ISR capability package assessment study (ICPA)eda.europa.eu/docs/default-source/procurement/icpa...3.2.4. Cost Assessment The cost of the architecture takes into account the full life-cycle

ICPA_SYN_056_1.3 Page 1/21

EU UNCLASSIFIED

ISR capability package assessment

study (ICPA)

(EDA Reference 10.CAP.OP.018)

Executive Summary


EU UNCLASSIFIED

Table of Content

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 4

1.1. AIM OF THE DOCUMENT................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2. STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4

2. REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION, TERMINOLOGY AND FORMALISMS............. 5

2.1. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 5

2.2. ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 5

3. METHODOLOGY AND USE OF THE BIAM ........................................................... 6

3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE BIAM ............................................................................................................................ 6

3.2. MAIN STEPS FOLLOWED DURING THE STUDY ..................................................................................................... 6

3.2.1. Review of the Requirements ................................................................................................................. 6

3.2.2. Definition of the Architectures ............................................................................................................. 7

3.2.3. Assessment of Resulting Efficiency for the Architecture ...................................................................... 8

3.2.4. Cost Assessment ................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.5. Risks Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 9

3.2.6. Synthetic Vision (FocalPointTM) ....................................................................................................... 10

4. MAIN RESULTS OF ICPA STUDY USING THE BIAM ......................................... 13

4.1. FOR SCENARIO 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 14

4.2. FOR SCENARIO 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 15

4.3. LIMITATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................ 15

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ASSOCIATED TO CAPABILITY PACKAGES ................. 17

6. ROADMAP PROPOSAL ........................................................................................ 20

7. POSSIBLE WAY AHEAD ...................................................................................... 21


EU UNCLASSIFIED

Table of Figures

Illustration 1: Architecture assessment methodology ........................................................................... 6

Illustration 2 Links between the various workbooks .......................................................................... 10

Figure 3 Example of architecture assessment using FocalPoint™ ..................................................... 11

Illustration 4 Global architectures assessment for Scenario 1 using FocalPoint™ ............................. 14

Illustration 5 Global architectures assessment for Scenario 1 using FocalPoint™ ............................. 15

Illustration 6: Notional view of an integrated study group conducting a concurrent design

session related to ISR architectures .................................................................................................. 19


EU UNCLASSIFIED

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Aim of the Document

This document presents a synthesis of the ISR Capability Package Assessment Study. It explains the

methodology adopted, the structure of the model, and the details of its implementation as an Excel

and FocalPoint suite of tools. It also presents the main results of the assessments performed and the

main recommendations that came out of them.

This document is one of the deliverables produced in the course of the ICPA (ISR Capability package

Assessment) study conducted for EDA (European Defence Agency) in cooperation with ESA

(European Space Agency). The deliverables of this study are:

During phase 1 (Identification of EU ISR Capability Gaps):

Analysis of EU operations, missions and deployment requirements (including list of

scenarios and choice recommendations);

Selected Instantiated Scenarios;

Draft Balance of Investment Analysis Model (the present document);

EU ISR Gap Assessment;

During phase 2 (Design and Assessment of EU ISR Capability Packages):

Full Balance of Investment Analysis Model;

To Be Architectures for Short Term;

To Be Architectures for Long Term;

To Be Architecture Assessments;

Recommendations and Roadmap Proposal;

Executive summary (the present document).

1.2. Structure of the Document

After a brief description of the model, the document focuses on the main steps that where followed

during the course of the study.

Then, it presents the results of the assessment.

Lastly, it indicates the high level recommendations.


EU UNCLASSIFIED

2. REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION, TERMINOLOGY AND

FORMALISMS

[A1] 10-CAP-018 Service Contract EDA

2.1. Reference Documents

[R1] ICPA_MGT_003 Project Management Plan XXXX

[R2] ICPA_STR_020 Analysis of EU operations XXXX

[R3] ICPA_STR_021 Selected Instantiated Scenarios XXXX

[R4] ICPA_STR_044 Full Balance of Investment Analysis Model XXXX

[R5] ICPA_STR_045 To Be Architectures for Short Term XXXX

[R6] ICPA_STR_046 To Be Architectures for Long Term XXXX

[R7] ICPA_STR_029 EU ISR Gap Assessment XXXX

[R8] ICPA_STR_054 To Be Architectures Assessment XXXX

[R9] ICPA_STR_055 Recommendations and roadmap proposals XXXX

[R10] ICPA_TN_016 NAV-2, Integrated Dictionary XXXX

2.2. Acronyms and Terminology

The main terms are defined in the NAV-2, Integrated Dictionary (reference 10). Some of them are

nevertheless mentioned here for convenience.

Acronym Meaning Domain

BIAM Balance of Investment Analysis Model Methodology

XXXX xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx consortium Industry

CDF Concurrent Design Facility (at ESA/ESTEC) General

COMINT Communication Intelligence Intelligence

ECM Electromagnetic Counter Measures Technical

EDA European Defence Agency EU Institutions

ELINT Electronics Intelligence Intelligence

ESA European Space Agency Space

ESTEC European Space Research and Technology Centre Space

HUMINT HUMan INTelligence Intelligence

ICPA ISR Capability Package Assessment Intelligence

IMINT Imagery Intelligence Intelligence

ISR Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Intelligence

KAC Key Asset Characteristics Methodology

KPI Key Performance Indicators Methodology

LEO Low Earth Orbit Space

MS Member States EU Institutions

MTI Moving Target Indication Intelligence

OSINT Open Source INTelligence Intelligence

PRI Performance Requirement Indicators Methodology

PT ISR Project Team ISR EU Institutions

SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar Technical

SIGINT Signals Intelligence Intelligence

TCO Total Cost of Ownership Technical

TRL Technology Readiness Level Technical

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Air


EU UNCLASSIFIED

3. METHODOLOGY AND USE OF THE BIAM

3.1. Description of the BIAM

The model intends to provide efficiency, cost, risk and other operational benefits rates of the

architecture for each scenario.

Those four rates are elaborated separately, as described in the following paragraphs.

Then, they are combined in a synthetic view, where each rate is weighted in function of the

importance we want to give it in the global assessment.

Illustration 1: Architecture assessment methodology

3.2. Main steps followed during the study

The ICPA study followed the main steps described bellow.

3.2.1. Review of the Requirements

Starting from the high level requirement provided in the contract, the XXXX team first performed an

analysis of the ISR aspects of recent European Union (EU) operations [R2]. It led to the selection of

four scenarios [R3].

Scenario 1 – Protection of sea lines;

Scenario 2 – Peace enforcement;

Scenario 3 – Peace keeping;

Scenario 4 – Evacuation.

During the course of the study, it was decided not to focus on Scenario 3 & Scenario 4, mostly

because the asset or ISR architecture would be pretty much the same than in scenario 2. Also, the


EU UNCLASSIFIED

two last scenarios were more focused on executing operations than gathering intelligence and

surveillance data.

Based on analysis by XXXX experts, who were former Army and Navy officers, Performance

Requirement Indicators (PRIs) were identified for each scenario. This ended a first step of the study.

3.2.2. Definition of the Architectures

Once the operational scenarios had been defined, with PRIs associated, a list of candidate’s assets

was established for each scenario. In the first phase of the study, since the BIAM was not yet

operative and had to be modified by the XXXX team, the assets were listed only for the current

situation. They were then assembled together to form what was then called after the As Is

Architecture.

Each asset was described in terms of Key Asset Characteristics (KACs): operational mode (tracking,

recognition, imaging, SIGINT analysis, etc.), spatial coverage, temporal employment, crew size,

communication capacities, vulnerabilities, costs, etc. KACs were stored in a series of six Asset

Workbooks.

In the course of the study, three main types of assets were described:

Collection assets: aircraft, helicopters, UAVs, airships, EO satellite, ships, maritime

surveillance systems, ground units, unattended sensors and robots, animals, etc.

Communication assets: ground tactical communications (VHF), joint data links (L11, L16),

satellite links, satellite relays, etc.

Processing assets: hubs that concentrate part of the data transmitted from the collection

assets by the communication assets: command and control nodes, maritime surveillance

agencies, data fusion nodes, liaison officers, etc.

In phase 1, an As Is architecture was described.

In phase 2, two Short Term architecture alternatives [R5] and two Long Term architecture alternatives

[R6] were defined, including a list of assets, some that would be available in short term (2015), others

forecasted only for long term (2030). The alternatives were defined to try to overcome gaps identified

in Phase 1 [R7], using the consortium expertise on the future alternative of ISR global solutions.

Based on specifications provided by the XXXX consortium, and accessing cost data contained in the

Asset Workbook and risk data contained in the Architect Workbook, ESTEC Cost and Risk experts

built the Costs and Risks workbooks.


EU UNCLASSIFIED

Figure 1: Example of workbooks supporting the BIAM model

(asset workbook and architect workbook)

3.2.3. Assessment of Resulting Efficiency for the Architecture

Then came the time of assessment; taking into account the Key Asset Characteristics (KACs),

formulas allow to compute what is called Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that reflect to what

extent the combination of asset (the architecture) provides the required functionality. These KPIs take

numerical values that can then be compared to the required PRIs (Performance Requirement

Indicators). Elaborating the KPIs requires "expert judgment" and manual inputs or adjustments in

some computed values to take into account phenomena that cannot be modelled on a coarse grain

model.

The assessment was first performed on the As Is architectures for the two scenarios [R7], then on

the short term [R5] and long term [R6] architectures on the same scenarios.

Having several architectures highlighted the need to compare their respective merits in a synthetic

way. To achieve this, a summarisation KPI was defined: the Functional Efficiency (the ability to

perform the required function), which is the result of calculation based upon the other (more detailed)

KPIs.

The Functional Efficiency of course depends on the nature of the requirement. For example, in the

Scenario 1, key parameters for measuring the architecture efficiency have been identified related to

the ability to establish a relevant maritime picture: civilian traffic, fishing ships, pirate mother ships

and pirate skiffs. This means detecting, tracking ships and skiffs, and getting identity of the

commercial ships.


EU UNCLASSIFIED

Three types of Functional Efficiency parameters have been used in the study, according to the

requirement considered: "Name-Tagging_Efficiency", Identification_Efficiency,

Recognition_Efficiency and Counter-mine_Efficiency. They are sometimes linked to the

Tracking_Efficiency which is a measure of the ability of an architecture to keep track of the

movements of targets.

The global assessment process for the Functional efficiency is presented in [R9]. It is also

summarized in the §4.

3.2.4. Cost Assessment

The cost of the architecture takes into account the full life-cycle of the assets used in the deployed

instantiated architecture. The Life-Cycle Cost (LCC, also called Total Cost of Ownership – TCO) is

traditionally built in the following way:

LCC = CAcq + COpn + CDecom

where CAcq represents the cost of Acquisition, COpn represents the cost of Operation (usage and

maintenance), and CDecom represents the cost of Decommissioning (or dismantlement).

Many cost components of the life-cycle cost were not accessible to the XXXX team, neither to

ESTEC. Some (many) may not even be accessible to the pMS representatives. The life expectancy

of an asset depends on the operations it participates to. For example, life expectancy for aircraft is

sometimes expressed in hours of flight.

All these reasons make it clear that, for the sake of the study, a simplification of the estimate has to

be done. Although simplifying can always be disputed, we believe that the formula described in the

following section can give “good enough” results for the cost evaluation necessary to perform the

Balance of Investment Analysis.

In the BIAM model, the cost of an architecture was evaluated as the sum of the costs of all assets

plus the sum of the prices of all the products that have to be acquired (e.g. images taken from

space).

3.2.5. Risks Assessment

The standard Risk Workbook provided by ESTEC includes the various risk parameters.

Human Loss Risk: this risk is calculated based on the crew size of the unit, the assessed

vulnerability to the following threats: air, ground-based air defence, heavy arms, small

arms or electronic counter-measures (ECM).

Technology risk: it is link to the level of maturity of the main components of the asset (e.g.

the sensors in the payload) and is evaluated based on the Technical Readiness Levels

(TRLs);

Integration risk: this is linked to the complexity of the architectures. It relies on the

interaction of a heterogeneous set of assets to achieve its goals. The number of different


EU UNCLASSIFIED

interfaces used by each asset lead to complex integration. This problem becomes worse if

these interfaces are at different maturity/development levels.

Political risk: this characterize the risk that the asset could not be used du to political

reasons;

Asset availability: asset might not be available for the mission, which decrease the asset

capacity and represent a risk for the EU staff and for the global architecture;

Limited sources: this risk is related to the problem of resource. For a given asset type, the

greater the number of different member states that own that type of asset, the lower the

likelihood of that asset type not being available for use.

Governance: In the course of the study, this governance risk was identified to characterize

and simplify by grouping political risk, availability risk and limited sources risk.

3.2.6. Synthetic Vision (FocalPointTM)

The BIAM model resulting from the study is a series of connected workbooks, as shown on the

following diagram. The details of the workbook are necessary to describe the assets, the architecture,

then to assess them and record the assessments for further reference.

Illustration 2 Links between the various workbooks


EU UNCLASSIFIED

The last tool in the chain, FocalPoint™, allows making the final step of an architecture study by

presenting the respective merits of the studied alternative architectures in a synthetic and easily

understandable format. This software is then the preferred tool to perform the final assessment which

combines Efficiency, Risk and Cost in front of the decision makers.

The definitive choice of a preferred architecture was then performed at the ESTEC Concurrent

Design Facility (CDF) by setting the weights associated to each of the key parameters of the BIAM

model (key performance indicator(s), cost order of magnitude indicator, risk indicators, other

operational benefit indicator).

These weights can be adjusted to reflect the importance given to each of the parameters in the eyes

of the audience (decision-makers). The merits of the architecture are then displayed in a graphical

form as figured below.

Figure 3 Example of architecture assessment using FocalPoint™

On this kind of diagram, each architecture alternative is represented by a horizontal bar made of

different sub-parts:

On the right of the vertical line separating the diagram in two, the various key indicators

that are to be maximised:

Functional efficiency (in light orange colour);


EU UNCLASSIFIED

Other operational benefits (representing the limitation of the footprint of the architecture

on the theatre as suggested by the PT ISR Chairman during the CDF3/4 session in

Noordwijk (October 2011)) (in light green colour);

On the left part of the diagram, the various key indicators that are to be minimised:

Human loss risk (in light orange colour);

Annual cost of ownership (in pink colour);

Governance risk (in khaki colour);

Technology risk (in dark green colour).

The length of each sub-part is proportional to the value of the key parameter it represents. If we

subtract all the indicators on the left to the indicators on the right, we get a result that is materialised

by a glider (two black triangles facing each other). The architecture alternative for which the glider is

the most on the right is the preferred alternative.

Changing the weights of the key parameters moves the gliders and therefore changes the ranking of

the various alternatives. Since we have no access to the set of weights that are considered

appropriate in the eyes of the PT ISR, we have established the weights as follows:

Functional efficiency and Annual cost of ownership are assigned an equal weight (41.6%);

Technology risk and Other operational benefits are assigned a value that is approximately

1/10th of the previous weight (4.2%);

Human loss risk is assigned a value that is twice this value (8.3%).


EU UNCLASSIFIED

4. MAIN RESULTS OF ICPA STUDY USING THE BIAM

The BIAM allowed performing first a detailed functional analysis of the five alternatives of architectures for each of the two scenarios. The result of this

analysis is firstly summarised in the Synthesis sheet of the Architecture Workbook.

The diagram shown below represents this synthesis sheet. A more detailed view of this sheet allows seeing the contributions of the various requirements to

the final rating of an architecture, but it is not presented here. The first columns present the architecture alternatives and the scenarios considered. The

Functional Efficiency Rate and Tracking Efficiency Rate are computed by making a weighted sum of the efficiency rates for each scenario.


EU UNCLASSIFIED

4.1. For Scenario 1

The following chart is a screenshot from FocalPoint TM

representing the respective merits of the

architecture alternatives compared to the As Is architecture in the light of scenario 1.

Illustration 4 Global architectures assessment for Scenario 1 using FocalPoint™

The first interpretation attached to this chart is that, with the chosen set of weights, the short term

Capability Packages do not prove to be good candidates. They can however be improved by:

Removing all assets that have a negligible contribution to the global efficiency, so that their

costs isn’t put into the balance;

Removing assets that have a redundant contribution (acquisition of the same kind of

information, in the same area, at the same time);

Adjusting the numbers of assets deployed to optimise the global coverage.

The Chart lightshows that, even not completely optimised at this point, the Long Term alternatives

(and especially Long Term 2) could be good targets.


EU UNCLASSIFIED

4.2. For Scenario 2

The following chart is a screenshot from FocalPointTM

representing the respective merits of the

architecture alternatives compared to the As Is architecture in the light of scenario 1.

Illustration 5 Global architectures assessment for Scenario 1 using FocalPoint™

The first interpretation attached to this chart is that the four To Be Capability Packages provide good

improvements of the Functional efficiency and other operational benefits. It shows also that these

improvements are affordable in terms of Risks and Costs compared to the current situation.

The Chart shows that the Long Term 2 Capability Package has a much more important Functional

Efficiency. However, this optimistic assessment should be tempered by the fact that the BIAM allows

adding the functional efficiencies of collection asset, without taking care of the real operational

employment plan of the assets. In the real world, one shall not have two assets operating with similar

capabilities.

4.3. Limitations of the Assessment

The analysis process makes benefit of:

on one hand, the assessment made with the various calculations of the workbooks on

functional efficiency, risk and cost;

on the other hand, a concurrent design session, where all the characteristics of the various

alternative of architectures could be compared in a single FocalPoint™ chart.


EU UNCLASSIFIED

One thing was missing though: the timing and organisation of the study didn’t allow to a full extent the

complete integration of the EU representatives and decision makers into the process, so that they

can share, in good knowledge, the full understanding of the results of the study. That is why the

XXXX consortium did not feel that it was in a position to recommend the selection of a specific

capability package at the end of the study but rather recommended to set up an integrated study

group to work on architectures for the future by leveraging on the findings of the present study.

The BIAM that was delivered at the end of the study is available, functional, and can be used in

collaborative sessions with operational experts to assess future changes envisioned for the ISR

architecture. It can be reused at will and applied to a large variety of topics.

Moreover, the architecture alternatives that were proposed go in the right direction even though they

can still be optimised according to the expert opinions of key stakeholders.

EDA is now in possession of:

A set of operational scenarios;

An As Is architecture to serve as a reference for comparisons;

Four proposed To Be architecture alternatives;

An existing Balance of Investment Analysis Model.

The BIAM tool is now ready for extensive use by a team of experts working on well-defined topics in

sessions allowing sharing the proposal and assessment of alternative architectures.


EU UNCLASSIFIED

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ASSOCIATED TO CAPABILITY

PACKAGES

Based upon the findings of the study, some capability packages could be further researched by the

EU Member States. They focus mostly on technologies (Materiel), but of course, some important

work is also necessary in terms of Doctrine, Organisation, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel,

Facilities, and common mutual understanding of each Member State capabilities and employment

procedures.

To help identifying the origin of the recommendations, a colour code has been used:

Justification: This recommendation comes from the analysis performed with the BIAM.

Justification: This recommendation comes from the identification of the ISR gaps and the

construction of the architecture alternatives.

Justification: This recommendation comes from the consortium general reflection about ISR.

From this partial conclusion presented before, we can suggest short term and long term approaches,

with two sets of action streams which should help to improve the global system efficiency.

Short term recommendations

Recommendations concerning Collection assets

Action stream #ST7: Work on SAR/MTI and SIGINT assets.

Action stream #ST9: Research about the usage and definition of unattended sensors

and robots for intelligence acquisition.

Recommendations concerning Communication assets

Action stream #ST3: Improve interoperable communication systems.

Action stream #ST5: Improve freshness of image by reducing the transmission delay

of the acquired image.

Recommendations concerning Processing assets

Action stream #ST6: OSINT capacity and software suite

Action stream #ST8: Increase on-board processing of ISR Sensors

Recommendations concerning Supporting Measures

Action stream #ST1: Provide comprehensive and accurate description of EU MS

assets to operational staffs.

Action stream #ST2: Develop EU common doctrine and procedures.

Action stream #ST4: Improve interoperability in terms of data exchange standards


EU UNCLASSIFIED

Long term recommendations

Recommendations concerning Collection assets

Action stream #LT3: Work on COMINT/ELINT.

Action stream #LT9: Utilisation of HR GEO space systems

Recommendations concerning Communication assets

Action stream #LT4: Improve interoperable communications.

Recommendations concerning Processing assets

Action stream #LT5: Develop or acquire tools for optimisation of asset employment.

Action stream #LT6: Work on algorithms to automate or improve parts of the

intelligence process.

Recommendations concerning Supporting Measures

Action stream #LT1: Define the doctrinal framework for the employment of multiple air

systems.

Action stream #LT2: Work on interoperable ground-based tactical acquisition assets.

Recommendations concerning new Types of Platforms

Action stream #LT7: Develop Long endurance UAV or Airship capacity

Action stream #LT8: Fractionated, Composable, Survivable, Autonomous Systems

More details are given in [R9] “Recommendations and roadmap proposals”.

Finally, recommendations are also made in terms of the modelling tools that could help conducting

future capability studies.

Action stream #M&T1: Integrate “average” descriptions of EU MS assets in the BIAM.

Action stream #M&T2: Better discriminate functional performance according to the various

ISR domains (IMINT, RADINT-ELINT, COMINT-HUMINT-OSINT).

Action stream #M&T3: Improve the BIAM model.

Action stream #M&T4: Use tools for defining the complementariness of assets.

Action stream #M&T5: Use wargaming tools in complement of the BIAM.

Action stream #M&T6: Define and implement an improved assessment methodology.

Leveraging on the ICPA study and its lessons learnt, we have now a better understanding of

how concurrent design sessions should be conducted to help the assessment of ISR

Capability packages. The salient points of such a methodology are:

A Multidisciplinary Team with Access to Decision-Makers;

A Unity of Time and Space; The team members have to be in the same place at the same

time, often and for a significant period of time;

Usage of Concurrent Design Techniques with Use of Appropriate Tooling (including the

BIAM and simulation tools);

The integrated study group members have to challenge each other, because every

aspect of the design (from the statement of the requirements to the technical “details” of


EU UNCLASSIFIED

the solution) needs to be discussed, refined, assessed, amended, and reassessed again

and again).

The subject chosen shall not be too wide and the level of expectations shall be consistent

with the effort that can be devoted to the task. A special attention shall be given to the

combinatory aspects in such a study (90,000 Excel cells in the ICPA study).

Such sessions could be conducted under the EDA Captech ESM3 "System of System &

BattleLabs" new orientation.

Illustration 6: Notional view of an integrated study group conducting a concurrent design

session related to ISR architectures

More details are also available in [R9] “Recommendations and roadmap proposals”.

6. ROADMAP PROPOSAL

The roadmap proposed to orchestrate the various action streams identified previously is shown hereafter.


EU UNCLASSIFIED

7. POSSIBLE WAY AHEAD

The most urgently needed steps, in our eyes are the following ones:

Concerning collection assets (parts of Action stream

#ST9): Perform a general study related to unmanned ground

acquisition opportunities;

Then perform in-depth studies related to unmanned

ground acquisition needs for the various use cases

identified; Concerning communication assets (parts of Action stream

#ST3): Identify cooperation opportunities with international

bodies (mainly NATO) working on future land

communications; Identify cooperation opportunities with international

bodies (mainly NATO) working on future tactical data

links; Concerning pooling and sharing assets:

Establish national lists of assets that can be shared in a

EU operation (part of Action stream #ST1);

Establish a list of asset characteristics that are needed

(part of Action stream #ST1);

Provide nationally the asset characteristics of the

shareable assets (part of Action stream #ST1);

Gather, administer, and disseminate these

characteristics to the various levels needing them

(remaining part of Action stream #ST1); Perform a study related to the needs in terms of

interoperability capabilities related to Intelligence and

with the Multinational Interoperability Programme (MIP)


EU UNCLASSIFIED

has started to build a taxonomy of operational interoperability capabilities (part of Action

stream #ST4);

Delegate to a multinational standardisation organisation the proposal of an

interoperability solution (part of Action stream #ST4);

Perform a study related to the needs in terms of interoperability capabilities related to

ground-based tactical acquisition and liaise with the Multinational Interoperability

Programme (MIP) that has started to build a taxonomy of operational interoperability

capabilities (part of Action stream #LT2).