SUBMARINE FORCE COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS
This appendix contains several recent statements of communications requirements from the
Submarine Force TYCOMs and related commands, such as the Special Operations Forces
(SOF). They are indexed as follows:
Requirements Document Page
Submarine Force Future Communications Requirements
Enclosure (1) to COMSUBLANT/COMSUBPAC Joint Letter 2000
Ser 00/08606 dated 04 Nov 93 ........................................................................................ E-2
Communications Connectivity Requirements for Submarines
COMSUBLANT Letter 2000 Ser 00/00686 dated 3 Feb 94............................................ E-5
Submarine High Data Rate Communications Requirements
CNO (N87) Letter 3000 Ser N87/4U656589 dated 24 Oct 94......................................... E-7
High Data Rate Satellite Communications Requirements for
Submarines COMSUBLANT Letter 2300 Ser 00/5872 dated 29 Nov 94....................... E-8
Special Operations Forces (SOF) Appendix to
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Submarine Communications Program
Summary COMNAVSPECWARCOM Letter 3120 Ser N6/0640 dated 8 May 95......... E-14
Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network Modes,
JCS MCM-156-91 dated 30 August 91 ........................................................................... E-21
Enclosure (1) to
COMSUBLANT/COMSUBPAC Joint Letter 2000 Ser 00/08606 dtd 04
1. To aid in preparation for the Navy Program Review (PR)
1995-1999 and Program Objectives Memorandum (POM) 1996-1999,
COMSUBLANT/COMSUBPAC request you propose a detailed plan of
evolving submarine communications programs to incorporate
capabilities that support the shift in submarine mission
emphasis. This shift is from a global sea control mission to the
support of regional conflict ashore as defined in “From The Sea”
and represents support for the Submarine missions of: Joint
Strike, Littoral, Surveillance, Space and Electronic Warfare
(SEW)/Intelligence, Strategic Deterrence and Sealift/Protection.
The following capabilities should be emphasized: Timeliness,
rapid TLAM retargeting, reliable connectivity, robust throughput
and a common tactical picture.
2. This request is based on results of the CNO (N8) POM
wargames and Joint Military Assessment (JMA) process which
highlight and need for a shift in emphasis in submarine
communications capabilities and requirements. These wargames and
JMA results agree with the recommendations of N87 sponsored
studies and conferences to define post-cold war submarine
communications needs. The thrust of the new emphasis in
submarine communications is based on the following general
a. The need to be fully interoperable and have the ability
to send/receive mission related information to/from the JTF.
b. The desired submarine radio room should be a flexible
open system designed to be in step with architectures such as
Copernicus. Additionally, it should be automated, CSS capable
with basedband switching.
c. The need for sufficient data throughput to allow timely
transfer of strike and surveillance missions; this includes data
throughput capability necessary to support imagery.
d. The need to maintain continuous shipboard record
traffic without mast exposure for force management and direction.
This system should support all submarine related missions. The
“current” (with authorized improvements), VLF/LF Fixed Submarine
Broadcast System (FSBS) meets this requirements.
3. The following specific requirements should be addressed in
a. New antenna design/configuration is a critical need.
(1) Submarine antennas must be designed for operations
in all submarine communications bands with primary emphasis on
the higher frequency and high throughput regimes of the future
(e.g., SHF, EHF, MDR and UHF). The feasibility of using a
stealth sail as an antenna should be evaluated.
(2) The submarine antenna suite should be designed to
provide assured connectivity across the spectrum of conflict.
(3) Submarine antenna should allow interoperability
with joint Task Force Commanders and Joint Operating Force
communications systems and other joint architectures.
(4) Our SSBNs require antennas capable of LDR EHF for
Ship to Shore report back in a Low Probability of Intercept/Low
Probability of Detection (LPI/LPD) environment and a back-up
Emergency Action Message (EAM) source.
(5) All submarines will need medium data rate EHF
capable antennas with low data rate antennas in the interim. SHF
is a requirement for operations with JTF. This will provide both
increased data throughput and interoperability. A throughput to
support retargeting is required.
b. Submarine inboard communications should allow
interoperability with Joint Task Force Commanders and Joint
Operating Force communications systems and other joint
(1) A Link 16/JTIDS capability for submarines is
required. The bandwidth and capacity inherent in Link 16 will
provide future flexibility for submarine connectivity with the
JTF. Similarly, improvements in Link 11 with expansion to Link
22 is required for submarines to be interoperable with Navy
(2) Battle group and JTF interoperability and
commonality are of paramount importance. Battle Group unique
systems such as a BGIXS enable the submarine to maintain rapid
access to the Battle Group Commander and must be supported until
replacement by a fleet wide standard. The use of submarine
unique systems and equipment should be chosen only when necessary
to provide required capabilities.
(3) The accelerated procurement of DAMA capable
systems should continue.
(4) Your program plan should reflect radio room
support for NTCS/JMCIS installations on all submarines including
appropriate interfaces with the submarine’s combat control
(5) Our fleet ballistic submarines continue to be the
backbone of the national strategic forces. Upgrades should
concentrate on interoperability, reliability, open architecture
and obsolete equipment replacement.
(6) Standard Navy or joint equipment upgrades should
be the primary means of replacing obsolete equipment.
(7) The submarine radio room should support new
expansion concepts like a Local Area Network, and Voice, Video,
Fax, and Data (VVFD), with interoperable Joint Imagery Format.
(8) Other received/transmitted signals such as IFF and
GPS and their expected follow-on systems will remain an integral
part of submarine communications capability and must be
(9) Connectivity with SOF communications (e.g.,
SOCRATES) must be supported by providing onboard equipment and
antenna connection points for carry on equipment packages.
(10) Global Maritime Distress and Safety System
(GMDSS) reception is required on all submarines, including
reception of open ocean SAFETYNET warnings transmitted on
INMARSAT-C and coastal navigation warnings transmitted on NAVTEX.
4. The two-site ELF system must continue to the supported.
5. Operational Commander Command and Control Facilities must be
kept compatible with submarine systems and JTF systems.
6. Budgetary projections demand that affordability be a key
factor in this plan. Procurement strategy should emphasize
COTS/GOTS, Life cycle costs and Fleet Training requirement costs.
This is a joint CSL/CSP letter.
COMMUNICATIONS CONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMARINES
3 Feb 94
From: Commander Submarine Force, U. S. Atlantic Fleet
To: Chief of Naval Operations (N87)
Subj: COMMUNICATIONS CONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMARINES
Ref: (a) COMSUBLANT ltr Ser 2000 00/06606 of 4 Nov 1993
1. Reference (a) discussed requirements for the submarine force
communications architecture. Since that letter, certain issues
have come to my attention, which require further discussion.
2. I now consider connectivity to the SHF link absolutely
essential . Battle groups are passing mission essential data and
critical information via SHF circuits which have no direct data
path to the submarine communication suite. The commanding
officer of the submarine must be able, for example, to pick up
his STU-III and access the Joint Task Force Commander, as can the
CO of a Spruance class destroyer. Additionally, the submarine
must be capable of receiving the data transmitted via SHF links.
The current plan to put SHF on all Tomahawk -capable CGs and DDGs
is a clear invitation to leave the SSN out of the TLAM picture.
3. High data rates are required to enable the submarine to
obtain mission essential data within a tactically reasonable
period. The current stumbling block to this is the lack of a
capability to communicate above the UHF range. Transfer of
imagery data highlights this shortfall. Surface ships routinely
obtain imagery data at 128 kbps while submarines are stuck at 2.4
kbps with the current ANDVT/CLUSTER NAVE path. For a submarine
to obtain a black and white 64 grey shade image (at a relatively
low 640 x 480 pixel resolution) at this low data rate requires
the antenna to remain completely dry for nearly half an hour.
This is not tactically reasonable . At a reasonable data rate of,
say 64 kbps (the data rate advertised for MDR EHF), the time
required could be reduced to about 45 seconds. This not only
greatly enhances the probability the image will be successfully
transferred, but frees the submarine to proceed onward with
4. I am concerned that the current plan of record (which I
understand is to provide this connectivity to/from the submarine
via a "seamless" EHF link) is in trouble. This program depends
on several independent elements coming together. Even if all
goes without a hitch, we will still be limited to relatively low
data rates compared to other forces.
a. First, a constellation of EHF satellites must be placed
in orbit (for which there does not seem to be a robust round of
support). This minimal constellation is not to be complete until
well into the next century. The EHF (MILSTAR) constellation has
been reduced to only six satellites, with no polar adjunct
capability. Thus, there will be no coverage beyond 65 degrees
north (this includes UHF after AFSATCOM is discontinued in 1998).
Additionally, the reduced constellation provides no backup in the
event of catastrophic failure of any one satellite.
b. Second, the Non-Penetrating Mast (NPM) or some other
advanced antenna must come to fruition in order to support Medium
Data Rate (MDR). At least we may be able to exercise some
control over the mast.
c. Third, the MDR (64 kbps) capability of the system is yet
to be developed. The current EHF suites installed in both of our
EHF equipped submarines are not MDR capable (installation of the
MDR drawer is planned to coincide with launch of the MDR capable
satellites). Neither are any current satellites EHF (MDR)
capable. The first two MILSTAR satellites in the constellation
of the six in stationary equatorial orbits will only be LDR
capable, leaving a wide gap in MDR coverage . The plans for
satellites to replace these two satellites at the end of their
useful life (about 2001) have yet to be defined.
5. A possible alternative for the satellite path would be
seamless "cross banding" between EHF and SHF bands for both
uplinks and downlinks. This capability would provide a portion
of the architecture for full use of the RF spectrum as described
for the TADIXS Communications Support System (CSS). However,
this would still not provide SHF connectivity with the battle
group ships via a line of sight path such as envisioned for the
Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system.
6. The SHF demonstration from one of our submarines planned for
mid-1994 will utilize a commercially developed antenna housed in
the AN/BRD-7 radome, which may provide an SHF data capability of
64 kbps (downlink) and 32 kbps (uplink). We need to keep working
on these advanced antenna development efforts and the utilization
of commercial equipment.
7. I believe that unless a more forward thinking plan is put
forth, the submarine force will become a "disadvantaged user"
relegated to secondary missions. With the surface forces having
current connectivity at 128 kbps and higher, 64 kbps is already
obsolete, and will be more so five and ten years from now.
SUBMARINE HIGH DATA RATE COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS
24 Oct 94
From: Director, Submarine Warfare Division (N87)
To: Director of Space and Electronic Warfare (N6)
Subj: SUBMARINE HIGH DATA RATE COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS
Ref: (a) CNO ltr ORD 2050 Ser N81/4S6428 26 of 25 Feb 94
(Lightweight SHF Satellite Communications
(b) N63 Commercial Satellite Communications ORD
(c) USCINCSOC 1612222 Sep 94
1. This letter identifies the omission of attack submarines from
the high data rate C4I architecture that supports the joint naval
battle force. MILSATCOM connectivity that will provide attack
submarines with the information transfer required for Task force
operations, intelligence gathering, Tomahawk strikes, and SOF
missions should be identified and included in the Navy's program
2. High data rate requirements are specified for Tomahawk
capable ships in reference (a), for CVBG support ships in
reference (b) and SOF support submarines in reference (c). These
operational requirements have been compared to the technical
capabilities for SATCOM transmissions to submarine antennas.
The results show that data rates of 128 kbps should be provided
now, with 256 kbps by 1998, and 512 kbps by 2002. The C4I
architecture should support achieving these data rates using mast
mounted antennas that are no larger than 16 inches in diameter.
3. In order to ensure that the development of a submarine high
data rate antenna is optimized for the Navy's MILSATCOM
architecture, it is requested that the plan for submarine high
data rate connectivity be formalized by 15 January 1995.
4. My points of contact are CDR E. R. Jablonski, N872E and LCDR
N. P. Moe, N872E4, (703) 697-2008.
D. A. JONES
HIGH DATA RATE SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS FOR
29 Nov 94
From: Commander, Submarine Force, U. S. Atlantic Fleet
To: Commander in Chief, U. S. Atlantic Fleet
Subj: HIGH DATA RATE SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS
Ref: (a) CNO ltr ORD 2050 Ser N81/4S642826 of 25 Feb 94
(b) N63 Commercial Satellite Communications ORD
(c) USCINCSOC 1612222 Sep 94
(d) CNO message 191715Z Oct 94
Encl: (1) High Data Rate Requirements
(2) Consolidate Submarine H DR Communications
(3) High Data Rate Mission Drivers
1. Reference (a) specifies High Data Rate (HDR) communications
requirements for Tomahawk capable ships. Reference (b) discusses
emerging High Data Rate Satellite communications needs for CVBG
support ships. Reference (c) specifies HDR communications
requirements for SOF support submarines. Reference (d) requested
Fleet input on HDR requirements fro submarines.
2. Enclosures (1) through (3) provide the HDR communications
requirements to meet the current and anticipated submarine force
needs from present to the year 2006. I consider HDR connectivity
to be absolutely essential in order to properly carry out the
submarine forces assigned missions. Battle groups are passing
mission essential data and critical information via SHF circuits
which have no direct data path to the submarine. The commanding
officer of the submarine must be able, for example, to pick up
his STU-III and access the Joint Task Force Commander.
Additionally, the submarine must be capable of receiving data
transmitted via HDR links. The current plan to put SHF on
Tomahawk-capable platforms needs to include SSNs if the are to
remain a viable strike warfare platform. Submarines are
essential components of BG/TG commands and need to be able to
communicate with the BG/TG commander on both tactical and non-tactical
circuits including communications paths identified in
3. The transfer of imagery data highlights the problem with
current submarine communications systems. for a submarine to
obtain a black and white 64 gray shade image (at a relatively low
640 x 480 pixel resolution) with its current data rate capability
of 2.4 kbps requires the antenna to remain completely dry for
nearly half an hour. This is not tactically reasonable . Higher
data rates are needed to ensure images are successfully
transferred and to free the submarine to proceed with mission
4. The HDR communications requirements identified in enclosures
(1) through (3) represent the current and future needs of the
submarine force. Enclosures (2) and (3) were a result of a joint
effort by COMSUBPAC and COMSUBLANT.
5. COMSUBLANT point of contact is CDR D. L. Olberding, (804)
445-6633, DSN 564-6633.
GEORGE W. EMERY
COMSPAWARSYSCOM (PMW 173)
HIGH DATA RATE REQUIREMENTS
1. COMSPAWARSYSCOM (PMW-173) and COMSUBDEVRON Twelve hosted a
submarine high data rate requirements working group in August
1994. Results of this working group are graphically displayed in
enclosures (2) and (3). Additional information requested in
reference (d) is enclosed below.
2. Deployers requiring simultaneous support . Baseline planning
requires that a minimum of nine submarines deploy within
COMSUBLANT area of responsibility simultaneously.
a. JTG/BG support - minimum of four submarines are
deployed to support JTG/BG's (3 Med/1 Caribbean).
b. SPECWAR - a minimum of one submarine is deployed in
support of SPECWAR (Med).
c. Surveillance - a minimum of four submarines are
deployed in support of surveillance operations (various
3. Potential operating areas . Mission requirements continually
place submarines in all oceans of the world, thus dictating the
necessity for full time on-demand worldwide coverage in all
geographic AORs. Additionally, the submarine fleet has
requirements for polar satellite coverage.
- The EHF (MILSTAR) constellation is not to be complete
until well into the next century and will comprise only 6
satellites, with no polar adjunct capability. This will leave no
EHF converge beyond 65 degrees North and no UHF coverage after
AFSATCOM is discontinued in 1998. Additionally, the reduced
constellation provides no backup in the event of catastrophic
failure of any one satellite.
4. Connectivity . Interoperable connectivity is required among
fleet units, Joint forces, Allied forces, Navy C4I Commands and
theater shore communication activities.
5. Information requirements . Enclosures (2) and (3)
graphically display minimum data rate requirements and mission
6. System responsiveness . Minimum data rates established were
based on the submarine maintaining its stealth posture by
minimizing mast exposure while at periscope depth. The system
must be structured that mast exposure is limited to between one
and five minutes.
7. Protection . The high data rate system should have a low
probability of intercept (LPI)/low probability of detection (LPD)
and should be jam resistant. Spread spectrum waveforms may meet
the requirement for LPI/LPD. Jam resistant throughput should
meet the minimum data rate requirements as described in enclosure
SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES (SOF) APPENDIX TO CHIEF OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS (CNO) SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM SUMMARY
8 May 95
From: Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command
To: Commander in Chief, U.S. Special Operations Comm and
Subj: SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES (SOF) APPENDIX TO
CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS (CNO) SUBMARINE
COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM SUMMARY
Ref: (a) COMSPAWARSYSCOM C4I mtg. of 8 and 9 Mar 95
(b) CNO Submarine Communications Program Summary
Encl: (1) SOF communications Appendix to CNO Submarine
Communications Program Summary (Draft)
1. Reference (a) requested SOF communications requirements for
inclusion into reference (b) by 25 May 1995. Enclosure (1) is a
draft of SOF communications requirements.
2. Upon USCINCSOC approval of enclosure (1) COMNAVSPECWARCOM
will forward requirements to COMSPAWARSYSCOM (PMW-173) for
inclusion into reference (b).
3. COMNAVSPECWARCOM point of contact is LT. Long, DSN 577-2237
or commercial (619) 437-2237.
A. J. RONACHER
COMNAVSPECWARGRU ONE (N6)
COMNAVSPECWARGRU TWO (N6)
COMMUNICATIONS CONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS
The current unstable world environment has created a greater
need for highly trained, and superbly equipped Special Operations
Forces (SOF). The multiple threat scenario now emerging poses an
increasing requirement for timely, accurate information to
support the varied, diverse roles and missions assigned to United
States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). Given the draw-down
of forces and reduced Department of Defense (DOD) budget, SOF
must rely on commercial development to maintain state-of-the-art
command, control, communications computers, and intelligence
(C4I) capabilities and to satisfy operational and intelligence
SOF are surgically precise, penetration-and-strike forces
capable of responding to limited, specialized contingencies
across the full range of military operations with stealth, speed,
and audacity. The traditional roles of SOF include performing as
warrior-diplomats who influence, advise, and train foreign
indigenous forces. Becoming more and more the force of choice
SOF must be equipped and trained to perform a wide variety of
diverse special operations missions.
To carry out these missions, SOF are drawn from the
following USSOCOM components:
- U.S. Army Special Operations Command
- Naval Special Warfare Command
- U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command
- Joint Special Operations Command
The primary purpose of the USSOCOM C4I strategy is to
provide the finest support possible to the warfighter. To ensure
the required C4I support is available, USSOCOM performed a
detailed bottom-up review of requirements resulting in a
comprehensive C4I strategy.
This strategy is designed to yield direct benefits by giving
SOF state-of-the-are technology through improvements to existing
inventory. New developments will be pursued only when necessary
Direct operational support is the product of this strategy Access
to the infosphere will be transparent to the user allowing
operational elements to deploy anywhere in the world with command
and control connectivity assured from garrison or deployed
locations. The intent is to enable exploitation of the
infosphere at the lowest possible tactical level. As stated in
the C4I for the Warrior paradigm: “The infosphere contains the
total combination of information sources, fusion centers, and
distribution systems that represent the C4I resources a
warfighter needs to pursue his operational objective. “The
desktop or tactical computer, in the hands of the special
operator, will become a gateway into the infosphere.
The USSOCOM C4I strategy is composed of C4I doctrinal
principles, a new open and flexible C4I architecture, and a
redesigned investment strategy.
G3. SOF C4I DOCTRINE
Special operations C4I fundamental principles are: Global,
Secure, Mission Tailored, Value Added, and Joint. These five
principles ensure successful C4I support to special operation.
Global. C4I systems support special operators worldwide
across the full range of military operations.
Secure. Humans are more important that hardware. C4I must
never compromise a live team on the ground or contribute to
mission failure. Additionally, all submarine operations
involving SOF must be conceptualized and executed in such a way
that protects the most vulnerable component of the mission,
namely the special operations forces. Hostile, or potentially
hostile, systems which pose no threat to the submarine may pose a
significant threat to special operations. Operational doctrine
must ensure that new systems do not alert a potential enemy to
impending actions by SOF.
Mission Tailored. SOF cannot be mass produced. C4I systems
must deploy in relation to the projected operational environment.
Value Added. Quality is better that quantity. SOF must
push new C4I technologies, equipment, and techniques to maintain
the competitive edge.
Joint. Competent SOF cannot be created after emergencies.
Special operation C4I is joint and supports joint, combined and
G4. SOF C4I ARCHITECTURE
The special operations C4I architecture is seamless, robust,
automated, standards compliant, and utilizes the full spectrum.
The architecture allows access to the infosphere to be pushed
down to the lowest possible level. It also interlaces national
and commercial C4I architectures with current special operation
functional architectures. With proper security measures, use of
commercial and host nation telecommunications structures are
encouraged. The C4I structure uses National Security Agency
(NSA) approved technology, procedures, and safeguards to ensure
operational elements are not compromised or exploited by an
enemy. To be effective, the special operations C4I architecture
must be relevant to today’s conditions and adaptable to those
anticipated into the 21st Century.
G5. SOF/SUBMARINE INTERFACE
G6. SOF/SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS
1. HF Requirements (2-50 MHz)
a. Special Mission Radio (SMRS). The principle SMRS
components are the AN/PRC-137 long-range manpack radio (MPR), its
associated Digital Messages Entry Device (DMED), and the
AN/TRQ-43 transportable base station (TBS). The SMRS components
will be enhanced with new features and capabilities, including
the implementation of the Interlocking Base Station (IBS)
network. SMRS is optimized for the special reconnaissance
mission but may be employed on any special operations missions
requiring long-range, low-observable, or highly reliable data
communication. The SMRS communications system will supplement
and interoperate with other SOF C4I systems. For SOF/SUB
application the MPR and DMED may be used.
b. All other HF radio applications will use Automatic
Link Establishment (ALE) or straight HF, data, voice LPI/D.
2. VHF Requirement
a. Low Band (30-88 MHz). LOS communications used
primarily with OF ashore and air assets. This requirement may be
employed with or without SINCGARS, data, voice, LPI/D.
b. High Band (116-149 MHz). LOS communications used
primarily with SOF ashore and air assets. This requirement may
be employed with or without SINCGARS, data, voice, LPI/D.
c. Inter Team Radio (136-174 MHz). LOS
communications to include LPI/D used between SOF Commander
onboard and teams ashore. This concept employs a base station
(FASCINATOR COMSEC equipment) onboard the submarine .
3. UHF Requirement
a. LOS. LOS communications used primarily with SOF
ashore and air assets. This requirement may be employed with or
without HAVEQUICK .
b. Inter Team Radio (403-430 MHz). LOS
communications to include LPI/D used between SOF commander
onboard and teams ashore. This concept employs a base station
(FASCINATOR COMSEC equipment) onboard the submarine.
c. SATCOM (225-499 MHz). Will be used in the
5 kHz (NB) and 25 kHz (WB) mode. DAMA and non-DAMA will be used.
4. SHF Requirement
a. Interoperability with national/DOD databases and
intelligence systems. The Joint Deployable Intelligence Support
System (JDISS) access could be provided though a shared use of
submarine assets or though an ADP terminal brought onboard by SOF
b. Increased Data Rate to support imagery and video
to and from SOF forces onboard.
c. TRI-Band. Interoperability between Ku, X, and C
band required at the JSOTF and TG and TU level.
5. EHF REQUIREMENT. Interoperability with JSOTF afloat or
6. IMAGERY and INFORMATION TRANSFER REQUIREMENT
a. Connectivity to an imagery and information
exchange system is required. JDISS is the DOD Intelligence
Information System (DODIIS) standard for accessing national and
DOD intelligence databases. A laptop JDISS terminal could
satisfy this requirement for the SOF operator. Additionally,
connectivity to digital camera imagery transmissions is a
requirement for the SOF operator to receive near real time
b. Currently, the Naval Special Warfare Information
Exchange System (NSWIXS) prototype provides the capability to
transfer information to/from SEAL operators. This data stream
could be a candidate to satisfy imagery and information transfer
requirements. Operating in a personal computer environment, the
NSWIXS provides the SOF operator the ability to push and pull
information as necessary. NSWIXS can operate over all frequency
mediums. Radiant TIN compression utilized with NSWIXS makes it
very effective for passing imagery. NSWIXS and Radiant TIN are
currently in the prototype stage.
c. Provide a state of the art digital imaging system.
The system must be capable of imagery collection and
dissemination in a digital format which can be interfaces and
integrated with other SOF system applications. Currently
available is the Digital Video Imaging Terminal (DVITS) which has
an RS232 port capable of transmitting or receiving up to 32kpbs.
7. HDR REQUIREMENTS.
These requirements include voice,
VTC, PERVIZ, Photo nics, UAV, file transfer, JDISS, ATO,
broadcast, IXS, naval message, OP notes. Video is the largest
HDR driver with bandwidths of 128 kbps to T1 connectivity.
8. Remote SOF C2. This concept would allow simultaneous
utilization of the submarine’s antenna assets by submarine and
G7. SOF/SUBMARINE CONFIGURATION
1. A two phased approac h needs to be considered. Short
term and long term options are provided below.
a. Short Term. Current DDS/SDV configured submarines
that are not scheduled for SCSS upgrade require installation of
SOF equipment. Current configuration consists of PRC-104 (HF
Non-ALE), PSC-7 (UHF SATCOM Non-DAMA) KY-57, KY99, ADC (data
packet switching device), stand alone PC, and AM-7175 (power
supply). This set up is installed on the USS KAMEHAMEHA. It is
desired to make this permanent alteration for both east and west
coast DDS/SDV submarines.
b. Long Term. For future requirements SCSS should
include SOF communications capabilities. these capabilities
include HF ALE, VHF SINCGARS, UHF HAVEQUICK , UHF SATCOM 5/25KHZ
DAMA, and ADC. If these capabilities exist inherent to the SCSS
then SOF would utilize submarine equipment on a not to interfere
basis. However, if the SCSS cannot accommodate these
capabilities then space, weight, and power would have to be
available for a carry on SOF C4I capability.
MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK MODES
Reply ZIP Code:
30 August 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief of Staff, US Army
Chief of Naval Operations
Chief of Staff, US Air Force
Commander in Chief, US Atlantic Command
Commander in Chief, US Pacific Command
Commander in Chief, Strategic Air Command
Subject: Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network
1. In order to provide a solid basis for operational and
acquisition planning for the VLF/LF portion of the Minimum
Essential Emergency Communications Network (MEECN), the following
mode architecture is promulgated:
CJCS Modes 15, 9, and 9 MMPM (MEECN Message Processing
Mode) are designated as the standard CJCS interoperable
MEECN modes for Emergency Action Message (EAM)
dissemination at VLF/LF. When the High Data Rate mode
reaches Full Operational Capability, it will be
included as an interoperable MEECN mode. CJCS Mode 8
(although still used by SAC for timing) and Mode 29 are
deleted as interoperable MEECN modes.
The above changes will be included in future updates of Emergency
Action Procedures of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff,
2. The Joint Staff point of contact is Lieutenant Colonel
Harvey Le Cato, USAF, DSN 224-5651.
For the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff:
HENRY VICCELLIO, JR.
Lieutenant General, USAF
Director, Joint Staff