A Qualitative Selection Process for Advanced ALE Waveforms Chuck Tefer Rockwell Collins Government Systems (RCGS) Division

A Qualitative Selection Process forAdvanced ALE Waveforms

Chuck Tefer

Rockwell Collins

Government Systems (RCGS) Division

Rockwell Collins, Inc. © 20022

Outline

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


Introduction 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


Why ALE?

HF radio communication traditionally required the full-time services of a highly skilled radio operator – Strict coordination of propagating frequency vs. time – Knowledge of global geography – Manual monitoring of one or more frequencies

Enter ALE – The goal was to make HF radio as easy to use as a telephone– Automated monitoring of multiple channels (Scanning)– Pseudo-real-time propagation update (Sounding)– Unique user ID (Addresses)– Simple connection (Automatic Linking)


HF Before ALEPROPAGATION

FORECASTMANUAL OPERATING

PROCEDURES

OPERATIONSSCHEDULE

COMM PLAN

PRIMARYDateFrequencyTime

ALTERNATEDateFrequencyTime

BACK-UP

AUTHORIZED FREQ LIST

HF COMMTRAINING MANUAL

Tuning The Radio

Listening Skills

Making Voice Calls

Following Comm Plan

Recovery From Comm Outages

CALENDAR

JAN FEB MAR

APR MAY JUN

9 3

6

12

PRIOR PLANNING AND COORDINATION REQUIRED

OPERATOR WORKLOAD INTENSIVE


HF After ALE

ADDRESSES

MANUAL OPERATING

PROCEDURES

OPERATIONSSCHEDULE

AUTHORIZED CHANNELS

HF COMMTRAINING MANUAL

ALE ProceduresCALENDAR

JAN FEB MAR

APR MAY JUN

9 3

6

12

MINIMAL PLANNING REQUIRED

MINIMAL OPERATOR WORKLOAD


ALE – A Historical Perspective

RCGS Introduces

SELSCAN®

MIL-STD-188-141A Released

Standards

Linking Protection Defined

MIL-STD-188-141A, CN1 Released

MIL-STD-188-141A, CN2 Released

MIL-STD-188-141B Released

MIL-STD-188-141B, CN1 released

ALEStandard/Feature Timeline

Manual Techniques Only Prior To This

(75 years)

Features

FED-STD-1045 Released

FED-STD-1045A Released

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

First of Type Automatic Linking

First U.S. DOD ALE Standard – 2G ALE

First U.S. Civil ALE Standard

Errata Corrections

AQC-ALE, 3G ALE, Networking, etc.

NATO STANAG Compatibility


RCGS Experience

Rockwell Collins has gained extensive experience as supplier to some of the largest ALE networks now in operation

– Over 9000 ALE-equipped products fielded– Standard HF supplier for USAF ground and airborne platforms

that comprise the largest operational, global-coverage 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


Major 2G ALE Operational Networks Network Fixed/Trans.

NodesMobile Nodes

Waveforms Coverage

USAF Scope Command (1995)

Peace Shield (1988)

14 > 5000 • 2G ALE• AQC-ALE (Ground)• Voice/Data• Conventional HF

Worldwide

COTHEN (1985) 17+ >300 • 2G ALE• Conventional HF• Voice Privacy

USA

DEACN (1989) 1 100 • 2G ALE• Conventional HF• Voice Privacy

Western Hemisphere

U.S. Army NOE (1995) >400 >2000 • 2G ALE• AQC-ALE• Voice/Data• Conventional HF

Deployment Area

Australia HF Mod. (1996)

4 200+ • 2G ALE• Voice/Data• Conventional HF

Australia


What Are Customers Now Asking For? Affordable Enhancements

– 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

More Responsive Networks– Quicker links– Reduced sounding overhead

Better Security– Linking protection– Physical security


What Are Customers Now Asking For?

Global Interoperability– New waveforms must be backward compatible– Lowest common denominator determines cross-network

capabilities

Tailorable – Every customer has unique requirements not defined by a

standard– Waveforms must accommodate “bolt-on” capabilities

Better Traffic Compatibility– Link setup should facilitate traffic type of choice, e.g. MIL-

STD-188-110B App. C QAM @ 9.6 kbps– Transparent link setup for networking


Other Issues for Consideration In addition to the perceived needs previously listed,

customers need to consider things like:– 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?


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)


The Enhanced ALE Landscape

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


The Enhanced ALE Landscape 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


Selection Process Strategy

Assumptions– Type of customer – We will define 3 types

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



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



For a specific customer/program, the process is to:1. Determine which customer type best fits the program2. Delete any requirements that are not significant3. Rank the remaining requirements from most-

important 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


Selection Matrix Customer Categorization

Need

Type 1

(No Prior HF)

Type 2

(Manual HF Only)

Type 3

(Using 2G ALE)

Acquisition Cost 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

Interoperability 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


Rationale

Example Customer Categorization

Requirement

Type 1

(No Prior HF)

Type 2

(Manual HF Only)

Type 3

(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


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.

Documents

A Qualitative Selection Process for Advanced ALE Waveforms Chuck Tefer Rockwell Collins Government Systems (RCGS) Division