text: Appendix A
  Table A-2. Levels of interoperability (continued)
  Level 2 (compatible). Army and UAPs can interact with each other in the same geographic area in pursuit of mutual goals. Army and UAPs
  have similar or complementary processes and procedures and operate effectively with each other.
  • Communication and information systems. UAPs achieve network connectivity through technical ad hoc procedures. Partners provide their
  own core services. The COP is achieved via ad hoc procedures.
  • Information management. UAPs exchange only information that is agreed upon (versus common information). UAPs must agree on
  information/knowledge management policies before deployment. UAPs conduct manual records management.
  • Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and intelligence fusion. National representatives and liaison officers facilitate partial
  access to intelligence across nations and domains for a partial CIP. UAP intelligence staffs use standard operating procedures to drive
  intelligence fusion, collection management, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements.
  • Fires. National digital systems require Fire Direction Center translation, some ammunition interchangeable, and common voice call for fire
  procedures.
  • Sustainment. Liaison officers, manual processing, and limited digital automation are required for log replenishment.
  Level 3 (integrated). Army and UAPs can integrate in theater. Interoperability is network-enabled to provide the full range of military operations
  capability. UAPs can routinely establish networks and operate effectively with or as part of Army formations.
  • Communication and information systems. UAPs share a common network, common services, and a COP.
  • Information management. Common defined information exchange products, common information management/knowledge management
  policies, common information management baseline, and automated records management.
  • Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and intelligence fusion. UAPs have sufficient access to intelligence across nations and
  access to Top Secret, Secret, and unclassified domains to facilitate high-tempo operations. UAPs can request and access intelligence,
  surveillance, and reconnaissance across domains and nations. UAPs contribute and share a CIP and intelligence staffs have common training,
  processes, and procedures.
  • Fires. UAPs use networked fires C2, including precision effects and interchangeable ammunition.
  • Sustainment. UAPs initiate and execute coalition logistic replenishment by digital automation.
  Note. A digital liaison detachment provides a digital liaison capability to Army units—theater
  army, corps, and division headquarters—for connectivity with allied and multinational force units
  and other Services. (See ATP 3-94.1.)
  A-15. The Army’s capability and capacity to share information freely and securely are imperative to
  multinational partner interoperability. The speed of information sharing improves the commander’s ability
  to create unity of effort and C2. Interoperability, and particularly a shared COP, builds trust during operations
  with multinational forces. It is critical for Army forces to be informed of pertinent information sharing
  authorities. Leaders must also emphasize the importance of information sharing.
  A-16. Integrated and secure information sharing dramatically improves Army forces’ ability to fight as one
  multinational team. The broader unified action partner team also includes other U.S. Government
  departments and agencies, state and local governments, allies, coalition members, host nations, other nations,
  multinational organizations, nongovernmental organizations, academia, and the private sector.
  A-17. Units must be aware of and remain sensitive to cultural and religious differences among multinational
  partners. In some instances, these differences may result in periods of increased vulnerability for the joint
  force or may require scheduling changes for meetings and briefings. Major differences may include
  techniques for intelligence provided to the commander (jointly or individual Services or agencies),
  procedures for sharing information among intelligence agencies, and security afforded by different
  communications systems and procedures. Administrative differences may include classification levels,
  personnel security clearance standards, requirements for access to sensitive intelligence, and translation
  requirements.
  A-18. Typically, there is a disparity in U.S. and multinational force capabilities. Multinational forces may
  have greater intelligence resources within a given region, including valuable and extensive HUMINT, critical
  foreign language skills, and access to the population and open sources. U.S. forces must generally provide
  technical assistance to share information and intelligence.
  A-19. It is imperative for combined force commanders to establish a system that optimizes each nation’s
  contributions and provides units reliable intelligence. U.S. units subordinate to non-U.S. headquarters may
  face unique problems in disseminating intelligence. If a direct channel is available to the next higher U.S.
  headquarters, the tactical U.S. unit may have better and more current intelligence than its controlling non-
  U.S. headquarters. In that instance, liaison personnel should disseminate intelligence while adhering to
  foreign disclosure regulations.