Host Nation Supportability

1. Host Nation Supportability Good afternoon, I am Serge Basso from the Spectrum Management Branch (SMB). I am the chairman of the Technical Working Group of the FMSC and in charge of the databases and tools used by the FMSC and SMB. This presentation is about the Spectrum Supportability Process in NATO. My objective is to present an overview of the business process, including the actors involved, followed by the description of the problems faced by the FMSC. At the end I will propose a way ahead to solve these problems. As an introduction to the subject, I would like to emphasise that: This process is not a NATO invention. Our procedure is directly copied from the Spectrum Certification in force in the USA and Canada. This process is not new. It was first adopted by ARFA (predecessor of the NATO Civ/Mil FMSC, or SC/3) in 1984. It has been reviewed and updated by the FMSC in 2005. Good afternoon, I am Serge Basso from the Spectrum Management Branch (SMB). I am the chairman of the Technical Working Group of the FMSC and in charge of the databases and tools used by the FMSC and SMB. This presentation is about the Spectrum Supportability Process in NATO. My objective is to present an overview of the business process, including the actors involved, followed by the description of the problems faced by the FMSC. At the end I will propose a way ahead to solve these problems. As an introduction to the subject, I would like to emphasise that: This process is not a NATO invention. Our procedure is directly copied from the Spectrum Certification in force in the USA and Canada. This process is not new. It was first adopted by ARFA (predecessor of the NATO Civ/Mil FMSC, or SC/3) in 1984. It has been reviewed and updated by the FMSC in 2005.

2. Facts Every SDE (*) requires access to the spectrum Much military-procured equipment will be used worldwide National contribution to CJTF / NRF NATO owned D-CIS in NATO / EU operations Spectrum Access is National Sovereignty Spectrum allocations differ from Nation to Nation Spectrum more and more congested Spectrum pricing ? Commercial pressure GBR MoD: £55M in 2006, expected to raise to £100M Some annual prices: TV bands = 2 M€/MHz;  GSM bands = 10M€/MHz Why did we develop this procedure in NATO? We call “SDE” (spectrum dependant equipment) any equipment which requires access to the electromagnetic spectrum. It may be for communication, navigation, ESM or ECM (i.e. localisation/jamming) or radar. Nationally procured equipment will often be used as national contribution to NATO training, exercises and operations, not only in the original country but also throughout NATO and in out-of-area operations. Spectrum is a national natural resource and its control remains the sovereign authority of each nation. Despite the efforts of the European Conference of Post and Telecommunications (CEPT), even within Europe, the spectrum allocations and/or usage rules differ from nation to nation. The differences are bigger between America and Europe as they are in different ITU regions. The electromagnetic spectrum is shared by all users, friend or foe, military or civil. Spectrum is now a matter of business. There is an increasing commercial demand on all spectrum all bands below 6 GHz, and more and more nations began the process of selling pieces of spectrum to commercial and government users. The military should therefore plan carefully any procurement of spectrum dependent equipment (SDE), to ascertain that it will be usable throughout the NATO area of responsibility.Why did we develop this procedure in NATO? We call “SDE” (spectrum dependant equipment) any equipment which requires access to the electromagnetic spectrum. It may be for communication, navigation, ESM or ECM (i.e. localisation/jamming) or radar. Nationally procured equipment will often be used as national contribution to NATO training, exercises and operations, not only in the original country but also throughout NATO and in out-of-area operations. Spectrum is a national natural resource and its control remains the sovereign authority of each nation. Despite the efforts of the European Conference of Post and Telecommunications (CEPT), even within Europe, the spectrum allocations and/or usage rules differ from nation to nation. The differences are bigger between America and Europe as they are in different ITU regions. The electromagnetic spectrum is shared by all users, friend or foe, military or civil. Spectrum is now a matter of business. There is an increasing commercial demand on all spectrum all bands below 6 GHz, and more and more nations began the process of selling pieces of spectrum to commercial and government users. The military should therefore plan carefully any procurement of spectrum dependent equipment (SDE), to ascertain that it will be usable throughout the NATO area of responsibility.

3. Objectives Procure equipment which may be operated In own territory and other countries Develop for available frequency bands / authorised types of emission Plan more efficiently & fully comprehend the EME Populate a central database with all technical parameters Can be used in support of future assignments requests Can be used for interference resolution Predict potential interference from/to other coalition systems prior to real deployment The spectrum supportability process serves two purposes: Allow nations to procure equipment which may be operated in own territory and other countries. Assessment of the answers to a spectrum supportability request will allow the project manager to steer the development efforts towards available frequency bands or authorised types of emission. Plan more efficiently for future operations. By recording all technical parameters of the systems in a centralised database, these can be used in support of assignments and during interference resolution. The database can also be used during Mission Planning, to predict potential interference and effects of C-IED jammers on friendly forces communications. Some examples: Bad: Situations like the Radar installed at Kabul Airport without coordination and causing interferences to Tactical Radio Relay (TRR), resulting in an unusable asset, could be avoided. Bad: One NATO Nation procured Israeli UAVs without requesting spectrum supportability; the UAVs turned out to be barely usable in Europe because it uses civil spectrum. Good: SC/1 and SC/6 introduced the concept of Internet over HF for the Navy, using wider channels. SC/3 recommended not to follow this route.The spectrum supportability process serves two purposes: Allow nations to procure equipment which may be operated in own territory and other countries. Assessment of the answers to a spectrum supportability request will allow the project manager to steer the development efforts towards available frequency bands or authorised types of emission. Plan more efficiently for future operations. By recording all technical parameters of the systems in a centralised database, these can be used in support of assignments and during interference resolution. The database can also be used during Mission Planning, to predict potential interference and effects of C-IED jammers on friendly forces communications. Some examples: Bad: Situations like the Radar installed at Kabul Airport without coordination and causing interferences to Tactical Radio Relay (TRR), resulting in an unusable asset, could be avoided. Bad: One NATO Nation procured Israeli UAVs without requesting spectrum supportability; the UAVs turned out to be barely usable in Europe because it uses civil spectrum. Good: SC/1 and SC/6 introduced the concept of Internet over HF for the Navy, using wider channels. SC/3 recommended not to follow this route.

4. Definition Spectrum Supportability: Described in ACP190 NATO Supp1 (MC approved in Oct 03) Authorised declaration by an administration Feasibility to assign frequencies specific radio stations or systems Two-way commitment: Prerequisite to operate radio stations in host nations Host nation granting supportability expected to assign frequencies Applies to: All project planners / developers, as early as possible For ALL equipment using spectrum National or NATO procured PFP Nations on voluntary basis Centralised and Automated: NHQC3S / SMB focal point of contact Standardised data exchange (SMADEF) Database available to all NATO Nations The Spectrum Supportability process is described in chapter 5 of the ACP190 NATO Supplement 1, which has been approved by the FMSC and implemented by the MC in October 2003 (ref IMSM-0888-03). The Spectrum Supportability declaration must be provided by the administration in charge of the spectrum management in the Nation. It must indicate if frequencies should be available for the radio equipment or radio system, and under which conditions this system may operate in the country. A spectrum supportability request/answer is a two-way commitment between the user of the system and each host nation: It is a prerequisite, for the procuring nation, to operate radio stations in host nations Host nation granting support to a radio system is expected to assign frequencies when requested Spectrum Supportability must be requested by project planners and developers as early as possible, as it is the only agreed method to know in advance where a procured equipment can be used throughout the Alliance. The business process is very simple: As soon as possible during the development or procurement of a system, the Nation or NATO body must supply its parameters to SMB Staff which will forward this information to all NATO Nations (and PFP if required). SMB may also perform an impact study for the benefit of the member Nations if required. Each Nation will give its reply (granted / not granted / with restrictions) to SMB which will collate them and send them back to the originator. SWE already participated in this process. The entire process is done via SMADEF message exchanges and recorded in a central database. This database is made available to everybody in NATO through the NSWAN, so it is very easy to either make EMC studies on a system or to see where and how a system can be used or not used. The Spectrum Supportability process is described in chapter 5 of the ACP190 NATO Supplement 1, which has been approved by the FMSC and implemented by the MC in October 2003 (ref IMSM-0888-03). The Spectrum Supportability declaration must be provided by the administration in charge of the spectrum management in the Nation. It must indicate if frequencies should be available for the radio equipment or radio system, and under which conditions this system may operate in the country. A spectrum supportability request/answer is a two-way commitment between the user of the system and each host nation: It is a prerequisite, for the procuring nation, to operate radio stations in host nations Host nation granting support to a radio system is expected to assign frequencies when requested Spectrum Supportability must be requested by project planners and developers as early as possible, as it is the only agreed method to know in advance where a procured equipment can be used throughout the Alliance. The business process is very simple: As soon as possible during the development or procurement of a system, the Nation or NATO body must supply its parameters to SMB Staff which will forward this information to all NATO Nations (and PFP if required). SMB may also perform an impact study for the benefit of the member Nations if required. Each Nation will give its reply (granted / not granted / with restrictions) to SMB which will collate them and send them back to the originator. SWE already participated in this process. The entire process is done via SMADEF message exchanges and recorded in a central database. This database is made available to everybody in NATO through the NSWAN, so it is very easy to either make EMC studies on a system or to see where and how a system can be used or not used.

5. Current Problems Process agreed by FMSC, NC3B and MC, but in reality: Requesting supportability for new systems: Few nations request supportability for their SDE NATO Commands & Agencies do not request supportability for NATO procured SDE Responding to supportability requests: Not all nations provide responses to incoming requests The spectrum supportability has been agreed by FMSC, NC3B and MC through the ACP 190 NATO Supp 1, but in reality we are facing a lack of involvement at several levels: 1) Requesting spectrum supportability for new systems / spectrum dependant equipment: Few nations request spectrum supportability for their SDE; NATO Commands & Agencies do not request spectrum supportability for NATO procured SDE, with the exception of two requests from NAEWFC. 2) Not all nations respond to spectrum supportability requests The first chart represents the number of spectrum supportability answers on a total of 150 requests, spanning over a period from 2000 to today. Obviously, in a perfect situation, each request should receive 25 answers. You see that the reality is far from the ideal: the peak number of answers is only 8 for 12 of the requests, and we have 21 requests with no answer at all. That gives an average of 4 answers per request. The second view shows for each NATO Nation (plus NAEWFC, SMB and SWE), for the same time period, the number of requests (in blue) and the number of answers provided (in green). Clearly, a small number of Nations are well engaged in following the process. On the contrary, some Nations which are big SDE developers never submit any request. Note: SMB provides comments to some spectrum supportability requests (not an authoritative answer as we don’t “own” spectrum), when they concern access to NATO managed spectrum (mainly the NATO UHF band 225-400 MHz) or there is a common interest or danger with a specific system. The spectrum supportability has been agreed by FMSC, NC3B and MC through the ACP 190 NATO Supp 1, but in reality we are facing a lack of involvement at several levels: 1) Requesting spectrum supportability for new systems / spectrum dependant equipment: Few nations request spectrum supportability for their SDE; NATO Commands & Agencies do not request spectrum supportability for NATO procured SDE, with the exception of two requests from NAEWFC. 2) Not all nations respond to spectrum supportability requests The first chart represents the number of spectrum supportability answers on a total of 150 requests, spanning over a period from 2000 to today. Obviously, in a perfect situation, each request should receive 25 answers. You see that the reality is far from the ideal: the peak number of answers is only 8 for 12 of the requests, and we have 21 requests with no answer at all. That gives an average of 4 answers per request. The second view shows for each NATO Nation (plus NAEWFC, SMB and SWE), for the same time period, the number of requests (in blue) and the number of answers provided (in green). Clearly, a small number of Nations are well engaged in following the process. On the contrary, some Nations which are big SDE developers never submit any request. Note: SMB provides comments to some spectrum supportability requests (not an authoritative answer as we don’t “own” spectrum), when they concern access to NATO managed spectrum (mainly the NATO UHF band 225-400 MHz) or there is a common interest or danger with a specific system.

6. Way Ahead Advertise the process within NATO forums: Briefed at NC3B (senior body above FMSC) Brief to MC on 18 Dec Urge all Nations to participate in Supportability process Promote, mandate and enforce wherever possible Improve the process: Move away from current equipment per equipment supportability Introduce “Signal Description / CONOPS” supportability Any compliant equipment is automatically supported Add a simple “Equipment Declaration” procedure Provide tools for generating SDE description to manufacturers