Secure Terminal Equipment STE Interoperability Issues 28 February 2002

1
Secure Terminal Equipment (STE) Interoperability
Issues28 February 2002
2
Background

• Purpose of the STE in the JTF network
• Next generation voice and data terminal
• Provides enhanced secure/non-secure digital
  communications for joint operations
• Supports secure voice, data, facsimile, and VTC
  over DISN and tactical networks

3
Findings

• STE does not interoperate in a JTF network
• Does not reliably complete secure calls
• No process in place to ensure testing of the STE
  releases prior to fielding
• Units are being fielded STE without proper
  testing in a combat network with real world
  systems/equipment

4
Findings

• Secure Voice
• Does not reliably complete secure calls when used
  in a mixed tactical/PBX/strategic network
• Latest release performs WORSE (0 in some
  scenarios) than previous release
• Test results corroborated by deployed units in
  Enduring Freedom (CENTCOM, SOCOM)
• Data / VTC / Facsimile
• Dependent on the secure voice call completing

5
Test Network STE 1cDICE 2001 (JTF Notional
Network)

• Requested by Army Staff
• Focused on legacy MSE/TRI-TAC, ULCS, and
  strategic switches
• Extensive testing to verify fixes of earlier 1b
  version

6
Test Network STE 2.0 ENDURING FREEDOM - Real
World Problem
Promina / Satellite Network
Promina / Satellite Network
DSN SL-100
Army TRI-TAC TTC-39D
SOCOM TRI-TAC TTC-39E

• Requested by CENTCOM/SOCOM
• Replicated Enduring Freedom network
• Narrower focus than previous 1C testing

Air Force TDC-ICAP PBX
Air Force TDC-ICAP PBX
7
Test Summary Slide

• Secure Call Testing Ver 1c Ver 2.0
• Strategic-Strategic 100 Not Tested
• Tactical-Tactical (16K ECB) 100 Not Tested
• Tactical-Tactical (32K EAC) 70-100 100
• Mixed Network 57-100 0
• Tactical-Strategic/PBX 32-58 0

• 100 if both parties use 4-wire mode
• Root of problem is 4-wireltgt2-wire conversion
• Precludes Tactical ltgt Strategic/PBX/Commercial
  calls
• Impact
• Army, Special Ops USMC cannot call secure to
  Air Force, JTF, or DSN

8
Discussion

• Initial poor performance of STE 1c, no
  improvements with STE 2.0
• Worse performance than STE 1c in tactical
  networks
• Proposed solution not comprehensive
• LTU with Interworking Function
• Does not support USMC, and only 20 of Army
  switches

9
Conclusion

• STE will not currently support the requirement
  for secure voice communications in a JTF
• Deployed units are dependent upon STE
• Any solution must support the joint community
• Interoperability testing with a robust network a
  must!

10
Recommendations

• Interim solutions should be tested early and
  frequently throughout development
• Vendor / PM should take advantage of JITCs
  assets to test in realistic environment
• All DSN switches
• Service Switches (MSE/TRI-TAC, ULCS, Redcom)
• Satellite, Promina, and other transmission media

11
Backup slides
12
Completion Percentages Strategic ltgt Strategic
Secure Voice

• No significant problems identified in pure
  strategic use

13
Completion Percentages Tactical (16K) ltgt
Tactical (16K)
Results from DICE 01
Secure Voice

• No significant problems identified in pure
  tactical use
• Irrelevant to most Army users they use a red
  switch network

14
Completion Percentages Tactical (32K) ltgt
Tactical (32K)
Results from DICE 01
Secure Voice

• Legacy/tactical calls (4-wire TriTac mode) will
  usually complete
• Predominately Army, USMC

15
Completion Percentages Tactical (16K) ltgt
Tactical (32K)
Results from DICE 01
Secure Voice

• The more realistic the tactical network, the
  worse the performance

16
Completion Percentages Strategic/PBX ltT1 / E1gt
Tactical
Results from DICE 01
Secure Voice

• Problem with 2-wire ltgt 4-wire conversion
• Army ltgt JCSE, Air Force, or DSN will likely fail
  (Operation EF!!)
• Latest STE release is much lower (0-20)

17
STE 2.0 Completion Percentages
Results from EF Hotline Calls
Secure Voice

• In short, STE will not perform in a diverse
  (real-world) network