Coalition Interoperability vs Full Standards Compliance Balancing the Scales

Transcription

1 Coalition Interoperability vs Full Standards Compliance Balancing the Scales 20 th August 2008 Mike Smith Chief Engineer Tactical Data Link Systems Aerosystems International a Company 1

2 Overview Understanding Coalition Interoperability The mechanics of NATO Interoperability MIL-STD-6016C Interoperability Considerations Interoperability in a wider context 2

3 Understanding Coalition Interoperability Interoperability definitions Interoperability challenges Interoperability components Factors affecting interoperability 3

4 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

5 Interoperability Challenges Language Bandits at 2 o clock! OK, but what are we going to do till then? 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

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 6

7 Factors affecting Interoperability Legacy system implementations Ever evolving requirements Single link vs multi link systems DLCP STANAG MIL-STD ICP Forwarders and gateways Platform requirements compliance 7

8 The mechanics of NATO Interoperability Source requirements Specifying interoperability Measuring interoperability The 100% interoperability myth Achieving a high level of interoperability 8

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 9

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 CONOPS URD SRD SSRD APIS SSDD Metal Bashing & Coding Platform docs ismart docs 10

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 Step 1: Identify & Verify Interoperability Requirements Laboratory 1. NTDLIOTs are normally held in Apr and Oct each year Live TEST SERI ALS 5. Interoperability Evaluations (IOEs) use all applicable IOIs, IOAs and Reports to assist in the creation of Test Serials for the next NTDLIOT Step 2: Develop Certification Evaluation Approach NATO TDL IO TESTS (NTDLIOTS) Interoperability Tests Standards Conformance Tests Building Block Approach NTDLIOT REVIEW MEETING (S NAPE ) Operational Community IOI SSUES (IOIs) IO ASSE SSMENTS (IOAs) IN THE IO MATRIX (IOM) 2. The SNAPE analyses the results of each NTDLIOT, validates new IOIs and reviews existing IOIs 3. Where necessary, IOIs are used to create (or amend) IO Assessments (IOAs) within the IO Matrix (IOM) 4. NATO and National REPORTS Reports are used to disseminate Results and Recommendations Step 3: Step 4: Collect & Analyze Interoperability Determine the Data Interoperability Status Certification Status 11

12 The 100% Interoperability myth Perfect interoperability is an unrealistic goal Known IO issues dealt with by Operational Procedures No IO issues - Fully interoperable Known IO issues with no workaround and unknown IO issues Effective interoperability is achieved if we can develop workarounds for known shortfalls. A platform s interoperability level is not just a single % 100% 100% T45 JSF 50% 0% Interoperability A B C D Platform 0% Platform A F16 T45 CVF JSF E-3 F16 A-10 Platform B 12

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 13

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 14

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 15

16 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

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 C 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

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 18

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 IOR IRS MLIRS L11 SLIRS L11B SLIRS L16 SLIRS 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

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 20

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 21

22 Questions? Aerosystems International a Company 22