Integrating National C2 and Simulation Systems for BML Experimentation

Transcription

1 Integrating National C2 and Simulation Systems for BML Experimentation Dr. J. Mark Pullen and Dr. Stanley Levine C4I Center, George Mason University Dr. Kevin Heffner, Pegasus Simulation Lionel Khimeche, DGA France Dr. Ulrich Schade and Dr. Miloslaw Frey, Fraunhofer FKIE Nico de Reus, Nanne Le Grand and Paul de Krom, TNO Ole Martin Mevassvik and Anders Alstad, FFI Ricardo Gomez-Veiga and Sergio Galan Cubero, ISDEFE Adam Brook, QinetiQ Paper 10E-SIW-008

2 Presentation Overview Background: BML and MSG-048 MSG-048 Experimentation National C 2 Systems National Simulation Systems Future Plans/Conclusion

3 Background - BML Seeks C2-Simulation interoperation through unambiguous information representation Proof of Principle 2003 US Army Simulation-C4I (SIMCI) Expansion to SOA and JC3IEDM DMSO XMSF; JFCOM AO-BML; JBML Integrated BML architecture (IBML) supported by Army Geospatial Center and Army G6 Coalition BML (two activities called C-BML ) SISO Product Development Group NATO Technical Activity

4 NATO MSG-048 Technical Activity Chartered by NATO Research & Technology Organization (RTO) 2006 Purpose: Investigate Potential of BML in Coalition Environment Interoperability needs and challenge greatest there Presented demonstrations in 2007 and 2008 Order, then Orders+Reports See 08E-SIW-064 and 09E-SIW-003 Conducted experimentation in 2009

5 MSG-048 Experimentation Architecture Purpose: Evaluate the effectiveness of BML in maintaining common state required for effective interoperation Six national C2 Systems Canada, France, Netherlands, Norway, UK, US Five national Simulation Systems Canada, France, Spain, UK, US Two supporting software systems Scripted BML Server (US) C2LG BML Editor (Germany)

6 MSG Architecture

7 Experimentation Plan Warfighter experiment supported by military SMEs (active & retired) Canada, France, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, UK, US Extensive planning started March 2009 Experiments held November 2009 Manassas, VA, US Multinational brigade with two battalions, reconnaissance squadron and live opposing force Vignettes for planning, training, mission rehearsal

8 Planning Configuration

9 Training Configuration

10 Mission Rehearsal Configuration

11 Feedback from Military Users Need better mechanisms to coordinate operations across order and nations Using other nations simulations is problematic because of differences in tactics and doctrines Increased staff support would improve realism C2 systems not designed for quick change of plans Scenario used was relevant but could be less complex without detracting from experiments BML schema used was sufficient to meet requirements of the experiments The military users very much supported the concept of a BML

12 C2-Simulation System Issues Simulations have potential to overload C2 systems and BML infrastructure Use of publish/subscribe service helped Subscription filters reduced C2 input and server load Order subscription simplified system initialization and fragmentary order (FRAGO) reception Simulations should be consistent with actual C2 Aggregate reports at unit level Limit reporting to realistic rate

13 Experiment Scenario Operation Troy built by MSG-048 SMEs Fictional nations based in Caspian Sea region Insurgent opposing force Re-used some elements prepared in 2007/2008 French and Norwegian Battalions, US RECCE UK Air, Canadian UAV Mission: Rapid maneuver to destroy opposing force and seize objectives in order to support friendly regional military stability

14 Scenario Brigade Overlay

15 Scenario Order of Battle Combined Joint Task Force Caspian Sea Combined Joint Force Air Component Combined Joint Force Land Component Combined Joint Force Mari:me Component Combined Joint Force Special Opera:ons 2 Inf Div (Mech) [Combined and Joint] NATO Brigades including: 1 HBCT consis:ng of: 8/10 CAV USA Recce Regiment 1 22 NOR BaUalion 1 66 FRA BaUalion CAN UAV Platoon With UK fixed wing Air Element in support

16 Scenario Order of Battle - OPFOR

17 Scenario Activity Each of the battalions has assigned area of operation Reconnaissance element proceeded ahead of the battalions and reported enemy dispositions Each battalion commanders developed own course of action and generated a BML order C2 systems were able to issue FRAGOs so that battalions could respond to developing situation FRAGO actually used only by UAV commander

18 National Systems

19 Canada C2 System: BattleView JC3IEDM compliant Supported Predator-B Tactical Air Rec. Fire Support Actual fielded workstation used in the experiments No modifications made to actual system Simulated robotic force was commanded through BML UAV

20 France C2 System: SICF Land forces C2 system for French Division and Brigade CP Also used by French Rapid Reaction Corps and EuroCorps Shortens the decision-action cycle Provides each supported cell with all staff functions (G1 to G9) JC3IEDM compliant

21 Netherlands C2 System: ISIS Royal Netherlands Army staff C2 system Part of a family that covers the whole force Served as opposing force C2 system in experiments Able to issue FRAGOs Uses a gateway and cooperating BML editor (see below) overlay BML order BML order ISIS gateway BML editor Web service BML reports

22 Norway C2 System: NORTaC-C2IS Norwegian system for tactical army operations Supported battalion commander plan development and presented status and situation reports for experiments NORTaC-C2IS orders can be expressed in C2IEDM - simplified creation of BML gateway

23 UK C2 System: ICC Integrated Command and Control (ICC) developed by NATO Air planning tool Prepares airspace coordination order (ACO) and Air Tasking Order (ATO) Also used US JADOCS to display BML status reports Standalone translator interfaces allowed exchange of BML orders and reports Supported the different basic order reporting requirements of air components Generated ACO and ATO for mission rehearsal and training Pre-defined missions for each aircraft Adapted for FRAGOs using Canadian BattleView

24 US C2 System: ABCS US Army Maneuver Control System (MCS) distributed messaging system was interfaced to JC3IEDM as a means of interoperating with OneSAF simulation (supported by US Army SIMCI) In 2008 a BML interface was added so that BML orders can task OneSAF and reports are displayed on MCS The MCS-OneSAF system was able to interface with the MSG-048 coalition based on JC3IEDM Required a back to back client to exchange BML

25 Canada Simulation System: UAV-SIM Combined UAV-agents with a UAV System simulation Orders were translated into STANAG 4586 NATO UAV control standard Interface same as for actual UAV systems UAV reports were based on simulation data Converted to BML reports and published MISSION COMMANDER AGENT

26 France Simulation System: APLET Aims to provide simulation capability for Course of Action Analysis (CoAA) in conjunction with SICF Automates the military decision-making process Provides multi-level models capturing French doctrine Based on CORBA

27 Spain Simulation System: SIMBAD Constructive simulator for battalion-level task force command post training Minimal automation provided to user Gateway translates BML orders into elementary SIMBAD tasks and captures results for BML reports Intended for mission rehearsal but also supported training

28 UK Simulation System: JSAF UK used USJFCOM simulation JSAF 2007 to represent air element (also represented ground forces when needed) Interacted with the other simulators via DIS Bundled BML reports by topic

29 US Simulation System: OneSAF OneSAF is a standard US Army simulation Linked to US C2 by JC3IEDM as described previously Represented the reconnaissance element Back to back client for interoperation of two BML servers

30 US and German Supporting Software Scripted BML server from GMU Supported by US Army SIMCI Publish/subscribe capability new 2009 Detailed report in paper 10S-SIW-046 C2LG BML GUI/Editor from Fraunhofer FKIE Originally developed in FGAN grammar project Continued role played in 2008: view and if necessary complete BML orders See paper 09E-SIW-003

31 Development Process MSG-048 undertook an ambitious project The 2009 system was significantly more complex than previous years Could not have done this without distributed/ collaborative development process Open source shared repository and weekly Internet teleconferences were essential to the process All sites tested with GMU server via open Internet Had some rough spots but achieved new interoperability and learned a lot

32 Future Plans A general conclusion from MSG-048 is that BML shows great promise for coalition interoperability The successor technical activity MSG-085 was chartered held kickoff June 2010 Objectives: Further clarify scope and requirements of coalition BML Reach consensus on a digitized Operations Order Assess open-source reference implementations Demonstrate how coalition BML complements MIP

33 MSG-048