1

The NATO Industrial Advisory Group (NIAG)

Studies Exploratory Group Briefing

Liviu LAZARIS - Staff Officer NIAG

Guyonne Le FournisIS – Secretary NIAG

2

Where NIAG fits under CNAD:

NORTH ATLANTICNORTH ATLANTICCOUNCILCOUNCIL

NORTH ATLANTICNORTH ATLANTICCOUNCILCOUNCIL

Conference of Conference of National ArmamentsNational Armaments

Directors (CNAD)Directors (CNAD)

Conference of Conference of National ArmamentsNational Armaments

Directors (CNAD)Directors (CNAD)

NADREPsNADREPs

NNAGNAVY

NNAGNAVY

NAFAGAIR

NAFAGAIR

NAAGARMY

NAAGARMY NIAG

(Industry)

NIAG(Industry)

National Armament Directors

Representatives

NATO Army / Airforce / Navy

Armament Groups

3

NORTH ATLANTICNORTH ATLANTICCOUNCILCOUNCIL

NORTH ATLANTICNORTH ATLANTICCOUNCILCOUNCIL

Conference of Conference of National ArmamentsNational Armaments

Directors (CNAD)Directors (CNAD)

Conference of Conference of National ArmamentsNational Armaments

Directors (CNAD)Directors (CNAD)

Defence Investment

DivisionC3O

MilitaryMilitaryCommitteeCommittee

NADREPsNADREPs

Life Cycle ManagementLife Cycle

Management

NNAGNAVY

NNAGNAVY

NAFAGAIR

NAFAGAIR

NAAGARMY

NAAGARMY NIAG

(Industry)

NIAG(Industry)

STO(Science & Technology

Organization)

STO(Science & Technology

Organization)

PROJECTSPROJECTS

ACT

Emerging Security

ChallengesDivision

& in the broader “NATO Community”

4

NIAG Charter

• NIAG is a high-level consultative and advisory body of senior industrialists of NATO member countries, acting under the Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD), with the aims of:

– Advising National Armament Directors on industrial perspectives and issues –

“High Level Advice”

– Bringing industrial know-how and ideas to the work in CNAD and other NATO Bodies addressing NATO military capability requirements –

“Technical Studies Advice”

5

How does NIAG operate ?

• Plenary Meetings:– 3 per year – February / June / October)– NATO and Partner formats

• NIAG ‘Services’:– Study Sub-Groups – “High Level” Strategic Advice,

- “Pre-feasibility” Studies,- Workshop

Organisation/Support,- Demonstration

preparation//analysis.– Industrial Network - Responding to information requests.

– Representation in meetings – Industrial viewpoints,

• “Pre-feasibility” studies:– What is the current state-of-the art?– What do future technologies offer? – What is practical and achievable?– What is the best way to achieve “interoperability” ?

6

NIAG Studies –Nine Steps to Implementation

Responsible: Timeline:

Step 1 Studies Submission – to CNAD and CBC

MAGs By June Study Year -1

Step 2 Study and Tasking Request – to NIAG

Study Sponsor Group

8 weeks before Step 3

Step 3 NIAG Exploratory Group (EG) Meeting

NIAG Vice-Chairman

One month before Step 5

Step 4 Study Proposal Document – to CNAD for approval

NIAG Staff Officer

Immediately after Step 3

Step 5 Study Sub-Group Kick-Off Meeting NIAG SG Chair

Study Start

Step 6 Study Conducted NIAG SG Chair

Step 7 Study Reporting – to Sponsor Group and NIAG

NIAG SG Chair

Step 8 Study Assessment – to CNAD/NIAG Study Sponsor Group

One month after Step 7

Step 9 Study Administration Completion – study payments

NIAG SG Chair

Three months after Step 7.

7

Exploratory Group Meeting Agenda

1. OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS NIAG Vice-Chairman : Mr. Martin HILL

2. INTRODUCTION TO NIAG STUDY PROCEDURES Brief by International Staff – NIAG Staff Officer

3. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSED STUDYBrief by Study Sponsor

4. REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION

5. NOMINATION OF STUDY CHAIR, DEPUTY CHAIR, RAPPORTEUR AND NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS

6. STUDY ORGANISATION – WORK TEAMS ALLOCATION AND WAY AHEAD

7. STUDY CONTRACTING ARRANGEMENTS, BUDGET PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION – By NIAG Secretary

8. STUDY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS – By NIAG Staff Officer

9. DATE OF KICK-OFF MEETING OF STUDY GROUP

8

At this meeting:

• The Secretary will collect and collate your Business Cards/Contact Information.

• You, the Industry experts, are invited to:– Understand and give consideration to the study objectives and

requirement;– determine your/your company interest in study, and your potential role

and contribution;– Consider volunteering to the study leadership team as Chair, or Deputy

Chair, or Rapporteur.

• The Sponsor group will be invited to nominate a ‘Quick Reaction Team’ to support the study activity.

• The Secretary will provide follow-up notes of the meeting presenting the study objectives and organisation agreed at this meeting, the study way ahead and all contacts information.

9

For information:

• NIAG Chairman – Mr Wayne Fujito (US)– wayne.fujito@dac.us

• NIAG Vice-Chairman – Mr Martin Hill (UK)– martin.hill@thalesgroup.com

• IS – Staff Officer– Mr Liviu Lazar– lazar.liviu@hq.nato.int

• NIAG Secretary – Ms Guyonne Le Fournis– Lefournis.guyonne@hq.nato.int…………………………………………………………………………………..

• NIAG Website – https://niag.hq.nato.int – (password protected)

• STO Website - www.sto.nato.int

10

Item 7 - Study AdministrationReference: NIAG-WP(2006)0003 dated 24 April 2006

• Contracting Arrangements.– NIAG ‘Study Order’ sent to each participating company

• Lays out Study Objectives, payments, security, proprietary rights

AT THE KICK-OFF MEETING:

– Please list the Participating Companies and experts for the study SG.– For each participating company, please collate and forward to the

Secretary the name and address that the Study Order is to be sent to.

• Budget/Payment– NATO Formula - €412 per “man day”, – “Man Days” = Meeting Days + Study Days + Travel Day.

AT THE KICK-OFF MEETING:

– Please provide Secretary with name and address of each participating company’s Financial Office to which she may write to request the payment invoice.

11

Item 8 - Studies ReportingReference: NIAG-WP(2006)0003 dated 24 April 2006 (On CD ROM issued to SG Chairman)

• Interim Report to NIAG Plenary– 4 ‘Power Point’ slides. (11 Oct 2011)

• Interim reports to Sponsor Group responsibility of QRT

• Final Report Summary briefs by Chairman (or delegated SG member) to:– Sponsor Group– NIAG Plenary (8 power point slides)

• Final Report (Written)– Executive Summary - 2 pages– Main Body - 20 pages– Annexes(Microsoft ‘Word’ & “Adobe Acrobate” Formats/ Send to Secretary)

• Summary Report for NIAG Studies Historical Record

12

BACK UP SLIDES

13

Payment ManagementSUB-GROUP PAYMENT SPREADSHEET

NIAG SUB-GROUP NO. …...

Meeting Number/Name         Mtg1 Mtg2 Mtg3 Mtg4 NIAG1

Scheduled start date                  

Scheduled end date                  

Sheduled duration                  

Meeting venue Europe/ USA Canada                

                   

ATTENDANCE RECORD                  

Name Company Country     For Attendance - mark 'Y'

                   

                   

                   

                   

                   

BUDGETED CLAIMS     TOTALS Claim          

      Days Euro          

Name Company Country              

                   

                   

                   

                   

GRAND TOTAL                  

                   

DATE:                

                   

SIGNED - SG Chair

 

             

               

14

Technology Readiness Levels

1. Basic principles observed and reported.2. Technology concept and/or application formulated.3. Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic

proof of concept.4. Technology component and/or basic technology sub-system

validation in laboratory environment.5. Technology component and/or basic sub-system validation in

relevant environment.6. Technology system/sub-system model or prototype

demonstration in relevant environment.7. Technology system/sub-system prototype demonstration in an

operational environment.8. Actual technology system completed and qualified through test

and demonstration.9. Actual technology system “mission proven” /“qualified” through

successful mission operations.

15

Technology Readiness Level Description

1. Basic principles observed and reported in context of a relevant Military Capability Shortfall

Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be evaluated for military applications and translated into applied research and development. Examples might include paper studies of a technology's basic properties.

2. Technology concept and/or application formulated

Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be postulated. Applications are speculative and there may be no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are limited to analytic paper studies.

3. Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept

Active research and development is initiated. This includes analytical and laboratory studies to physically validate the analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or representative.

4. Technology component and/or breadboard (system / sub-system representation) validation in laboratory environment

Basic technological components are integrated to establish that the pieces will work together. This is relatively "low fidelity" compared with the eventual system. Examples include integration of "ad hoc" hardware in a laboratory.

5. Technology component and/or breadboard (system / sub-system representation) validation in relevant environment

Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so the technology can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include "high-fidelity" laboratory integration of components.

6. Technology system/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment

Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond the breadboard (representation) tested for TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology’s demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high fidelity laboratory environment or in a simulated operational environment.

7. Technology system prototype demonstration in an operational environment

Prototype near, or at, planned operational system. Represents a major step up from TRL 6, requiring the demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment (e.g., in an aircraft, in a vehicle, or in space). Information to allow supportability assessments is obtained. Examples include testing the prototype in a test bed aircraft.

8. Actual technology system completed and qualified through test and demonstration

Technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development and demonstration. Examples include developmental test and evaluation of the system in its intended weapon system to determine if it meets design specifications, including those relating to supportability.

9. Actual technology system “mission proven” / “qualified” through successful mission operations

Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation and reliability trials. In almost all cases, this is the end of the last “bug fixing” aspects of true system development. Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions.