Transcript A comparison of advanced ALE waveforms

A Qualitative Selection Process for
Advanced ALE Waveforms
Chuck Tefer
Rockwell Collins
Government Systems (RCGS) Division
Outline








2
Introduction
Why ALE? – A Historical Perspective
RCGS Experience With Existing 2G ALE Networks
What Are Customers Now Asking For?
The Enhanced ALE Landscape
Developing A Selection Process
The Selection Matrix
Conclusion
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
Introduction



3
The purpose of this presentation is to assist HF
communicators in deciding which advanced Automatic
Link Establishment (ALE) waveform is right for their
needs
We will examine the many factors that should be
considered when contemplating a major ALE waveform
upgrade
We will develop a process for evaluating those factors
that is tailored to the individual customer’s existing
capabilities
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
Why ALE?

HF radio communication traditionally required the fulltime services of a highly skilled radio operator
–
–
–

Enter ALE – The goal was to make HF radio as easy to
use as a telephone
–
–
–
–
4
Strict coordination of propagating frequency vs. time
Knowledge of global geography
Manual monitoring of one or more frequencies
Automated monitoring of multiple channels (Scanning)
Pseudo-real-time propagation update (Sounding)
Unique user ID (Addresses)
Simple connection (Automatic Linking)
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
HF Before ALE
PROPAGATION
FORECAST
OPERATIONS
SCHEDULE
MANUAL OPERATING
PROCEDURES
12
9
AUTHORIZED
FREQ LIST
3
HF COMM
TRAINING MANUAL
COMM PLAN
PRIMARY
6
Date
Frequency
Time
ALTERNATE
Date
Frequency
Time
Tuning The Radio
CALENDAR
JAN
FEB
Listening Skills
MAR
Making Voice Calls
Following Comm Plan
APR
MAY
Recovery From Comm
Outages
JUN
BACK-UP
PRIOR PLANNING AND
COORDINATION REQUIRED
5
OPERATOR WORKLOAD
INTENSIVE
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
HF After ALE
MANUAL
OPERATING
PROCEDURES
12
ADDRESSES
9
OPERATIONS
SCHEDULE
3
HF COMM
TRAINING MANUAL
6
ALE Procedures
CALENDAR
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
MINIMAL PLANNING
REQUIRED
6
AUTHORIZED
CHANNELS
MINIMAL OPERATOR
WORKLOAD
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
ALE – A Historical Perspective
ALE
Standard/Feature Timeline
FED-STD-1045
Released
MIL-STD-188-141A
Released
FED-STD-1045A
Released
Standards
RCGS Introduces
SELSCAN®
Manual Techniques
Only Prior To This (75
years)
1975
1980
1985
1990
MIL-STD-188-141B
Released
MIL-STD-188-141B,
CN1 released
1995
2000
2005
NATO STANAG
Compatibility
Features
First of Type
Automatic Linking
First U.S. DOD ALE
Standard – 2G ALE
AQC-ALE, 3G ALE,
Networking, etc.
Errata Corrections
Linking Protection
Defined
First U.S. Civil ALE
Standard
7
MIL-STD-188-141A,
CN1 Released
MIL-STD-188-141A,
CN2 Released
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
RCGS Experience
Rockwell Collins has gained extensive experience as
supplier to some of the largest ALE networks now in
operation

8
–
Over 9000 ALE-equipped products fielded
–
Standard HF supplier for USAF ground and airborne
platforms that comprise the largest operational, globalcoverage ALE network in the world
–
ALE is currently supported in 7 RCGS HF product lines
and ancillary equipments
–
We provide network management tools, passive
propagation forecasting tools, and extensive system
engineering experience to our customers
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
Major 2G ALE Operational Networks
Network
USAF Scope
Command (1995)
Fixed/Trans.
Nodes
Mobile
Nodes
14
> 5000
Waveforms
•
•
•
Peace Shield (1988)
•
COTHEN (1985)
17+
>300
•
•
•
DEACN (1989)
1
100
•
•
•
U.S. Army NOE (1995)
>400
>2000
•
•
•
•
Australia HF Mod.
(1996)
4
200+
•
•
•
9
Coverage
2G ALE
AQC-ALE (Ground)
Voice/Data
Conventional HF
Worldwide
2G ALE
Conventional HF
Voice Privacy
USA
2G ALE
Conventional HF
Voice Privacy
Western
Hemisphere
2G ALE
AQC-ALE
Voice/Data
Conventional HF
Deployment
Area
2G ALE
Voice/Data
Conventional HF
Australia
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
What Are Customers Now Asking For?
Affordable Enhancements

–
–
–
–
More Responsive Networks

–
–
Quicker links
Reduced sounding overhead
Better Security

–
–
10
Military platform lifetimes being extended out of necessity
JTRS mandate causing reluctance to perform major
upgrades to legacy systems
“A-kit” modifications drive cost
Software-only upgrades very desirable
Linking protection
Physical security
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
What Are Customers Now Asking For?
Global Interoperability

–
–
Tailorable

–
–
Every customer has unique requirements not defined by a
standard
Waveforms must accommodate “bolt-on” capabilities
Better Traffic Compatibility

–
–
11
New waveforms must be backward compatible
Lowest common denominator determines cross-network
capabilities
Link setup should facilitate traffic type of choice, e.g. MILSTD-188-110B App. C QAM @ 9.6 kbps
Transparent link setup for networking
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
Other Issues for Consideration

In addition to the perceived needs previously listed,
customers need to consider things like:
–
–
–
–
–
12
Is the new waveform easy to set up and use? Are the tools in
place to allow me to manage my network effectively?
Is the new waveform scalable to my needs?
Does the new waveform increase the complexity of my
communications system, potentially affecting reliability,
maintenance, and cost?
Does the new waveform require infrastructure changes to be
effective, e.g. more authorized frequencies, higher RF power,
time/key dissemination and coordination, etc.
Is the new waveform mature? Has it been fielded and proven in
real-world networks under real-world scenarios?
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
The Enhanced ALE Landscape

MIL-STD-188-141B Appendix A, Alternative Quick Call
Automatic Link Establishment (AQC-ALE) System

MIL-STD-188-141B, Appendix C, Third Generation (3G)
HF Link Automation

STANAG 4538 Technical Standard for an Automatic Radio
Control System (ARCS)
13
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
The Enhanced ALE Landscape

14
MIL-STD-188-141B Appendix A, AQC-ALE
–
Variant of 2G ALE primarily designed to reduce
calling/sounding times
–
Asynchronous
–
6-character vs. 15-character addresses
–
Able to utilize most existing 2G-equipped radios with minor
(e.g. software upgrade) modifications
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
The Enhanced ALE Landscape


15
MIL-STD-188-141B, Appendix C, 3G ALE
–
Totally new ALE technology
–
Useful for faster linking, shorter/reduced sounding, more
robust performance, and better networking
–
Synchronous and asynchronous protocols
–
Requires significant processing power and highly integrated
modem, processor, and radio as well as accurate time
STANAG 4538 ARCS
–
Essentially the same as 3G with minor differences
–
Implementation requirements are also comparable to 3G
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
Selection Process Strategy

Assumptions
–
Type of customer – We will define 3 types



16
Type 1 - No prior HF capability
Type 2 - Currently using manual/channelized HF only
Type 3 - Currently using HF with 2G ALE
–
Assume no development cost for any of the waveforms
–
Assume MIL-STD-188-141B 3G ALE is equivalent to
STANAG 4538
–
All waveforms are assumed to be available from the same
source
–
Comparative assessment is subjective and is based on the
RCGS perspective
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
Selection Process Strategy


17
Using the previously identified needs, considerations, and
customer types, a matrix was constructed
The “best” waveform fit for each requirement was then
established for each customer type, providing a generic
assessment matrix
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
Selection Process Strategy

18
For a specific customer/program, the process is to:
1. Determine which customer type best fits the program
2. Delete any requirements that are not significant
3. Rank the remaining requirements from mostimportant to least-important based on the problem
space or needs
4. Finally, count the number of times a waveform type
appears under the applicable column
5. This, along with the ranked order of the need, should
provide a strong indication of the waveform that
should be considered
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
Selection Matrix
Customer Categorization
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
(No Prior HF)
(Manual HF Only)
(Using 2G ALE)
AQC-ALE
AQC-ALE
AQC-ALE
Upgradeable
3G ALE
3G ALE
AQC-ALE
Responsiveness
3G ALE
3G ALE
3G ALE
Backward Compatibility
3G ALE
3G ALE
AQC-ALE
Security
3G ALE
3G ALE
3G ALE
Traffic Compatibility
3G ALE
3G ALE
3G ALE
AQC-ALE
AQC-ALE
AQC-ALE
Tailorable
3G ALE
AQC-ALE
AQC-ALE
Long-Term Affordability
3G ALE
AQC-ALE
AQC-ALE
Network Management Tools
3G ALE
3G ALE
AQC-ALE
Scalable
AQC-ALE
AQC-ALE
AQC-ALE
Maturity
AQC-ALE
AQC-ALE
AQC-ALE
Complexity
AQC-ALE
AQC-ALE
AQC-ALE
Need
Acquisition Cost
Interoperability
19
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
Rationale
Customer Categorization
Example
Requirement
20
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
(No Prior HF)
(Manual HF Only)
(Using 2G ALE)
Acquisition Cost
AQC-ALE requires
less complex system
compared to 3G
AQC-ALE requires
less complex
system compared
to 3G
AQC-ALE requires
only software
upgrade to 2G
system
Traffic Compatibility
3G PSK modulation
provides better
calling-to-traffic
channel transition
performance
3G PSK modulation
provides better
calling-to-traffic
channel transition
performance
3G PSK modulation
provides better
calling-to-traffic
channel transition
performance
Network
Management Tools
User has no prior
ALE history – default
3G
User has no prior
ALE history –
default 3G
AQC-ALE requires
only software
upgrade to existing
tools like RCGS
Comm. Planning
System
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002
Conclusion



We have shown that there are many factors to
consider when evaluating advanced ALE waveforms
A customer’s current state of HF/ALE operational
capability will weigh heavily in the decision process
We have offered an approach to assist decision
makers in selecting an advanced ALE waveform
A paper that greatly expands on this
presentation will be posted on the HFIA
website in the near future.
21
Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 2002