PAF Exercise Saffron Bandit 2012-13

[Safriz]

@gambit is sooo busted by CIA now

 

[Jango]

So in short, all PAF assets have full compatibility with eachother?

US, Chinese and others...?

 

[Safriz]

So in short, all PAF assets have full compatibility with eachother?

US, Chinese and others...?

answered here
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...e-saffron-bandit-2012-13-a-9.html#post3851430

 

[Sinnerman108]

Is it me or this sounds surprisingly similar to the protocols used for data exchange using ********

Where do you think the 'Joint Tactical Information Distribution System' came from?

But seriously, like I said earlier, the idea of having a group where individuals shares relevant data at the expense and exclusion of other data is not new. The problems have always been the determination of what is 'relevant' and how to make that relevancy have priority among the clutter of communication where everyone believe his sh!t is of the highest priority. Need and want have a push/pull relationship and technology finally made that possible.

Actually NO.

It is based on MANET -> Mobile Adhoc network.

@gambit

As far as your comment on the actual portocol being shared with pakistan is concerned I know that Pakistan has implemented a similar system. @Oscar knows more about it.

The contributing protocols to the currect MANET standard are available in public domain.


If Link16's properties are known, it should not be very difficult to write the protocol stack.

 

[gambit]

Exactly, So if the contributor in this case.. becomes the Pakistani AEW system.. and is using the declassified standard for Link-16 messages.(available). It can not only interact and pass on information to the MIDS on the F-16. but also to any other platform that has the ability to read link-16 format.
I am not referring to the cryptographic part.. since that you can implement on your own..or select.
I am referring to the passing of Link-16 messages.. basically the protocol.

The reason I am asking you for your opinion is because this was being done where I worked. Initially the idea was to let the Links between the swedes Awacs and the F-16s communicate to the ground stations(basically complete packages with no Pakistani knowledge of what went inside the end terminals till it got to the application layer... and from there repackaging that data into a local datalink and re-transmitting it out to other assets.

However, it was decided to give the swedish systems the ability to manage the Chinese systems as well, so a custom datalink was designed inhouse with assistance(of which I worked on secure voice) that allows the swedish system to play a similar role as the E-3 does for the Chinese systems along with the F-16's.

In other words, you may not be able to replicate the cryptography.. but everything below the presentation layer can be replicated.
http://www.idlsoc.com/Documents/Symposiums/IDLS2006/viasat_quistorf.pdf

Infact.. I think it was YOU who first led me to the standards and references for Link-16 through PMwhen the initial work on it began! about two years ago.

So, @gambit has been a contributor to the development of the Pakistan Air Force's Datalink

The declassified Link 16 standards are really adaptations of the civilian aviation standards of (mostly) one-way data transmission.

Boeing: History -- Products - Connexion by Boeing

The Boeing Company began research into broadband communications in the 1980s as part of its work for the U.S. government. As the Cold War ended, the company entered discussions with commercial airlines, most notably American and Delta, about how to adapt the technology to civilian use. During the late 1990s, these initiatives became known as Aviation Information Services and then Global Mobile Services.

Back then, broadband was nowhere as broad as we take for granted today, as far as the word implies. Your iPhone is probably more capable than what Boeing started. Crytographic protocols were already explored to prevent portable electronic devices (PED) from 'jamming' the increasingly fly-by-wire avionics, especially two-way communication and entertainment, that we see today. For flight controls subordinate systems, shielding is the best option instead of decryption of cryptographic protocols. We do not want delays between pilot commands and aileron response.

https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6275

There are still unknowns about the radio signals that portable electronic devices (PEDs) and cell phones give off. These signals, especially in large quantities and emitted over a long time, may unintentionally affect aircraft communications, navigation, flight control and electronic equipment.

Federal Aviation Administration regulations prohibit use of most portable electronic devices aboard aircraft, but they specifically exempt portable voice recorders, hearing aids, heart pacemakers and electric shavers because they don’t give off signals that might interfere with aircraft systems.

The motors in electric shavers emit too low of freqs and too weak in amplitude to have any effects. As for the rest, any spurious radiation that remotely may be in the realm of avionics is also too weak in amplitude. More like in the 'near field communication' (NFC) usage area.

However, cellular communication signals are not spurious but considered to be 'intentional'. Not to mean intentionally targeting the aircraft's avionics, but that the user is deliberately transmitting, and those signals are within the operating freqs of many avionics subordinate systems and those signals are strong enough to 'jam'. To date, there have been no record of adverse effects by the surreptitious use of a cell phone by a passenger in spite of the forbiddance of it. I have violated that rule myself in the past when I had to travel often.

So it was and have been the civilian sector who developed the concept and it was military necessity that introduced additional security protocols that distinguished Link 16 from all other NCO systems. The somewhat ironic thing is that because of the military needs, the Link 16 experiment ended up establishing the standards for future civilian systems in terms of signal integrity and data streams management. It is inevitable that plane-to-plane communication will be automatic and transparently switching instead of plane-to-satellite-to-plane or plane-to-ground-to-plane. Praise be to Link 16.

But ultimately...

You have to be as old as I to know the reference...

 

[notorious_eagle]

So in short, all PAF assets have full compatibility with eachother?

US, Chinese and others...?

Not all, but most of them. Put it this way, the most important assets are fully compatible with each other. PAF is a fully network centric warfare organization.

 

[karan.1970]

Exactly, So if the contributor in this case.. becomes the Pakistani AEW system.. and is using the declassified standard for Link-16 messages.(available). It can not only interact and pass on information to the MIDS on the F-16. but also to any other platform that has the ability to read link-16 format.
I am not referring to the cryptographic part.. since that you can implement on your own..or select.
I am referring to the passing of Link-16 messages.. basically the protocol.

The reason I am asking you for your opinion is because this was being done where I worked. Initially the idea was to let the Links between the swedes Awacs and the F-16s communicate to the ground stations(basically complete packages with no Pakistani knowledge of what went inside the end terminals till it got to the application layer... and from there repackaging that data into a local datalink and re-transmitting it out to other assets.

However, it was decided to give the swedish systems the ability to manage the Chinese systems as well, so a custom datalink was designed inhouse with assistance(of which I worked on secure voice) that allows the swedish system to play a similar role as the E-3 does for the Chinese systems along with the F-16's.

In other words, you may not be able to replicate the cryptography.. but everything below the presentation layer can be replicated.
http://www.idlsoc.com/Documents/Symposiums/IDLS2006/viasat_quistorf.pdf

Infact.. I think it was YOU who first led me to the standards and references for Link-16 through PMwhen the initial work on it began! about two years ago.

So, @gambit has been a contributor to the development of the Pakistan Air Force's Datalink

So in a nutshell, you are going to use the Link 16 protocols without the proprietary encryption and overlay that unencrypted feed with your own encryption headers? How would that work with an unmodified F 16 which is expecting a specific type of proprietary link 16 encryption..

Sorry if I am not putting the question right..

 

[Jango]

Not all, but most of them. Put it this way, the most important assets are fully compatible with each other. PAF is a fully network centric warfare organization.

So as I understand, the Chinese/French jets and Pak jets are all compatible, while the F-16 is compatible with the ERIEYE, and the ERIEYE in turn acts as the branch for the F-16 for data forwarding to other assets?

 

[SQ8]

So in a nutshell, you are going to use the Link 16 protocols without the proprietary encryption and overlay that unencrypted feed with your own encryption headers? How would that work with an unmodified F 16 which is expecting a specific type of proprietary link 16 encryption..

Sorry if I am not putting the question right..

No I get it.. and NO.
The idea was to basically let the proprietary system work on its own.. i.e
Erieye Link-16/ equipment- MID-LVT(F-16) as an independent link.
Erieye- other assets-GC locally developed link.
So currently... the F-16's cannot share information from the other PAF assets without an intermediary.. but the initial idea of keeping it confined to the ground stations has been changed to making all PAF AEW assets capable of linking with each other and every other asset.(Voice for some reason will be left out due to all PAF assets using a modified version of this set
R&S®M3AR Software Defined Radios (Rohde & Schwarz - Products - Secure Communications - Airborne Radiocommunications))

Before I left, the next phase was to get the local "link" to work with the F-16s..
I cannot comment on hows(my field is..or was.. secure voice.).. just that they were confident on it being done.. whether it was realistic or not is no longer mine to assess but promises have been made that cant be kept.,..on the other hand there have been semi-successful attempts to get into certain sections of US/European hardware and see what was running inside(not easy when you have machine instructions to read).

So as I understand, the Chinese/French jets and Pak jets are all compatible, while the F-16 is compatible with the ERIEYE, and the ERIEYE in turn acts as the branch for the F-16 for data forwarding to other assets?

Exactly.

 

[karan.1970]

No I get it.. and NO.
The idea was to basically let the proprietary system work on its own.. i.e
Erieye Link-16/ equipment- MID-LVT(F-16) as an independent link.
Erieye- other assets-GC locally developed link.
So currently... the F-16's cannot share information from the other PAF assets without an intermediary.. but the initial idea of keeping it confined to the ground stations has been changed to making all PAF AEW assets capable of linking with each other and every other asset.(Voice for some reason will be left out due to all PAF assets using a modified version of this set
R&S®M3AR Software Defined Radios (Rohde & Schwarz - Products - Secure Communications - Airborne Radiocommunications))

Before I left, the next phase was to get the local "link" to work with the F-16s..
I cannot comment on hows(my field is..or was.. secure voice.).. just that they were confident on it being done.. whether it was realistic or not is no longer mine to assess but promises have been made that cant be kept.,..on the other hand there have been semi-successful attempts to get into certain sections of US/European hardware and see what was running inside(not easy when you have machine instructions to read).



Exactly.

So kind of a hub and spoke model for having F16s talk to other assets with the AEW acting as the Hub

 

[gambit]

So in a nutshell, you are going to use the Link 16 protocols without the proprietary encryption and overlay that unencrypted feed with your own encryption headers? How would that work with an unmodified F 16 which is expecting a specific type of proprietary link 16 encryption..

Sorry if I am not putting the question right..

He would be clueless -- overall. In order for admission into a 'mission capability package' (MCP), he would have to present credible credentials, at least to read data, if not to contribute his own. The credentials are secured, as in electronic engineering with capacitors, resistors, ROM modules, and so on, and in firmware implanted, to resist access and tampering. We do not want even maintenance to see these credentials, as in plug in a tester laptop and see those ones and zeros. So even if he may be equipped with Link 16 appropriate hardware, if he does not present the appropriate credentials, he does not exist to any MCP.

Here lies the problem in retrofitting old, or pre-Link 16, platforms...

An analog F-16A has all of its internal volume filled up with 'stuff' that are appropriate to that model. Keep in mind that an aircraft is an exercise in compromises because of that volume limitation. Where are you going to insert a Link 16 'black box'? Can you engineer a different 'black box'? Yes, but precisely because of the need to hard secure the appropriate crypto protocols, you will need to re-engineer those capacitors, resistors, ROM modules, and so on. So what if you find a space somewhere on this old and analog -16A but only for half the size you need, then what good is it if this old fighter is not capable of exploiting the full of the entire system?

This is applicable to adapting foreign platforms that you own and want to incorporate into your own NCO.

So either you do the mod and live with the limited NCO and MCP capability of this old fighter, at least it is better than nothing. Or get a new -16 version.

The exploration of how to incorporate existing platforms into NCO and MCP capability is where I used to be. I had to explore the PHYSICAL nooks and crannies of candidate platforms, and we even explored the old F-4s, and performed assessments. That is why large platforms like the old -52s and the new -2s bombers are just about perfect for incorporation. But interestingly enough, the old -4s got plenty of room. Then as the fighter size class got more sophisticated and compact, there is less internal volume space to use. It was from this assignment that I got to know more of Link 16, from concept to application.

 

[SQ8]

So kind of a hub and spoke model for having F16s talk to other assets with the AEW acting as the Hub

Exactly...

 

[SQ8]

This is applicable to adapting foreign platforms that you own and want to incorporate into your own NCO.

So either you do the mod and live with the limited NCO and MCP capability of this old fighter, at least it is better than nothing. Or get a new -16 version.

Well, all PAF F-16's(new block-52s and upgraded AM/BMs) are getting the MIDS-LVT..

 

[Last Hope]

Friday, February 01, 2013 - Like all progressive air forces, PAF (Pakistan Air Force) too conducts various exercises and war games, besides training for conducting night and day offensive and defensive air operations. The enhancement of operational preparedness of PAF’s combat units is an ongoing task, which is incorporated through training in applied tactics, planning and execution of exercises at various levels. “Saffron Bandit” is a triennial command level exercise, which was first conceived in 1994. Since then, five such exercises have been conducted, with each session being reviewed and refined to not only incorporate fresh developments but also take cognizance of the latest threat environment.

Currently PAF is involved in the sixth sequel of “Saffron Bandit”, which commenced on 22nd October 2012. The whole exercise is spread over six to seven months. The exercise is planned to culminate on 27 April 2013. It is aimed at standardizing the tactics and provide near-realistic ‘Role Oriented’ training to PAF combat crew in a controlled environment, with the exposure of integrating combat support elements in synchronization with modern concepts and emerging tactical scenarios.

Presently the Surface Attack Phase of the second cycle is in progress. The Chief of Army Staff and the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) have separately visited the exercise area and been briefed regarding the concept and conduct of the exercise. A unique feature of the “Saffron Bandit” under progress is that all the modern weapon systems and capabilities of PAF as well as the Army’s Air Aviation and Air Defence System are operating under one umbrella for the first time orchestrating modern tactical environment. State-of-the-art data links and communication systems have been integrated, along with the employment of beyond visual range weapons as well as standoff capabilities operating under the umbrella of electronic warfare, are being activated.

The CJCSC was afforded the opportunity to fly in an AEW&C Aircraft to observe the complexities of aerial warfare and the professional handling and employment of integrated air and ground combat elements by the aircrew. Simultaneously, Air Chief Marshal Tahir Rafique Butt, Chief of the Air Staff, Pakistan Air Force, set a personal example by actively participating in the exercise and examining the war preparedness of PAF Combat Squadrons, flying an F-16 Block 52. Overwhelmed by the experience of flying on board the SAAB 2000 aircraft fitted with the Erieye Airborne Radar, the CJCSC while interacting with the participants after the mission, stated: “The opportunity to interact with the skilled Air Warriors and to practically fly with them in Exercise Saffron Bandit has afforded me an insight into the high quality of training standards maintained by the PAF. This Exercise, with the mandate of providing exposure and training to PAF’s Combat Crew in near-realistic environment, certainly serves well for enhancing war preparedness in the hi-tech scenario of aerial warfare. It is heartening to see PAF stepping into the future with its newly acquired capabilities and emerging concepts of employment.”

Keeping up with the emerging challenges, PAF has come a long way in operating in tandem with the Pakistan Army in tackling with the miscreants in the war on terror. The current “Saffron Bandit” has incorporated anti militant operations and practicing effect based operations through precision weapons. The aim is to familiarize participants with different tactical aspects of the anti-terror operations in support of the national military effort. The training exercise focuses on tactical level peculiarities of kinetic engagement of militant targets using precision ordinance, with special emphasis on avoiding collateral damage. The Air Defence Environment has not only been enhanced but taken a step into the future with the employment of airborne early warning and control platforms as well as the use of both active and passive sensors including UAVs.

Learning from the experience of the allied forces’ operations in the ongoing war in Afghanistan and recently concluded war in Iraq, PAF has ventured into a new dimension of “combat search and rescue” for the first time through this “Saffron Bandit” exercise. The aim is to validate the concept and efficacy of “combat search and rescue” operations with the assistance of Pak Army aviation. The timely search and ultimate rescue of soldiers and men, requiring assistance and extraction from hostile conditions, even in the face of enemy fire is essential for the confidence and morale of own troops. In accordance with prescribed practice, each training cycle commences with classroom lectures on combat related topics to consolidate academic knowledge of the combat crew before commencing the flying operations, which are conducted in two phases i.e. air superiority and surface attack phase. The degree of difficulty in flying missions progressively increases in scope and complexity, so that a complete threat scenario is simulated towards the final stages of each cycle. In order to accrue maximum benefit from this comprehensive exercise effort, an all-inclusive analysis and feedback mechanism in the form of an ‘Analysis Cell’ to bisect the exercise continuously thoroughly in order to remain focused in the exercise pursuits, remains active. Whereas realism is essential in any military exercise and near realistic scenarios are created, the parameters of safety are also essential. The planners of “Saffron Bandit” ensure this essential aspect. Thorough analysis of the exercise enables the PAF Think Tank to not only critically evaluate PAF’s combat readiness but also recommend future course of action in terms of tactical employment.

PAF remains cognizant of the possibility that any future conflict in the region will be short and intense, characterized by overwhelming employment of air power. PAF thus has to maintain its cutting edge to meet any future threat to the utmost of its capabilities. “Saffron Bandit” provides this opportunity in a wholesome manner.

—The author, a retired PAF Group Captain, served as Air & Naval attaché at Riyadh and is currently a columnist, analyst and TV talk show host.

Source

 

[Neptune]

Can we join it up please?