60
TECH BRIEF - LINK 16 MODERNISATION
TECH BRIEF
LINK 16 MODERNISATION Part 2 – Strategy Development BY FELIX DEFENCE
T
he May - June issue of ADBR explored the four key enhancements delivered by Link 16 modernisation. Modernisation of the ADF’s primary Tactical Data Link (TDL) will directly affect the joint force’s capability and capacity to remain at the tactical edge and will most certainly impact our ability to remain fully interoperable with our closest operational ally, the United States. There are two considerations associated with Link 16 modernisation which involve either upgrading the pre-existing MIDS-Low Volume Terminal (LVT), or acquiring the new MIDS-Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS). This is not a straightforward decision as capability managers need to balance how to remain fully interoperable and ensure a complete operational capability while meeting mandated operational deadlines, procurement schedules, costs, integration effort and the subsequent maintenance and support needs. In this issue we will examine the strengths and weaknesses of choosing to upgrade an existing MIDS-LVT against acquiring a new MIDS-JTRS, while ensuring an interoperable Link 16 capability.
BLOCK UPGRADE 2 Block Upgrade (BU) 2 is the name given to upgrade the older hardware-defined MIDS-LVT Link 16 terminals, and the level of effort necessary requires further analysis due to several factors. Firstly, while BU2 provides three of the four enhancements – Cryptographic Modernisation (CM), Frequency Remapping, and Enhanced Throughput (ET) – it does not support the fourth –
Concurrent Multi-Netting (CMN)-4. The CMN-4 enhancement is described as an advanced capability and is currently only applied to the MIDS-JTRS Software-Defined Radio (SDR). This instantly puts a user who has chosen the BU2 upgrade path into the category of being classed as a disadvantaged user in future Link 16 networks, and potentially undermine the user’s operational capability and thus interoperability. However, CMN-4 has not yet been mandated for use but for how long that remains the case is still unclear. Secondly, for a platform to realise the full potential of ET and be able to employ all five ET rates, it would have to make considerable changes to the host system and most likely the interface that connects their MIDS-LVT to the host. For example, the host would have to be able to ‘push, pull, and process’ far more Link 16 data than normal. Furthermore, many MIDS-LVT users utilise a 1553 data bus interface to enable this connection, and the problem is that some platforms use this same 1553 data bus to support the transfer of other data outside of Link 16. Consequently, the ability to operate at some ET rates may not be achievable as the 1553 bus quite simply cannot handle the increase in data. The only option is for the user to configure a double bus, ie a second connection. But ET has not yet been mandated for use and, even if it is, what would be the minimum ET rate required?
‘Capability managers are already aware of the operational deadline regarding cryptographic modernisation’
