NATO must enhance interoperability at the materiel and doctrinal levels to address threats it will face in the future, argues Commander Malte von Spreckelsen.
Commander Malte von Spreckelsen is a Deutsche Marine (German Navy) officer who has spent his career specialising in Electronic Warfare (EW). He was Section Chief of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (NATO’s) Joint Electronic Warfare Core Staff (JEWCS) and continues his work in EW with Germany’s armed forces.
“Interoperability between NATO forces is, in my view, a challenge,” says Cdr. von Spreckelsen. “First of all, you have different kinds of systems and sensors producing their own data formats. Secondly, you might have different classifications of the data. If you have solved both these challenges, and agreed on a common standard, you still need to figure out how to exchange the data. You must also ask with whom do you want to share this information, and how do you want to process it?”
Sharing relevant electronic warfare data across NATO militaries is a vexing challenge, although not insurmountable, Cdr. von Spreckelsen argues: “NATO has made steps to improve this,” he says, while warning this is “a slow process.” The first step to resolving interoperability issues is to build a common focus around “NATO nations to ensure the smooth exchange of EW data for future electromagnetic operations within the alliance and/or with other partners.”
C-EOB Format
Cdr. von Spreckelsen applauds NATO’s ongoing Command and Control of EW approach. This is a toolset developed by NATO headquarters. It will ensure EW data can be shared at all levels of war from tactical, through to operational and strategic, with the electromagnetic battle staff supporting the specific operation. A key step in this regard, Cdr. von Spreckelsen says, is the agreement across NATO for a Common Electronic Order of Battle Exchange Format (C-EOB Format). This defined data exchange format is an important step forward in resolving the data sharing challenges he discusses above: “I am looking forward to seeing the progress on C-EOB Format and seeing how it will be implemented in the future.”
The evolution of C-EOB Format walks hand-in-hand with similar advances the alliance has made concerning the NATO Emitter Database (NEDB). The NEDB is the common alliance-wide repository of information on electromagnetic emitters alliance members must be aware of. The latest NEDB incarnation is called Scorpio. Scorpio has transformed the NEDB into a “modern web-based software architecture so that the overall handling of the shared EW data is fit for purpose, and the production of an EOB for NATO operations is easier than in the past.”
Cdr. von Spreckelsen argues these advances in NEDB architecture and C-EOB Format’s realisation must be complemented by a move towards IP (Internet Protocol) based battlespace communications architectures. As we all see in our daily civilian lives, IP communications ease data sharing: “With this it does not matter anymore what communications medium you use to transport the information,” whether this uses conventional radio, satellite or even cellular communications. As the late General George S. Patton observed: “Information is like eggs. The fresher the better.” The pace with which EW data can move around the battlespace could mean the difference between success and failure.
CESMO
Alongside the C-EOB Format, NATO’s CESMO (Cooperative Electronic Support Measure Operations) standard is moving forward. This takes data produced by ESMs, shares it over communications networks and uses software to exploit this data to triangulate the position of hostile emitters. As CESMO uses existing communications links it only needs dedicated software and a computer. These process the incoming Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) and triangulate the emitters. Once the hostile emitters are identified they can be avoided or engaged using kinetic, electronic or cyber effects.
Cdr. von Spreckelsen says that “CESMO is a game-changer in my view.” Specifications for the CESMO protocol are covered in NATO’s Standardisation Agreement 4658 and Allied Engineering Documentation Publication 13. “All NATO nations have access to CESMO and can develop their own solutions and interfaces,” he continues. CESMO software inhabiting a platform’s ESM will turn the ELINT into IP data that is then transmitted. For example, a link translator like Curtiss-Wright’s HUNTR software takes CESMO data moving across one link, such as encrypted ultra-high frequency radio, and converts it into data which can be sent across the US Wideband Global Satellite communications constellation.
Doctrine and Training
Nonetheless, Cdr. von Spreckelsen is keen to stress that “interoperability is not only a question of correct and common equipment. It will be enhanced as well by using agreed procedures and a common understanding of how to operate.” He stresses that NATO EW policy and doctrine must always be up-to-date citing the alliance’s AJP-3.6 Allied Joint Doctrine for Electronic Warfare publication. The latest AJP-3.6C version is a complete rewrite of the preceding AJP-3.5B edition. The former created an up-to-date approach for operational electronic warfare and electromagnetic operations in general. It is important that “all nations within NATO ratify the appropriate EW-related doctrine and standards so that within NATO we all speak the same language.”
Last but by no means least, Cdr. von Spreckelsen stresses the importance of alliance-wide EW training: “Without exercising all the different nations and different systems we fail to identify the shortfalls and the lack of interoperability. ‘Train as you fight’ counts for EW as it does for all other warfighting areas.” NATO must continue to foster interoperability at capability and doctrinal levels. Meanwhile it must ensure regular alliance-wide EW training opportunities. As the alliance faces a multitude of threats near and far, this is imperative.
by Dr. Thomas Withington
