NATO Response Force and Communications and Information Systems in a Multinational Force
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
NATO Response Force and Communications and Information Systems
in a Multinational Force
Cdr Soames Vatsel, NATO Joint Warfare Centre
soames.vatsel@jwc.nato.int
0. Abstract
This paper is presented at the CIMI 06 seminary series for the M3 session “Command and
Control for Multinational Forces”. The paper gives a broad overview of NATO C3
organisations and responsibilities, the NATO Response Force (NRF) concept and how
CIS are developed in the NRF. Lastly, some general lessons learned from NRF CIS
testing at CWID are included.
1. Introduction
Just as the political arena has changed after the cold war, so too has NATO, and there is
now an ongoing transformation. Static cold war planning and force structures are being
transformed into more dynamic ones. One key effort is to put up an organisation able to
meet the requirements that come with complex deployable operations. The Alliance
security interests range from the traditional armed attack to fighting terrorism, sabotage,
organized crime and securing vital society functions. The strategic environment will
become increasingly dynamic and complex. We all know that such a dynamic and
complex environment requires a robust CIS capability and, therefore, NATO puts
significant effort into achieving this.
2. NATO C3 Organisation and Responsibilities
C3 usually means “Command, Control and Communication”. However, as NATO is a
political organisation, the term takes on a slightly different definition than it normally
does. In fact, within NATO, C3 means “Command, Control and Consultation”. The
consultation part is done in NATO HQ and is part of the stability building process
between member nations and partners. It also covers the process of negotiating between
countries on NATO article commitments before a given operation may be deployed.
For the Command and Control part NATO has formed the NATO C3 Organisation
(NC3O). The main body is the NATO C3 Board (NC3B) along with its subcommittees
and working groups. Also important to the NC3B are the Strategic Commands (SC), the
NATO C3 Agency (NC3A) and the NATO CIS Services Agency (NCSA). The daily
work is carried out and supported by the NATO Headquarters C3 Staff (NHQC3S) in
Brussels.
SC inputs
NC3B
8 Subcommittees
NHQC3S
NCSA NC3A
Fig 1. NC3O – Main Bodies
CIMI2006. Copyright Försvarets materielverk and the Author(s)2006.The member nations have agreed upon a division of C3 responsibilities between NATO
and nations. NATO responsibilities1 are at the strategic and operational level and include
connectivity between NATO HQ, Strategic Commands, Joint Force Commands and
deployed commands of the Deployable Joint Task Force (DJTF) and sometimes
Component Command (CC) levels.
The responsibility to provide and maintain interoperability at the tactical and subordinate
force levels is vested in the nations. However, NATO provides a forum where nations can
agree upon C3 standards, as there are several working groups in the NC3B structure for
this purpose. The responsibility to implement standards lies with the nations, and only
when all nations have ratified and implemented a standard correctly, one can be sure that
there is interoperability among nations and partners.
The division of responsibilities between NATO and member nations should be borne in
mind when discussing interoperability. With whom do you need to be interoperable?
With NATO, or with one or more NATO nations? If the answer is NATO, some work
will have to be done to achieve interoperability between national strategic and operational
headquarters and among national forces that can be directly subordinate to a CC.
Technical help and understanding can be surged from NC3A. If the answer is a NATO
nation, then there will be bilateral negotiations with the nation involved to decide upon
the interoperability to be made available.
In the following, only NATO interoperability is discussed.
3. The NRF Concept
NATO has created a permanently available multinational joint force at high readiness –
the NATO Response Force (NRF). The NRF is one of the key elements of NATO force
structure transformation, and its creation was initiated late 2002. The NRF is to respond
swiftly to emerging crises and threats anywhere in the world. The decision to use the
NRF is taken at the highest level in NATO. The NRF can be activated under NATO
articles or at the request of, and with a mandate from, other international organisations
like the UN or the EU.
JFC
DJTF JFC: Joint Force Command
DJTF: Deployable Joint Task Force HQ
APOD POD: Port of Debarkation (Air/Sea)
CC: Component Command
SPOD (Land/Maritime/Air)
DOB: Deployed Operations Base
LCC MCC ACC DOB
DOB
DOB
Fig 2. Generic structure for NRF
The NRF consists of a Deployable Joint Task Force lead by a JFC and made up by land,
air and sea components. The force units consist of a brigade-size land component; a naval
task force composed of one carrier battle group with surface and subsurface units, an
amphibious task group, mine hunters and auxiliary vessels; and an air component capable
1
STANAG 5048 The Minimum Scale of Connectivity for Communications and Information Systems for
NATO Land Forces
CIMI2006. Copyright Försvarets materielverk and the Author(s)2006.of 200 combat sorties a day. The NRF may use either a sea- or an airport of debarkation
to get units into the intended area of operations. When fully operational, the NRF will
number about 25.000 troops. As the readiness is high, the NRF can be ready to deploy in
five days and sustain itself for 30 days in various types of crises across the globe. If more
sustainability is needed, CJTF follow-up forces can be deployed. For the time being,
partner (PfP) nations can only take part in CJTF operations.
The missions for the NRF can be any of, or a combination of, a stand-alone force for
collective defence, evacuation operations, humanitarian disaster management, counter
terrorism operations. The NRF can also deploy as a demonstrative force, which can move
quickly to support diplomacy, or as an initial entry force to facilitate the arrival of follow-
up forces. NRF elements were used to help protect the 2004 Summer Olympics, support
Afghan authorities at the presidential elections, help Hurricane Katrina victims and in a
humanitarian mission in Pakistan.
NATO commands and nations contribute to the NRF through six-month rotations. The
usual rotation is six months training followed by a six-month stand-by assignment.
The DJTF staff rotation is known and set up in rotation among three NATO Joint Force
Commands (JFCs).
NATO’s first choice is to have the DJTF staff ship-borne, as this is the most convenient
way of keeping staff together with support elements and equipment. On a ship, with long-
range communications capabilities and infrastructure fitted, you can start the staff process
immediately, without having to wait to deploy into a rural area. You will also find that
you are less dependent on host nation support. The DJTF can also deploy on land. When
doing this, good relations with the host nation are key; and if the deployment is into a
rural area, certain efforts will have to be made to secure and set up infrastructure
arrangements.
The CC’s are also known and are provided by either NATO or national headquarters. The
actual power forces are to be determined at force planning conferences that usually take
place two years prior to the rotation.
4. NATO CIS in the NRF
As discussed above, NATO’s CIS responsibility is to ensure proper interoperability
between the strategic – represented by Allied Command Operations (ACO/SHAPE), the
operational – represented by the JTF/DJTF HQ and partly the component levels –
represented by the different CC’s. The participating nations are responsible for providing
interoperability between subordinate units and CC’s.
Higher command
NATO CIS Responsibility
DJTF
NATO NRF CIS Responsibility
National CIS Responsibility
LCC MCC ACC
Subordinate Units
Fig 3. Different CIS Responsibilities in NRF
CIMI2006. Copyright Försvarets materielverk and the Author(s)2006.NRF CIS Requirements
NATO is developing the NATO Architectural Framework (NAF) that gives guidelines on
how to define, process and write CIS requirements. The updated NAF is expected in late
2006. The process includes the definition of views. The views should lead to “Operational
Node connectivity” needs and “Information Exchange Requirements (IER)”. Once the
NRF has developed their views and requirements, these could be used by nations and
agencies to develop national interoperability requirements on technical systems. Pending
the finalization of the requirement process according to NAF, there are some minimum
military requirements (MMR) for the NRF that can be summarised in the following
points.
CIS Services
It is pretty obvious and after some analysis it has also been decided that the NRF should
have the following C4 services:
- insecure voice
- secure voice
- video teleconferencing
- e-mail
- web browsing
- functional service applications.
The last “service” includes what is usually known and handled as “functions” in Battle
space (BMS) and Combat Management systems (CMS).
The services should be distributed throughout up to 8 different locations (Fig 2.) and are
usually supported by one of the two NATO Signal Battalions. The support is mainly to
build and maintain C4 infrastructure installations. The applications should be “poured
into the infrastructure” by the separate NRF rotations according to operational needs.
Condensing the operational needs and requirements, the functional service should at least
include the possibilities to produce, handle and distribute the following:
- Combined Operational Picture (Recognised Ground, Maritime and Air Picture)
- Orders (Operational, Fragmentary, Joint Coordination, Airspace Control and Air
task Order)
- Targeting
- Reporting (Intelligence, Logistics).
For all the mentioned functions, IER matrixes are developed. The matrix states MMRs
and the need of interoperability between different operational levels.
DJTF LCC Div Land Sub MCC Mar Sub ACC Air Sub
DJTF 1 2 2 2
LCC 1 2
Div 3 2
Land Sub
MCC 2 1,4 2 4
Mar sub 2 1,4 4
ACC 2 1
Air sub 4 3
Fig 4. Example of information exchange requirement matrix for Recognized Maritime Picture. Each
number in the box indicates a minimum information exchange requirement between different operational
command levels. Knowing the operational needs, a nation or an agency can start developing interoperable
systems.
CIMI2006. Copyright Försvarets materielverk and the Author(s)2006.CIS Connectivity
As a requirement all NRF locations should have at least level 4 interoperability, as
defined in STANAG 5048, between them. Level 4 is achieved when two C2 systems are
linked through a physical interface that imposes restrictions on the access to information.
There are 6 defined levels (not to be mixed up with interoperability degrees as stated in
the NATO Interoperability Directive) of interoperability where level 1 indicates the
lowest level and 6 the highest level. Level 1 is achieved by using human interfaces
between the different C2 systems, and level 6 is achieved when the C2 systems are linked
together with no restrictions on the access to information.
Usually, three distinct security domains are required in the NRF – NATO secret WAN,
Mission secret WAN and NATO unclassified WAN. The domains are built up by using
all kinds of transmission channels such as fibre cable networks, UHF Tactical Satellite,
HF and line-of-sight radio links.
CIS Standards
As the standards for the C4 services voice, video teleconferencing, e-mail and web
browsing are commonly known, they will not be discussed here. However, something
should be said about the exchange of “functional services”.
Up to now, the most common procedural way of sharing information is to
A. Automatically, periodically or on demand request information;
B. And if acknowledged, send formatted information messages
between systems. This could be called a case sensitive exchange mechanism.
For this purpose, NATO uses AdatP-33 standard messages for land and air related
information exchanges. The AdatP-3 is commonly used, but in the maritime environment
a US standard - OTH4 Gold, is alternatively used. As OTH G is implemented in quite a
lot of systems, it has become a de facto standard.
The tendency is that the amount of exchangeable information is naturally growing, and
there is an increasing operational need for all levels to be provided with the “same” data
at almost the same time. These increasing information exchange needs cannot always be
met using the mentioned exchange mechanism. Rather, a new concept, with new methods
should be used! The concept should allow NRF C4 systems to exchange information
dynamically.
The chosen method for this is developed in the Multilateral Interoperability Programme
(MIP), and NATO has decided to have all NATO common-funded NRF C4 systems MIP
compliant in the future. The MIP uses AdatP3 look a-like messages with a database
replication mechanism.
To make the interoperability smooth between operational levels with different CIS
responsibilities as discussed in chapter 2 and 4, NATO encourages the use of MIP
standard in technical systems made available for a NRF force unit to use. There are,
however, some considerations to take into account when implementing the MIP.
3
Allied Data Publication No. 3
4
Over The Horizon
CIMI2006. Copyright Försvarets materielverk and the Author(s)2006.The MIP standard
- Is in its developmental phase, and the final version, Block 4 is expected in 2010;
- Versions are unfortunately not compatible.
Systems with solely MIP implemented as the exchange mechanism will be very version
sensitive, and great care should therefore be taken when making systems available for
NRF units. For the sake of certainty, which is really key when interoperability matters are
discussed, technical systems should, still for some years, have the possibility to use a case
sensitive exchange method.
As the final MIP version is scheduled to arrive after the NRF has reached its final
operational capability, NATO common-funded developed C4 systems are going to use
case sensitive methodes in parallel with MIP for still some time.
5. NRF CIS Lessons Learned from CWID
CWID Program
For some years, NATO has been performing extensive C4 testing at the Combined
Warrior Interoperability Demonstration (CWID, former JWID). The event investigates
state of the art developmental technology, and for the last two years also the CIS
interoperability in the NRF. At the 2005 event some 450 participants from 13 NATO
nations, two Partner nations and several NATO agencies participated with sixty-seven C2
systems to perform 880 tests during three weeks. CWID focuses on testing the
interoperability of C2 systems and services, including workstations, servers and system
function software.
The national and NATO common-funded static and deployable CIS systems are
connected together over a LAN. National sites are connected through a stable high
capacity NATO Coalition worldwide network, the CFBLNet.
The main execution site is in Norway, at Lillehammer. Local sites are typically put up in
the US, UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and other countries. As the technical systems are
mainly connected over the LAN and the CFBLNet, constraints from communication
elements such as radio and satellite propagation can be eliminated. These elements are
tested at other events like Combined Endeavor and Cathode Emission.
At the event, a scenario play is run through with all kinds of NRF tasks played several
times. During the scenario, test cases are set up and carried out between systems in a
DJTF chain of command order.
So far, CWID is not mandatory for NRF validation, but the process to transform NATO
includes as an objective getting an event for this. CWID Testing is usually done about
two years prior to the readiness period to ensure there is time for the actual rotation to
take action to overcome technical, procedural and organisational deficiencies.
CWID 2005
The objective of this paper is not to evaluate specific systems, so the following will only
give overall CWID achievements for NRF C4 interoperability.
- There is not yet “a single” system that handles all functions with all types of standards.
Different C4 systems must still be used in parallel to provide all operational levels with
all information required. The different CCs can successfully support their domain tasks
with their CIS. From a technical point of view, inter CC exchanges are usually managed;
however, the operators should be trained more in a “joint combined” manner.
CIMI2006. Copyright Försvarets materielverk and the Author(s)2006.- When considering interoperability between different systems, the different national
implementation schedules on different standards should be taken into account. Also, there
is always a need to use standards that are compatible backwards. Using “future” standards
and methods are not always successful in fielded systems as such standards are likely to
cause interoperability failures, coupled with a need for tedious manual work-a rounds to
be applied.
So, formatted messages in a case sensitive exchange mechanism are the reliable way for
information exchange purposes. The use of MIP should be to limited to the development
plan. Rushing one’s fences and implementing “pre” versions will not be successful.
- Technical systems that have the most extensive catalogue of AdatP 3 and OTH-G
messages implemented are “the most interoperable systems”.
- Systems that have the possibility to “on line” change standards (AdatP-3, OTH, MIP)
and settled standard versions, will be flexible and surely interoperable.
- The use of standard office software (word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail) can be used
to bridge interoperability deficiencies. To be successful the office software must be
integrated into the CIS, and there must be manageable ways of importing/exporting files.
- The use of Information Exchange Gateways (IEG) is becoming more widespread. The
tendency is to let national CMS systems networks at the subordinate level feed NATO
BMS systems through an IEG and in this way keep the security domains separated. The
national systems might use tactical data links such as LINK 11 and 16 to communicate
between units.
JFC
NRF CIS domain
DJTF
National CIS domain
MCC system TG: Task Group
TU: Task Unit
TG 2 MCC system
IEG
TG 1
IEG
11 / 16
11 / 16
LINK 11 / 16
TU 1.1
TU 2.1
A B
Fig 5. Use of IEG between NATO and national CIS systems
Nation A uses a NATO MCC BMS system as a national system onboard. An IEG separates the
CMS from the BMS. The two MCC systems are linked together giving interoperability.
Nation B uses an IEG to link national CMS/BMS to NATO BMS systems.
CIMI2006. Copyright Försvarets materielverk and the Author(s)2006.6. Considerations – to achieve NATO CIS interoperability
When a nation decides to get “NATO CIS functional service interoperability”, the
following should be considered:
- At what operational level should interoperability be achieved? What kind of
interoperability is being considered? Interoperability with NATO or
interoperability with a NATO member nation?
- If immediate NATO interoperability is wanted, the implementation of AdatP 3
and OTH G messages should be prioritized.
- If NATO interoperability is wanted beyond 2010, the implementation of MIP
should be prioritized.
- If it is difficult to update national systems, use of NATO common-funded systems
should be considered. In doing so, close relations with NC3A and NCSA should
be developed.
7. References
- NATO C3 Portal: http://portal.nhqc3s.nato.int/portal/
- NATO Response Force: http://www.nato.int/shape/issues/shape_nrf/nrf_intro.htm
- Multilateral Interoperability Programme: http://www.mip-site.org
- CWID: http://www.act.nato.int/events/seminars/cwid05post.htm
- NAF: NATO Architectural Framework: EAPC(AC/322-SC/2)N(2004)002
8. About the author
CDR, MSc EE Soames Vatsel is currently serving in the Capability Development
Division of NATO’s Joint Warfare Centre (JWC), Stavanger. After graduating from The
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, he joined the Royal Swedish Navy in 1990
and has held posts mainly in the CIS developmental area. He has served in the 2nd
Surface Warfare Flotilla, Swedish Defence Material Administration, Naval Command
and in the Swedish Armed Forces Headquarters.
9. Acknowledgments
The author wants to thank Mrs. Bente Heill Kleven, Translator for supporting and
reviewing the text; Mr. James McVicar, CIS Analyst for sharing his expertise in the
NATO CIS area and LtC Ole Eilertsen for fruitful discussions during the work on this
paper.
CIMI2006. Copyright Försvarets materielverk and the Author(s)2006.You can also read
