
7
The mechanics of NATO Interoperability
–
–
–
–
–
Source requirements
Specifying interoperability
Measuring interoperability
The “100% interoperability” myth
Achieving a high level of interoperability
8
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
9
Specifying Interoperability
– Information exchange requirements (IERs) required at each level
–
–
–
–
NATO/International
National
Service
Platform
PIR
CONOPS
NRS
URD
SRS
PRS
SRD
– Selection of standards to employ and versions
SSRD
– STANAGs/MIL-STDs
– SLIRS
– DLCPs/ICPs
– Specification not just up-front, but Through-Life
SSDD
APIS
– Document in accordance with a process (e.g. TULIP/iSMART)
– Deviations from specifications and standards
– IO assessments and updates/workarounds
Metal
Bashing
& Coding
Platform
docs
iSMART
docs
– Understanding of capability maintained through to disposal
– Spiral delivery/maintenance cycle
10
Measuring Interoperability
– Platform Testing
Live
– Standards Conformance testing
Laboratory
– Lab/Rig/Live testing
– Typically ‘back to back’ or SUT + test system
NTDLIOTs are
normally held in
Apr and Oct
each year
NTDLIOT REVIEW
MEETING
(S NAPE )
2. The SNAPE analyses the
results of each NTDLIOT,
validates new IOIs and
reviews existing IOIs
ES
SU )
I S Is
I O (I O
– Certification
Building Block Approach
1.
IO
5. Interoperability
Evaluations (IOEs) use all
applicable IOIs, IOAs and
Reports to assist in the
creation of Test Serials for
the next NTDLIOT
REPORTS
IN
Community
AS
S
TH E SS
EI
ME
O
NT
M
S
AT
(I O
RI
A
X
( IO s )
M)
Operational
ST L S
TE I A
R
SE
– Typically TDL Authority responsibility
– Paper based assessments
– PRS/APIS review
– IOM review
– IOIs/IOAs
– Net Ready/Net Worthy testing
– Interoperability Test Network
Step 1:
Identify & Verify
– Live Exercise/Trials with
Interoperability
Requirements
other platforms
Standards
Conformance Tests
NA
T
( N TE O T
T D S DL
L I TS IO
O
TS
)
– Interoperability Testing
Interoperability
Interoperability
Tests
3. Where necessary,
IOIs are used to create
(or amend) IO
Assessments (IOAs)
within the IO Matrix
(IOM)
4. NATO and National
Reports are used to
disseminate Results
and
Recommendations
Step 2:
Develop
Certification
Evaluation
Approach
Step 3:
Collect & Analyze
Interoperability
Data
Step 4:
Determine the
Interoperability
Status
Certification Status
11
The “100% Interoperability” myth
Known IO issues dealt with
by Operational Procedures
– Perfect interoperability is an unrealistic goal
100
0
Known IO issues
with no workaround
and unknown IO issues
No IO issues
- Fully interoperable
– Effective interoperability is achieved if we can develop
workarounds for known shortfalls.
– A platform’s interoperability level is not just
a single %
100%
100%
50%
T45
D
0%
A-10
F16
JSF
B
C
Platform
CVF
A
F16
T45
Platform A
0%
E-3
JSF
Interoperability
Platform B
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
Interoperability with legacy system implementations
– Reality is that legacy platforms rarely change
due to cost of change once in service
– Cost to update all platforms to 6016C standard
is prohibitive for most nations
– Potentially significant impact on interoperability
with 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 with
each other, the onus is on them to design for IO
with these legacy systems - if they want it!!
– System designers must bear this in mind
16
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
17
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
18
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”
IOR
IRS
L11 SLIRS
L11B SLIRS
L16 SLIRS
MLIRS
STDL SLIRS
L22 SLIRS
VMF SLIRS
– 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
19
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
20
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
21
Questions?
Aerosystems International a
Company
22