STANAG 4586 – Standard Interfaces of UAV Control System ( UCS ) for NATO UAV Interoperability

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) are changing the way military and civil operations are carried out. New types of vehicles, from different providers, each with its own specifications and characteristic, are continuously being developed. This diversity leads to an increased level of difficulty in terms of interoperability. The objective of STANAG 4586 is to specify the interfaces that shall be implemented in order to achieve the required Level of Interoperability (LOI) between different UAV systems, so as to meet the requirements of the concept of operations (CONOPS) defined by NATO countries. STANAG 4586 establishes a functional architecture for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Control Systems (UCS) with the following elements and interfaces: Air Vehicle (AV), Vehicle Specific Module (VSM), Data Link Interface (DLI), Core UCS (CUCS), Command and Control Interface (CCI), Human Computer Interface (HCI), and Command and Control Interface Specific Module (CCISM). Besides STANAG 4586, there are already a number of existing or emerging Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) that are applicable to UAV ́s. They provide standards for interoperable data link (STANAG 7085), digital sensor data between the payload and the UAV element of the data link (STANAG 7023, 4545, 4607, and 4609), and for on-board recording device(s) (STANAG 7024 and 4575). Although not providing a complete solution for interoperability, STANAG 4586 is certainly a crucial step taken in that direction, providing a roadmap for future developments. 1.0 INTRODUCTION During the last years, Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles (UAV) became a niche in continuous expansion within the aerospace market. With an investment that may exceed billions of dollars by 2015, it is predictable that the next generation will possess even more capabilities than today’s [1]. The UAV ́s are changing the way military and civil operations are carried out. This technology is gaining increasing awareness and promises to bring a higher level of efficiency to tasks such as data and image acquisition of areas of interest, localization and tracking of specific targets (target detection, classification and identification), map building, communication relays, pipeline surveying, border patrolling, military operations, policing duties, persistent wide area surveillance, search and rescue, and traffic surveillance. Therefore, the use of such systems provides a credible alternative to manned aircraft. They operate in conditions more dangerous with more autonomy and can be very cost-effective when compared to manned aircraft. A North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Interoperability Design Study was conducted in the early 1990s to investigate ways to enable interoperability of electronic systems. One of the approaches considered was to mandate that all nations procure and operate the same systems. However, it was emphasised at this time that NATO could not mandate interoperability of national reconnaissance systems, but that interoperability among national systems would be purely voluntary. It was not considered a good idea to have one contractor monopolise the reconnaissance systems in NATO. Instead, a comparison was drawn between communications between reconnaissance systems and computer-to-computer communications. By STO-EN-SCI-271 3 1 STANAG 4586–Standard Interfaces of UCS for NATO UAV Interoperability carefully defining an interface between two computers we can be assured of a successful exchange of data between them [2]. The evolution leads to the development of even more types of vehicles, from even more different providers, each with its own specifications and characteristics. This diversity leads to an increased level of difficulty in terms of guaranteed interoperability in teams of heterogeneous vehicles [3]. Most of the times the current operations with multiple vehicles and with multiple countries are as seen in Figure 1. Figure 1: Current UAV ́s Operations Example [4]. The UAV ́s have become valuable assets in helping Joint Force Commanders (JFCs) meet a variety of theatre, operational and tactical objectives. The optimum synergy among the various national UAV ́s deployed requires close co-ordination and the ability to quickly task available UAV ́s assets, the ability to mutually control the UAV ́s and their payloads, as well as rapid dissemination of the resultant information at different command echelons. This requires the employed UAV ́s to be interoperable [4]. Often, UAV’s are used for reconnaissance missions, which make them the predominant collection systems across virtually every echelon of command. As a consequence, the need to coordinate, share and integrate the UAV into the larger war fighting community is becoming painfully apparent [5]. UAV can be divided into these five different elements: vehicle (propulsion unit and avionics unit), payload (mission payload and payload recorder), data link (vehicle data terminal and control data terminal), UAV Control System (UCS) and launch/recovery, as shown in Figure 2. 3 2 STO-EN-SCI-271 STANAG 4586–Standard Interfaces of UCS for NATO UAV Interoperability Figure 2: UAV System Elements [4]. Nowadays cooperative missions are in great demand. Missions using heterogeneous vehicles to perform complex operations are demanding more complex infrastructures to support them. There are many issues to address when working with different kinds of vehicles from different vendors, different capabilities and more important different interfaces to the end user. Interoperability is one of the most problematic issues. This is because there is no common acceptable interface. There are several interoperability efforts at several stages of development, but still not one widely accepted and used [6]. 1.1 Standard and interoperability International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines a standard as a set of “requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose” [7]. To ensure an appropriate level of development, advantage should be taken from existing standardization approaches while avoiding the risk of inheriting undesirable or restrictive complexity. The existing standards for interoperability are a mean to provide rules for the robots inner/outer communications. They define data and message types, operation modes and optionally transport protocols. Interoperability can be defined as the ability of robots to operate in synergy to the execution of assigned missions and the capability of diverse systems and organizations to work together, sharing data, intelligence and resources. The use of interoperability standards implies a secondary advantage. It also facilitates the compatibility with existing or future platforms and Command, Control and Intelligence (C2I) systems from other providers. Interoperability standards provide a common framework, working as the “glue” for unmanned systems. They minimize the integration time and development costs by avoiding custom STO-EN-SCI-271 3 3 STANAG 4586–Standard Interfaces of UCS for NATO UAV Interoperability implementations. A common interface helps to easily integrate new technologies with minor or no modifications to the existing systems, and to expand existing systems with new sensors or capabilities. 1.2 NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) Shortly after the establishment of NATO, it was recognized that the co-ordinated development of policies, procedures and equipment of the member nations held great potential for enhancing the military effectiveness and efficiency of the fledgling Alliance. As a result, the Military Agency for Standardization (MAS) was established in London in January 1951 for the purpose of fostering the standardization of operational and administrative practices and war material [8]. In 1971 the MAS moved to NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, where, following the 1998-2000 review of the NATO Standardization Process, it was combined with the Office of NATO Standardization (which addressed broader standardization issues such as identifying overall Alliance standardization goals and co-ordination between operational and material activities). The Charter of the resultant NATO Standardization Agency (NSA), approved in August 2001, gave the NSA expanded responsibilities for the co-ordination of standardization activities within NATO [8]. In July 2014, as a result of the NATO Agencies Reform, the NSA became without change in its mission the NATO Standardization Office (NSO). It is an integrated NATO Headquarters staff element, reporting to the Military Committee and the Committee for Standardization [8]. The STANAG (Standardisation Agreement) standards are published in English and French by NATO to provide common military or technical procedures for NATO members. They define processes, procedures, terms, and conditions for common procedures or equipment between the member countries of the alliance. STANAGs also form the basis for technical interoperability between a wide variety of communication and information systems (CIS). Some are publicly available in NATO's online library [8]. 2.0 STANAG 4586 In 1998, a NATO Specialist Team comprising members of government and industry (including CDL Systems) began work on NATO Standardization Agreement 4586 (STANAG 4586), a document conceived to standardize UCS interfaces to help enable UAV systems interoperability. STANAG 4586 Edition 1 was completed in 2003 and ratified by the member countries by 2004, Edition 2 was promulgated in 2007 and Edition 3 was promulgated in 2012 [4]. STANAG 4586 is divided into two annexes: the first annex provides a glossary to support the second annex, the second annex provides an overview of the communication architecture, which is supported by three appendices: appendix B1 discusses the data link interface, appendix B2 discusses the command and control interface (more specifically B2 covers the