Trenčín - eodcoe.org · CL 13 was the largest logistics standardization exercise in NATO’s...

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____

Click to edit Master text styles Second level

Third level Fourth level Fifth level NATO UNCLASSIFIED /

Releasable to PCM 1

EOD D&T, Trenčín (SLK) 02 Oct. 2014

NATO Operational Standards and their Validation/Assessment in Exercise

Giuseppe LEVATO Colonel, ITA (A) Head, Army Branch/NSO

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____



Releasable to PCM 2

AGENDA

NATO Standardization Introduction to the LAND Working Groups and

Panels EOD Working Group Portfolio Standardization Procedures Exercise Capable Logistician ‘13 NATO Standards Assessment and Validation in

Exercise (SAVE) concept NSO Website

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____



Releasable to PCM 3

STANDARDIZATION

AAP-6

“The development and implementation of concepts, doctrines, procedures and designs in order to achieve and maintain the compatibility, interchangeability or commonality which are necessary to attain the required level of interoperability or to optimise the use of resources, in the fields of operations, materiel and administration.”

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____



Releasable to PCM 4

INTEROPERABILITY

“The ability to act together coherently, effectively and efficiently,

to achieve Allied tactical, operational and strategic

objectives”

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____



Releasable to PCM 5

STANDARDIZATION AGREEMENT (STANAG)

AAP-3

“A NATO standardization document that specifies the agreement of member Nations to implement a standard, in whole or in part, in order to meet an interoperability requirement. STANAGs should be implemented, as applicable, and complied with to the maximum extent possible by Nation and NATO bodies.” Note: A NATO standardization agreement is distinct from the standard(s) it covers.

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____



Releasable to PCM 6

Definition Tasking Authority

A Tasking Authority (TA) is a principle NATO Committee

that has the authority to validate standardization requirements,

approve standardization objectives, and produce and approve standards

(STANAGs & APs).

AAP-6

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____



Releasable to PCM 7

Tasking Authorities

North Atlantic Council (NAC)

Military Committee (MC)

Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD)

C3 Board (C3B)

Logistic Committee (LC)

Air Defence Committee (ADC)

Civil Emergency Planning Committee (CEPC)

Air Traffic Management Committee (ATMC)

Committee for Standardization (CS)

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____



Releasable to PCM 8

Military Committee Delegated Tasking Authorities

AAP-3

Committee of the Chiefs of Military Medical Services (COMEDS)

NATO Electronic Warfare Advisory Committee (NEWAC)

Military Committee Meteorological Group (MCMG)

Military Committee Joint Standardization Board (MCJSB)

Military Committee Land Standardization Board (MCLSB)

Military Committee Air Standardization Board (MCASB)

Military Committee Maritime Standardization Board (MCMSB)

Military Committee Terminology Conference (MCTC)

Military Committee Medical Standardization Board (MCMedSB)

9

Hierarchy of Military Committee Standardization Elements

MILITARY COMMITTEE (TA)

TOR Standardization Board

MCJSB MCLSB MCASB MCMSB

MCMedSB (DTA)

TOR

Working Group

Guidance Report

46 MC WGs Guidance Report

can convene separately from Working Group meetings Panel

TOR

82 WG Panels/Teams

AAP-3

Guidance Report

Team

10

MC

MC JOINT STANDARDIZATION

BOARD (MCJSB)

MC LAND STANDARDIZATION

BOARD (MCLSB)

MC MARITIME STANDARDIZATION

BOARD (MCMSB)

MC AIR STANDARDIZATION

BOARD (MCASB)

10 Working Groups 1 Standalone Panel

9 Working Groups 11 Working Groups 11 Working Groups

MC MEDICAL STANDARDIZATION

BOARD (MCMedB)

5 Working Groups

Military Committee Standardization Structure

11

NAC

CEPC LC ADC MC CS CNAD C3B

NSSG

Operational Materiel/C3 Civil support report

chair

SCs

NSO

COMEDS

report

support

NSO Operational Standardization Support

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____



Releasable to PCM 12

Supporting MCJSB,

MCMEDSB, 9 WGs

Supporting MCLSB, 11 WGs,

+ LCEG(S) and LCSWG

Supporting MCMSB, 10 WGs,

Supporting MCASB, 11 WGs,

Front Office (MA/PA)

Admin & Support

Policy & Coord Branch

Joint Branch

Supporting MC TC

Policy

Programmes

Partner Programs

Terminology

Civil Standards

Policy & Coord Branch

NSO Current Structure

Army Branch

Naval Branch

Air Branch

Joint Branch

Director NSO

13

MCLSB Working Groups Land Operations (LO)

Integrated Capability Group on Indirect Fire (ICG IF )*

Asset Tracking Inter-Service (AST)

Military Engineering (MILENG)*

Inter-Service Ammunition (I-AMMO)

Helicopter Inter-service (HIS)

NATO Range Safety (NRS)

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Inter-Service (EOD)

Combat Service Support (CSS)

Counter-Improvised Explosive Device (C-IED)

Sustainability Interoperability & Standardization (SIS WG)

Note: An * indicates an MC/CNAD merged

Working Group

14

Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Inter-Service WG

Helicopter Interservice WG

Integrated Capability Group Indirect Fire

(ICG IF)

Military Engineering WG

Combat Service Support WG

Asset Tracking Interservice WG

Land Operations WG

Land Doctrine Panel

Intelligence, Surveillance, Target

Acquisition and Reconnaissance

Panel

Senior Land Terminology Panel

Military Policy Panel

Battlefield Maintenance Panel

IF Tactical Doctrine, Terminology, and Symbology Panel

IF Procedures Panel

Doctrine and Planning Panel

Information Exchange

Requirements Panel

Helicopter Operation Panel

Information Exchange Requirements Panel

Supply Panel

Surface Movement and Transportation Panel

ALP-4.2 Custodial Team

IF Technology Panel

IF Information Exchange

Requirements Panel

Helicopter Under Slung and Load

Equipment Panel

Helicopter Logistics Panel

Terminology and Symbology

Panel

EOD Doctrine, Policy and Philosophy Panel

EOD Tactics, Techniques & Procedures Panel

EOD Information Panel

EOD Standardization Panel

Policy & Terminology Panel

Technical Panel

Communications & Infrastructure Panel

Terminology Panel

Infrastructure Management

Panel

Support to Stabilisation and Reconstruction

Panel

Support to Force Protection Panel

Interservice Ammunition WG

Ammunition Standardization Advisory Panel

Information Exchange Requirements Panel

Terminology Representative

Counter Improvised Explosive Device

WG

Military Working Dog Panel

NATO Range Safety WG

Proballistic Safety Panel

Deterministic Safety Panel

Laser Safety Panel

Senior Land Information Exchange Requirements Panel

Military Committee LAND Standardization Board Working Groups

Ballistics, Effectiveness, and

Fire Control Software – SG/2 Panel

Terminology Representative

Sust. Interop. & Standard.

Working Group

Materiel Panel

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




EOD WG Portfolio - extract (1 of 2)

• STANAG 2143 / Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Principles and Minimum Standards of Proficiency – AEODP-10(B)

• STANAG 2282 / Interservice EOD Operations on Multinational Deployments - ATP-72(A)

• STANAG 2221 / Explosive Ordnance Disposal Reports and Messages - AEODP-6(A)

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




• STANAG 2370 / Interservice Improvised Explosive Device Disposal Operations on Multinational Deployments - A Guide for Staff Officers / Operators – AEODP-3(C) VOL I & VOL II.

• STANAG 2391 / Explosive Ordnance Disposal Recovery Operations on Fixed Installations - AEODP-5(B)

EOD WG Portfolio - extract (1 of 2)

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




FORCE PLANNING – NATO Defence Planning Process

Capabilities Interoperability Standards Requirements

TASK

TAs DTAs through NSO

LESSONS LEARNED OPERATIONS EXERCISES DAILY USE

PROPOSAL

Top-Down

Process

Bottom-Up

Process

Standard Development

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




RATIFICATION

REVIEW/REVISE

IMPLEMENTATION RATIFICATION

(WG – Subject Matter Experts)

VALIDATION (Nations)

DEVELOPMENT

(Nations)

(DNSO)

(Nations & SCs)

(WG – Subject Matter Experts)

(Nations)

PROPOSAL (Bottom-Up)

OBJECTIVE (Top-Down)

STANAG/AP Development & Maintenance Process

PROMULGATION

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




“Capable Logistician ’13” (CL ‘13) Facts & figures

Aim of the exercise (held in Lest, Slovakia ,from 3-28 June 2013): to assess the interoperability of logistics systems and equipment, and the commonality of

procedures, in order to make recommendations for improvements; to enhance the overall interoperability of logistics systems and the standardization of procedures in

current and future coalition operations.

CL 13 was the largest logistics standardization exercise in NATO’s history: 35 nations, 14 organisations and agencies (NSA included), 1750 personnel and 600 pieces of equipment.

This exercise was conducted without NATO funding. Participating nations agreed to finance its involvement cost (1st time for NATO ).

The MCLSB provided also the Director of the Evaluation, Analysis and Reporting Cell (EAR-C).

EAR-C responsibility: Make recommendations for improvements to enhance the overall interoperability of logistics systems and assist in the development of standardization procedures to be employed in current and future coalition operations.

EAR-C consist of 30+ members, from a variety of NATO nations. Support the Director CL 13 in the Collection and analysis of observations. Serve as the direct interface

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




CL ‘13 Outcomes

0 5 10 15

Standard Valid

Standard Needs…

Standard Needs Review

New Standard…

33 NATO Standards evaluated (more than 65 Observations Recorded):

• Changes required in 20 or more NATO Standardization documents.

• Development of Operational Standards for fuel and water.

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




CL ‘13: MCLSB WAY AHEAD

MCLSB to: • form an Ad Hoc WG (“Sustainment Interoperability and

Standardization Working Group – SIS WG”), in order to oversee and/or implement corrective actions for the observations/findings and to monitor the process.

• Participate to the Exercise CL ‘15 (“Capable Logistician 2015”,

where Hungary will be Host Nation), starting from the planning phase (IPC will be held in Budapest, 24-28 March 2014)

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




CL ‘13: SIS WG ODCRs (Observations Discussion Conclusions Recommendations) TRACKER

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




• “SAVE” (Standards Assessment and Validation in Exercises) concept

• Background: CL’13 and other initiatives, which brought to mention, in the CS annual report to the NAC, the Standardization “community” (SMEs from MCSBs WGs) activities to explore the use of exercises to validate NATO Standards.

• NSO tasked by the CS in April 2014 in this regard • Framework & Principles are with Allies for approval as Advice

from CS for each TA/DTA to consider how it might implement • The concept is also stated in ACT-ACO-NSO MoU

STANAGs EVALUATION Ref.: Working Paper AC/321(EAPC)WP(2014)0005 –REV1, dated 09 Sept. 2014

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




STANAGs EVALUATION

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




STANAGs EVALUATION

To adhere to the approved NATO Exercise Process, the framework foresees 6 steps to conduct STANAG Validation in an exercise (over an 18-month period): Step 1: Identification (can look ahead 3 years) Step 2: Information Step 3: Association Step 4: Preparation Step 5: Execution Step 6: Implementation

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




STANAGs EVALUATION

Considerations on resource consuming STANAGs evaluation: National SMEs (personnel) involved in planning

and execution phases; Time and efforts; Funds (budget constrains)

Is it cost-effective? (open question for discussion time)

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




http://nso.nato.int

NSO Password-Protected Website

• Enhances the flow of information amongst the standardization bodies, such as TAs, WGs, NSO Staff, and end-users of final standardization products (e.g. STANAGs and APs)

• Enables members of a forum to exchange information on WG-related issues and topics of mutual interest

• The classification of the website is NATO UNCLASSIFIED and open to PCM nations (provided they have an agreement with the NATO Office of Security) and EUMS

• Requesting access requires an official government or military email address

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




• More than 2000 documents (Standard Publications)

• 14000 registered users

• Downloads – 150,000 (yearly)

• 10000+ definitions of NATO Terminology

• 70% of standardization activities on line based (through “Forum”)

MATERIAL Standards

ADMINISTRATIVE Standards

OPERATIONAL Standards 20%

65% 15%

NSO Password-Protected Website

____ __ ____ _____ ____ ______

_____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____




mailto:[email protected]

Slide Number 1AGENDASlide Number 3Slide Number 4Slide Number 5Definition Tasking AuthorityTasking AuthoritiesMilitary Committee�Delegated Tasking AuthoritiesHierarchy of Military Committee Standardization ElementsSlide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12MCLSB Working GroupsSlide Number 14EOD WG Portfolio - extract (1 of 2)Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Slide Number 18“Capable Logistician ’13”�(CL ‘13) Facts & figuresSlide Number 20Slide Number 21Slide Number 22Slide Number 23Slide Number 24Slide Number 25Slide Number 26Slide Number 27Slide Number 28Slide Number 29

Trenčín - eodcoe.org · CL 13 was the largest logistics standardization exercise in NATO’s...

Documents

Transcript of Trenčín - eodcoe.org · CL 13 was the largest logistics standardization exercise in NATO’s...