PAF Exercise Saffron Bandit 2012-13

[Windjammer]

Listen to Indian paranoia, Saffron Bandit is called Saffron Terror.

 

[gambit]

Sir - how will the data connectivity integrated with out "MIDS-LVT(1) - Link 16 Tactical Airborne Terminal" & Satellite Uplink ?

Cannot.

Link 16 is a method of communication between diverse entities. We cannot really call them 'clients' because the word implies a central master server of data somewhere. Link 16 is not designed exactly that way. The philosophy behind Link 16 is that of contributorship, meaning an entity ELECT to contribute whatever data it has to interested receivers. The word 'client' has limited context here. If I contribute to the network, then whoever exploits my data is my client, not the network's client. In turn, if I exploit someone else's data, then I am his client, not the network's client. In this respect, everyone who contribute data to the network is both a server and a client, and anyone can leave the network at will.

A closer to home analogy is that of a picnic or buffet table. Everyone is encourage to bring something and to share.

Another great feature and flexibility about Link 16 is that there can be multiple and fragmented networks independent of each other to accomplish different missions.

Command and Control Research Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evolution of Mission Capability Packages (MCPs) is the CCRP's approach to transforming new and promising concepts into real operational capabilities through the judicious blending of new C2 technologies and the essential elements of all related capabilities needed to field C2 mission capabilities.

For example...

One MCP or 'package' can contain one AWACS supporting 4 F-15s and 8 A-10s. Another package can contain one AWACS supporting 10 B-52s. Another package contains nothing but 'stealth'. All packages can be selective about sharing data with other packages at any time. The AWACS can be physically two ships or physically one ship that logically identified itself as two ships for two different packages. And at a later time, he can create another logical ship of himself to support the 'stealth' package on the way home.

Conceptually speaking, this is not new, except that in the old days, we have only voice communication and the human brain is not as capable of multi-tasking as we would like. We can produce many packages but each pilot can only communicate at limited duration and with limited quantity and quality of data so as not to crowd the spectrum. Link 16 changed all of that.Believe it or not, yelling into the mic 'Bogey at X speed, Y altitude, and Z heading.' is more resource intensive and time consuming than electronic dots and dashes conveying the exact data. In the amount of bandwidth and time required to call out that bogey for everyone via voice, meaning the pilot has to look at his radar, assess the information from the scope, key the mic, then yell, Link 16 can contain missile solutions FOR EACH FRIENDLY to take out that bogey as well as his speed, altitude, and heading. The burden here is upon the contributors inside each network to provide that data. Link 16 only provide the pathways.

Now...This does not mean no one else can design an alternate to Link 16 and call it something else. Sausage Links 20 -- for all we care. The target data produced by an F-15 is no different than when produced by a MIG-27:

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

The only difference is in the formatting of them. Kinda like FAT32 versus NTFS versus Unix. This is why it is seldom worthwhile to convert data from foreign technology sources into usable data for self. The MIG's data about target heading may be at a higher voltage than the F-15 and self's system may interpret it differently. The translation has to be at the contributor's level and that he must know the common denominators inside the network in order to produce usable data.

 

[airomerix]

Listen to Indian paranoia, Saffron Bandit is called Saffron Terror.

If only youtube was accessible.

 

[airomerix]

Cannot.

Link 16 is a method of communication between diverse entities. We cannot really call them 'clients' because the word implies a central master server of data somewhere. Link 16 is not designed exactly that way. The philosophy behind Link 16 is that of contributorship, meaning an entity ELECT to contribute whatever data it has to interested receivers. The word 'client' has limited context here. If I contribute to the network, then whoever exploits my data is my client, not the network's client. In turn, if I exploit someone else's data, then I am his client, not the network's client. In this respect, everyone who contribute data to the network is both a server and a client, and anyone can leave the network at will.

A closer to home analogy is that of a picnic or buffet table. Everyone is encourage to bring something and to share.

Another great feature and flexibility about Link 16 is that there can be multiple and fragmented networks independent of each other to accomplish different missions.

Command and Control Research Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For example...

One MCP or 'package' can contain one AWACS supporting 4 F-15s and 8 A-10s. Another package can contain one AWACS supporting 10 B-52s. Another package contains nothing but 'stealth'. All packages can be selective about sharing data with other packages at any time. The AWACS can be physically two ships or physically one ship that logically identified itself as two ships for two different packages. And at a later time, he can create another logical ship of himself to support the 'stealth' package on the way home.

Conceptually speaking, this is not new, except that in the old days, we have only voice communication and the human brain is not as capable of multi-tasking as we would like. We can produce many packages but each pilot can only communicate at limited duration and with limited quantity and quality of data so as not to crowd the spectrum. Link 16 changed all of that.Believe it or not, yelling into the mic 'Bogey at X speed, Y altitude, and Z heading.' is more resource intensive and time consuming than electronic dots and dashes conveying the exact data. In the amount of bandwidth and time required to call out that bogey for everyone via voice, meaning the pilot has to look at his radar, assess the information from the scope, key the mic, then yell, Link 16 can contain missile solutions FOR EACH FRIENDLY to take out that bogey as well as his speed, altitude, and heading. The burden here is upon the contributors inside each network to provide that data. Link 16 only provide the pathways.

Now...This does not mean no one else can design an alternate to Link 16 and call it something else. Sausage Links 20 -- for all we care. The target data produced by an F-15 is no different than when produced by a MIG-27:

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

The only difference is in the formatting of them. Kinda like FAT32 versus NTFS versus Unix. This is why it is seldom worthwhile to convert data from foreign technology sources into usable data for self. The MIG's data about target heading may be at a higher voltage than the F-15 and self's system may interpret it differently. The translation has to be at the contributor's level and that he must know the common denominators inside the network in order to produce usable data.

If only I had teachers like you (Y)

 

[Alphacharlie]

Cannot.

Link 16 is a method of communication between diverse entities. We cannot really call them 'clients' because the word implies a central master server of data somewhere. Link 16 is not designed exactly that way. The philosophy behind Link 16 is that of contributorship, meaning an entity ELECT to contribute whatever data it has to interested receivers. The word 'client' has limited context here. If I contribute to the network, then whoever exploits my data is my client, not the network's client. In turn, if I exploit someone else's data, then I am his client, not the network's client. In this respect, everyone who contribute data to the network is both a server and a client, and anyone can leave the network at will.

A closer to home analogy is that of a picnic or buffet table. Everyone is encourage to bring something and to share.

Another great feature and flexibility about Link 16 is that there can be multiple and fragmented networks independent of each other to accomplish different missions.

Command and Control Research Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For example...

One MCP or 'package' can contain one AWACS supporting 4 F-15s and 8 A-10s. Another package can contain one AWACS supporting 10 B-52s. Another package contains nothing but 'stealth'. All packages can be selective about sharing data with other packages at any time. The AWACS can be physically two ships or physically one ship that logically identified itself as two ships for two different packages. And at a later time, he can create another logical ship of himself to support the 'stealth' package on the way home.

Conceptually speaking, this is not new, except that in the old days, we have only voice communication and the human brain is not as capable of multi-tasking as we would like. We can produce many packages but each pilot can only communicate at limited duration and with limited quantity and quality of data so as not to crowd the spectrum. Link 16 changed all of that.Believe it or not, yelling into the mic 'Bogey at X speed, Y altitude, and Z heading.' is more resource intensive and time consuming than electronic dots and dashes conveying the exact data. In the amount of bandwidth and time required to call out that bogey for everyone via voice, meaning the pilot has to look at his radar, assess the information from the scope, key the mic, then yell, Link 16 can contain missile solutions FOR EACH FRIENDLY to take out that bogey as well as his speed, altitude, and heading. The burden here is upon the contributors inside each network to provide that data. Link 16 only provide the pathways.

Now...This does not mean no one else can design an alternate to Link 16 and call it something else. Sausage Links 20 -- for all we care. The target data produced by an F-15 is no different than when produced by a MIG-27:

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

The only difference is in the formatting of them. Kinda like FAT32 versus NTFS versus Unix. This is why it is seldom worthwhile to convert data from foreign technology sources into usable data for self. The MIG's data about target heading may be at a higher voltage than the F-15 and self's system may interpret it differently. The translation has to be at the contributor's level and that he must know the common denominators inside the network in order to produce usable data.

Appreciated. My point is Now Vindicated.

I am certain seeing the Text you have used you are an AE(L) Officer

For civilians AE(L) =Aeronautical Engineer - Electronics & Communication

 

[air marshal]

 

[SQ8]

The only difference is in the formatting of them. Kinda like FAT32 versus NTFS versus Unix. This is why it is seldom worthwhile to convert data from foreign technology sources into usable data for self. The MIG's data about target heading may be at a higher voltage than the F-15 and self's system may interpret it differently. The translation has to be at the contributor's level and that he must know the common denominators inside the network in order to produce usable data.

Thank you for explaining it so clearly.
And if these denominators are known (as they are when you distribute them among allies)?
After all, interoperabiity with allies is what makes these links work.
An RAF typhoon taken on data from a USAF E-3.

 

[gambit]

Thank you for explaining it so clearly.
And if these denominators are known (as they are when you distribute them among allies)?
After all, interoperabiity with allies is what makes these links work.
An RAF typhoon taken on data from a USAF E-3.

If you are talking about the fabled 'source codes' for these protocols, sharing them is unlikely to occur. I could be wrong but I do understand the needs as to why not, and uncomfortable it may be to many here, Pakistan is not viewed as a sufficiently reliable ally over the long term to warrant access to these codes.

When I said that a contributor must know the network's protocols' common denominators in order to produce usable data, it does not mean the distribution of those source codes. It mean the hardware and their associated firmwares and software must already be in place prior to contribution. The origin of those 'black boxes', and the transparency thereof, are for a different discussion. A contributor may be modified to carry the equipment necessary to have access to Link 16, but the contributor himself and his country of ownership may be totally clueless on how the system works. They just know that it works.

Data must be as highly 'interference resistance' as much as possible, and by this I mean the data should not be contaminated upon reception as well as the data stream itself should not be a contaminant to other data streams upon reception by other receivers. This need is already in place in the civilian aviation sector with increasing demands for airborne communication by travelers, particularly entertainment during long flights, let alone the businessmen who often must work during those long flights.

To make 'Gone With The Wind' as interference resistance as possible in the occupied and busy spectrum, cryptography is used, not for fear of copyright infringement, but for accidental receivers to distinguish the unwanted 'Gone With The Wind' from the wanted 'Debbie Does Dallas: The Next Generation' .

The movie must be prepped or 'crypto-ed' for frequency agility and another crypto protocol is used for waveform controls. Then known decryption protocols are applied at the receiver ends to accept or reject. Reed-Solomon Error Correction protocol is also available for recovery of the movie when it is being 'jammed' via multi-paths reflections when flying over a city with its tall buildings, for example. All of this must be completely transparent to the movie watcher.

For military purposes, there is an additional need to deny as much as possible any accidental recognition, be it by friend or foe, of any data transmission. Keep in mind that detection is not the same thing as recognition. So an additional crypto protocol is used to inject pseudo random noise and jitter to disguise (mask) the transmission as supposedly part of background noise. No detection equals to no recognition equals to no jamming by hostiles. For friendly forces, as illustrated above with the multiple discrete mission packages linked by several Link 16 nets, even if the data is detected and recognized for what it is: allied military related stuff, the decryption protocol will reject it as not being part of the net in which the receiver is a member/contributor. It keeps each package clear of information clutter from other packages. The AWACS acts as a central hub of collection and collation of various data streams from many packages and route them according to needs from interested parties that are outside the many nets.

This is the beauty of Link 16. Or of 'network centric operations' (NCO).

The desire for flexibility in data streams management is the reason why the burden of formatting data prior to contribution should falls upon the contributor and not on the receiver/client. When you receive data, be it targeting information of an enemy fuel depot or the quarterly sales figures of paperclips, you want the ability to act upon that information as soon as possible. Bosses will reject raw data from subordinates, correct? Refine it and put it in a Powerpoint presentation, or an Excel spreadsheet, or a Doc.

The inherent need for secrecy to further secure victory in a war is the reason why those fabled 'source codes' for anything, from radar to Link 16, will be strictly controlled. If the decryption protocols are known, the entire concept of Link 16 jeopardized. False information could be injected to any ad-hoc Link 16 net created anywhere. An entire misleading Link 16 net from a non-existing strike package could be created to confuse war planners in the midst of an urgent and time sensitive operation.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

If only youtube was accessible.

download hotspot Shield software from Google.

 

[karan.1970]

Cannot.

Link 16 is a method of communication between diverse entities. We cannot really call them 'clients' because the word implies a central master server of data somewhere. Link 16 is not designed exactly that way. The philosophy behind Link 16 is that of contributorship, meaning an entity ELECT to contribute whatever data it has to interested receivers. The word 'client' has limited context here. If I contribute to the network, then whoever exploits my data is my client, not the network's client. In turn, if I exploit someone else's data, then I am his client, not the network's client. In this respect, everyone who contribute data to the network is both a server and a client, and anyone can leave the network at will.

A closer to home analogy is that of a picnic or buffet table. Everyone is encourage to bring something and to share.

Another great feature and flexibility about Link 16 is that there can be multiple and fragmented networks independent of each other to accomplish different missions.

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

 

[gambit]

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.

 

[SQ8]

If you are talking about the fabled 'source codes' for these protocols, sharing them is unlikely to occur. I could be wrong but I do understand the needs as to why not, and uncomfortable it may be to many here, Pakistan is not viewed as a sufficiently reliable ally over the long term to warrant access to these codes.

When I said that a contributor must know the network's protocols' common denominators in order to produce usable data, it does not mean the distribution of those source codes. It mean the hardware and their associated firmwares and software must already be in place prior to contribution. The origin of those 'black boxes', and the transparency thereof, are for a different discussion. A contributor may be modified to carry the equipment necessary to have access to Link 16, but the contributor himself and his country of ownership may be totally clueless on how the system works. They just know that it works.

Data must be as highly 'interference resistance' as much as possible, and by this I mean the data should not be contaminated upon reception as well as the data stream itself should not be a contaminant to other data streams upon reception by other receivers. This need is already in place in the civilian aviation sector with increasing demands for airborne communication by travelers, particularly entertainment during long flights, let alone the businessmen who often must work during those long flights.

To make 'Gone With The Wind' as interference resistance as possible in the occupied and busy spectrum, cryptography is used, not for fear of copyright infringement, but for accidental receivers to distinguish the unwanted 'Gone With The Wind' from the wanted 'Debbie Does Dallas: The Next Generation' .

The movie must be prepped or 'crypto-ed' for frequency agility and another crypto protocol is used for waveform controls. Then known decryption protocols are applied at the receiver ends to accept or reject. Reed-Solomon Error Correction protocol is also available for recovery of the movie when it is being 'jammed' via multi-paths reflections when flying over a city with its tall buildings, for example. All of this must be completely transparent to the movie watcher.

For military purposes, there is an additional need to deny as much as possible any accidental recognition, be it by friend or foe, of any data transmission. Keep in mind that detection is not the same thing as recognition. So an additional crypto protocol is used to inject pseudo random noise and jitter to disguise (mask) the transmission as supposedly part of background noise. No detection equals to no recognition equals to no jamming by hostiles. For friendly forces, as illustrated above with the multiple discrete mission packages linked by several Link 16 nets, even if the data is detected and recognized for what it is: allied military related stuff, the decryption protocol will reject it as not being part of the net in which the receiver is a member/contributor. It keeps each package clear of information clutter from other packages. The AWACS acts as a central hub of collection and collation of various data streams from many packages and route them according to needs from interested parties that are outside the many nets.

This is the beauty of Link 16. Or of 'network centric operations' (NCO).

The desire for flexibility in data streams management is the reason why the burden of formatting data prior to contribution should falls upon the contributor and not on the receiver/client. When you receive data, be it targeting information of an enemy fuel depot or the quarterly sales figures of paperclips, you want the ability to act upon that information as soon as possible. Bosses will reject raw data from subordinates, correct? Refine it and put it in a Powerpoint presentation, or an Excel spreadsheet, or a Doc.

The inherent need for secrecy to further secure victory in a war is the reason why those fabled 'source codes' for anything, from radar to Link 16, will be strictly controlled. If the decryption protocols are known, the entire concept of Link 16 jeopardized. False information could be injected to any ad-hoc Link 16 net created anywhere. An entire misleading Link 16 net from a non-existing strike package could be created to confuse war planners in the midst of an urgent and time sensitive operation.

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

 

[IceCold]

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

SSSssshhhhhh.......... you dont say that out loud now sir Gambit has to be careful from the CIA

 

[Viper0011.]

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.

I've explained this in a post from yesterday. In a country's OWN netcentric system, you can (and others have) designed network data relay protocols that take the Link 16 data, translate it / decrypt it, put their own internal secure message headers and footers on with encryption and can relay them to the non link 16 systems. That way, information may be a few seconds old but it can be shared. Where as Linked in enables you to DIRECTLY share the information real time on a 'scenario base' or in a 'package based version'. The owner or the sharing 'entity' can decide who needs to be a recipient of the package. You can also 'contribute' to the package also. For example, in an AWACS, a F 22 can share a scenario with two other Raptors around him and then add 4 F-16's 100 miles away to it and an AWACS and create a package. He can also let the assigned station or portion of AWACS contribute to the package and run executions as need be.
In the scenario above, as long as the internal - proprietary netcentric systems are designed with Data Sharing protocols focused on the CIA principles (Confidentiality, Integrity and Access Control), the system will take the Link 16 data and will decrypt, re-encrypt (this time internal to the network it is in) and then relay to the recipient of the package (JFT or my personal vehicle, etc). So theoretically they'll all communicate but may be just a few seconds worth of delay but still not bad.
This is the direction Pakistan decided to go in as well (from what I understand after researching). I believe there is a proprietary solution already built to integrate Chinese and Swedish AWACS with the GC's and relay stations to indirectly link the Chinese systems. F-16 as-is and Mirages (with small hardware changed to non ROSE) can link to the Link 16's immediately. Pakistan also has a semi-netcentric system between its military's all three branches. But close to full netcentric for the air force.

I'll let Gambit give us his professional advise as I don't think I have his level of breadth and the diagrams

SSSssshhhhhh.......... you dont say that out loud now sir Gambit has to be careful from the CIA

I don't think he's putting anything on here that is considered a violation of the national security. Plus I am sure the CIA has more responsibilities than to check on X-military people or what I or someone else writes here as simple engineering explanations. Gambits and other x-military guys on here are or have served their country well and many lost their loved ones for the countrymen. So I salute their sacrifice, dedication and honor.

 

[SQ8]

I've explained this in a post from yesterday. In a country's OWN netcentric system, you can (and others have) designed network data relay protocols that take the Link 16 data, translate it / decrypt it, put their own internal secure message headers and footers on with encryption and can relay them to the non link 16 systems. That way, information may be a few seconds old but it can be shared. Where as Linked in enables you to DIRECTLY share the information real time on a 'scenario base' or in a 'package based version'. The owner or the sharing 'entity' can decide who needs to be a recipient of the package. You can also 'contribute' to the package also. For example, in an AWACS, a F 22 can share a scenario with two other Raptors around him and then add 4 F-16's 100 miles away to it and an AWACS and create a package. He can also let the assigned station or portion of AWACS contribute to the package and run executions as need be.
In the scenario above, as long as the internal - proprietary netcentric systems are designed with Data Sharing protocols focused on the CIA principles (Confidentiality, Integrity and Access Control), the system will take the Link 16 data and will decrypt, re-encrypt (this time internal to the network it is in) and then relay to the recipient of the package (JFT or my personal vehicle, etc). So theoretically they'll all communicate but may be just a few seconds worth of delay but still not bad.
This is the direction Pakistan decided to go in as well (from what I understand after researching). I believe there is a proprietary solution already built to integrate Chinese and Swedish AWACS with the GC's and relay stations to indirectly link the Chinese systems. F-16 as-is and Mirages (with small hardware changed to non ROSE) can link to the Link 16's immediately. Pakistan also has a semi-netcentric system between its military's all three branches. But close to full netcentric for the air force.

I'll let Gambit give us his professional advise as I don't think I have his level of breadth and the diagrams



I don't think he's putting anything on here that is considered a violation of the national security. Plus I am sure the CIA has more responsibilities than to check on X-military people or what I or someone else writes here as simple engineering explanations. Gambits and other x-military guys on here are or have served their country well and many lost their loved ones for the countrymen. So I salute their sacrifice, dedication and honor.

Agreed.. after all.. It happened in front of me. But I think some people need to take an outsiders word for it being possible because believing a Pakistani(no matter what their reputation) is equal to shirk.