From CReaMS to Fleet Synthetic Training and Beyond

Transcription

1 From CReaMS to Fleet Synthetic Training and Beyond Peter Clark 1, Peter Ross 1, Will Oliver 1, Peter Ryan 1, and CMDR Ralph Macdonald 2 1 Air Operations Division, Defence Science & Technology Organisation (DSTO), 506 Lorimer St, Fishermans Bend, Melbourne, Victoria, Peter.Clark@dsto.defence.gov.au 2 Head of Navy Simulations and Futures Royal Australian Navy, HMAS WATSON, Sydney Abstract. In the mid 1990s, Navy transitioned from a large mainframe-based centralised training system at HMAS WATSON that included models of all major ship types to a set of discrete simulators. Navy developed a distributed training capability by networking these new simulators under Project SEA This capability, known as the Maritime Warfare Training System (MWTS), enabled Navy to move to higher levels of training and readiness at minimal cost compared with live training, and prepare for coalition operations without leaving Australia. Once accepted into service, the MWTS was deployed in a series of exercises under several initiatives with the United States. The Coalition Readiness Management System (CReaMS) was an initiative by the United States Navy to demonstrate advanced training capabilities between coalition partners. This was established by way of bi-nation project arrangements, between the United States and each of Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, Singapore and the Netherlands. Australian participation in the project resulted in the conduct of three coalition synthetic training demonstration events during Development of a persistent and effective in-port and ashore training capability between the Royal Australian Navy and USN was the desired end-state of CReaMS. This was achieved in May 2006 with the first of a series of Coalition Fleet Synthetic Training exercises held between the RAN and USN Third and Seventh Fleets. During , Navy has run up to three such exercises each year as part of their routine warfare training. Future developments include the addition of new simulation assets on the network, expanded involvement in coalition exercises, regional engagement, and automated objective exercise evaluation and trainee assessment. This paper will discuss the evolution of Navy synthetic training throughout , and address future scientific and technical enhancements to the current system. 1. INTRODUCTION In the mid 1990s, Navy transitioned from a large mainframe-based centralised training system at HMAS WATSON that included models of all major ship types to a set of discrete simulators. Navy developed a distributed training system that networked the new simulators under Project SEA 1412, with DSTO assistance at the specification, testing and certifying stages. This system, known as the Maritime Warfare Training System, has since been successfully deployed in a range of coalition naval exercises, principally with the United States Navy (USN). This program of work has been highly successful and continually reported throughout the 15-year history of the SimTecT conference series. All the references in this paper are from the SimTecT conferences. 2. PROJECT SEA 1412 An Action Information Organisation Tactical Trainer (AIOTT) was installed at HMAS WATSON in 1975 which provided command team training (CTT) with four interactive models representing an aircraft carrier (upper and lower decks), Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG), Destroyer Escort (DE), and a generic ship. The facility was controlled by a mainframe computer system (Ferranti Argus hardware) which was decommissioned in The AIOTT was replaced by the Integrated Operations Tactical Training Facility (IOTTF) which simulated both the Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG2) and Frigate (FFG7), and the Anzac ship Combat Systems Tactical Trainer (CSTT). These were physically separate, independent systems with no option for task group CTT between the FFG/DDG/ANZAC simulators such as provided by the older AIOTT [1] [2]. Navy Project SEA 1412 was initially proposed to restore the then RAN Surface Warfare School's (RANSWARS) original capability to effectively provide CTT and tactical development for the RAN s major surface combatants [3]. Project 1412 was intended to exploit advances in simulation technology to position the RAN to meet maritime training requirements well into the 21st century. The Project was planned to be developed in three phases: o Phase 1: Project Definition Study

2 o Phase 2: Integration of IOTTF and CSTT within RANSWARS to form the Maritime Warfare Training Centre (MWTC) o Phase 3: Systematic development of the MWTC to allow integration with the RAN s On Board Training Systems (OBTS) and other ADF simulators. Phase 1 was undertaken as a DSTO Study [1] while Phase 2 was achieved in the early 2000s. Phase 3 has not been formally approved but is being progressed through other Defence Projects. tactical data links and real-time chat, and was conducted over an encrypted network. Involving only USN and RAN operational crews, the Encrypted Network Exercise was conducted in February o Phase Three: Virtual Coalition Readiness, examined the feasibility of ship-to-ship simulation connectivity by introducing a live ship, the DDG USS Howard, and additional simulation assets into the exercise (refer to Figure 1). This exercise was performed in September CREAMS The United States Navy (USN) initiated the Coalition Readiness Management System (CReaMS) program, funded by the US Congress. CReaMS aimed to enhance coalition warfighting readiness through advancing development of team interoperability training and combined mission rehearsal capability. It integrated evolving cognitive team learning principles and processes with advanced technology innovations to produce an effective and efficient team-learning environment. The fundamental CReaMS development strategy, as outlined within a five-year Project Arrangement (PA33) signed between the USN and DSTO/RAN in 2001, followed a building block sequence: (a) Laboratory to Laboratory demonstrated capability; (b) Shore Trainer to Shore Trainer demonstrated capability; and (c) Ship to Ship demonstrated capability. Through early collaboration, the US- Australia coalition team accelerated the development process and integrated the laboratory and shore site phases into one phase. DSTO's support to CReaMS was carried out under the umbrella of the JOANNE (Joint Air Navy Networking Environment) Project [4]. The aim of the JOANNE Project was to provide the background research and development to enable Navy and Air Force training simulators to be networked for joint training. Simulation interoperability standards were also addressed within the JOANNE Project [5]. Under the CReaMS Project Arrangement advanced training capabilities between the USN and RAN were demonstrated though three coalition synthetic training demonstration events during : o Phase One, the Preliminary Interoperability Experiment, took place in November 2001 between the RAN/DSTO, USN, and Royal Netherlands Navy. This was an unclassified exercise, showcased at the Interservice / Industry Training Simulation and Education Conference 2001 floor [6-7] at Orlando, Florida. o Phase Two, the Encrypted Network Exercise, expanded the network capability to include Figure 1: Virtual Coalition Readiness Exercise Topology These exercises increased in complexity beginning with an unclassified connection and event, through to a fully encrypted exercise with a live ship. It should also be noted that the three CReaMS exercises were carried out with East Coast land based elements of the USN located at Dam Neck near Norfolk, Virginia. An overview of the CReaMS Project Arrangement and detailed description of the final VCR exercise are given in [8]. 4. FLEET SYNTHETIC TRAINING Development of a persistent and effective in-port and ashore training capability between the RAN and USN was the desired end-state of the CReaMS project arrangement. This was achieved in May 2006 with the first of a series of Coalition Fleet Synthetic Training exercises held between the RAN and USN Third and Seventh Fleets. A Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) between the RAN and USN was established that provides coalition training opportunities to ships in the pre-workup training phase prior to operational deployment. The first three Coalition Fleet Synthetic Training Exercises (FSTs) were held in These exercises were sponsored by the USN Commander Pacific Fleet. The training participants included units and warfare commanders of the Fleet Commander

3 (Australia), Commander 3rd Fleet (USN), and Commander 7th Fleet (USN). Since 2006, the RAN has participated in approximately three FST exercises per year [9]. Figure 2 shows the exercise participants for the August 2006 USS John C. Stennis FST exercise. Hawaii USA USS O Kane USS Paul Hamilton Australia RAN MWTC (HMAS Parramatta) ( HMAS Ritchie ) Continental USA USAF DMOC USS Stennis USS Antietam USS Preble USN DTCC (960 th AACS) (123 rd ACS) (USS Oklahoma City) 69 th ADA Bge USN SLF USA DUST Figure 2: John C. Stennis Fleet Synthetic Training 2006 exercise participants The FST series of exercises was built on CReaMS and brings together Navy shore-based command team trainers, US Carrier Strike Groups, including warships in port (Japan, San Diego and Hawaii), and additional US Air Force, Marine, and Army training assets. In contrast to the CReaMS exercises, these FST exercises have been conducted with the West Coast (San Diego naval base) and Pacific elements of the USN. 5. TECHNICAL OVERVIEW The technical objective of each CReaMS/FST exercise was to provide an environment with sufficient realism to engage the training audience, namely the Action Information Organisation (Command Team) of each participating vessel. Although the training systems used within each exercise were individually well established, they varied considerably in terms of their capabilities and limitations. Technical effort was required to integrate these systems into an effective distributed training environment. This integration required linking disparate training systems over communication networks. Each training system also presented multiple functional areas to the training audience. These areas are: modelling and simulation, information exchange, real-time textbased chat (or text messaging), tactical communications, tactical data link and common operating picture. The intention, implementation and lessons learnt for each functional area are described below. Note that these next subsections primarily refer to technical issues encountered in running the FST series of exercises. These were more complex than the initial CReaMS exercises which had generally encountered similar technical issues. 5.1 Communications Network The communications network forms a critical foundation of any distributed training capability, and bears all data exchanged by each functional area. In the authors experience, installing this infrastructure is the single biggest, and underappreciated, risk in establishing a distributed training capability. For the FST exercises, multiple network enclaves were necessary to accommodate security requirements imposed by each functional area. These network enclaves included: BLACK, an unclassified network for the purpose of clear tactical voice communications; BLUE, a secure allied-releasable network for simulation ground truth, secure tactical voice communications, tactical data link and common operating picture; RED, a secure US-only network for simulation data, for the same purpose as BLUE; CFE 1, a secure allied-releasable network for operational information exchange and chat; and SIPRNet 2, a secure US-only network for information exchange. This list does not encompass other local networks specific to the participating training systems. Due to the existence of varying levels of security, network guard technology was used to permit legal exchange of data between the RED and BLUE 5.2 Distributed Simulation Distributed simulation refers to the exchange of ground-truth information between sites in order to stimulate sensors attached to, or modelled by, the participating training systems. Examples of ground truth, in the context of these exercises, are entity position and identification, radio frequency emitters, and secondary radar responses. In each exercise there was a diverse range of training systems employed, including shore-based trainers for the Adelaide and Anzac class frigates, and USN Battle Force Tactical Training (BFTT) onboard trainers for Aegis Combat System and Ship Self Defence System (SSDS). The training systems were able to interoperate using the Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) protocol; however the capabilities and limitations of each system were different. These differences need to be accommodated at either a technical level, or in the scenario, to ensure a fairfight and deliver useful training. Differences in capabilities included maximum entity count (some simulations can process a greater number of entities than others), entity enumeration mapping, and emitter regeneration. The Joint Semi Automated Forces Navy Training Baseline (JSAF NTB) has been adopted in FST as both a standard scenario generator, and common 1 Combined Enterprise Regional Information Exchange System (CENTRIXS) Four Eyes (CFE) 2 US Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet)

4 simulation medium through which to interface training systems. This medium is known as the High Level Architecture (HLA) Navy Training meta- Federation Object Model (NTF) [10]. Separate instances of the JSAF DIS/HLA gateway were used to integrate each training simulator into the common medium. 5.3 Tactical Communications - Voice Tactical communications refers to radio voice circuits used to exchange tactical information between the units within the exercise. Both virtual and live radio circuits were present in each exercise, and these systems were bridged together using the H.323 protocol as a common medium. H.323 is one of two primary standards for Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) telephony. A number of conference call facilities were established to simulate voice communication channels. VoIP-to-DIS-Radio and VoIP-to-Live- Radio gateways were used to bridge virtual and live radio frequencies into the conference call. Participants with access to neither a virtual nor live radio were able to monitor a circuit using a VoIP telephone handset. There are advantages and disadvantages to using VoIP technology over the existing DIS radio communications standard. o There is a diverse range of VoIP devices available, resulting in a mature communications standard. The DIS radio communications standard, supported by most virtual communications systems, was developed to model the radio frequency environment, including spectrum utilisation, and modulation and propagation effects. o There are fewer voice communications available to support the DIS standard, resulting in a less mature and interoperable standard. However, efforts have been made to rectify this through amendments to the standard [11]. o The H.323 protocol does not carry radio frequency information, thereby providing a perfect and error free tactical communications environment. DIS-based radios on the other hand can model the effects of radio propagation. o The VoIP architecture relies upon a central audio switching and phone directory computer, which therefore introduces a central point of failure. Such failures were frequent in the initial FST exercises. 5.4 Tactical Communications Real-time Chat Real-time text-based chat has become an essential tool in the exchange of free-form tactical information between USN vessels [9]. Coalition chat channels were operated on the CFE network, as this was the only network common to all participants. Supplementary chat channels were operated on SIPRNet; these were available only to US participants. The provision of two chat systems caused some problems throughout each exercise, as there was an unnecessary reliance by the USN participants on the use of the SIPRNet chat over the CFE. This impeded the flow of information between USN and RAN units. 5.5 Tactical Data Link Tactical Data Link (TDL) provides exchange of realtime machine-readable tactical information between naval combat data and airborne mission systems. Beyond-line-of-sight TDL distribution protocols were used to transfer Link 11 M-Series and Link-16 J- Series messages over the RED and BLUE networks. The distribution protocol used by RAN/USN in these exercises, known as Standard Interface for Multiple Platform Link Evaluation (SIMPLE), does not model the radio frequency environment, thus providing each combat unit with continuous and error-free data link connectivity. Despite this, some technical problems were encountered in establishing the data link network. These included: o Operator competency; o Equipment stability, and o Equipment incompatibility not all terminal emulators are alike. Operator competency and equipment reliability are issues that may be encountered operationally and therefore add somewhat to the realism of the training (even if unintended). Equipment incompatibility is a technical planning problem, and as such degrades the training usefulness. 5.6 Information Exchange The US Navy Collaboration At Sea (CAS) website, hosted on the CFE network, was used to exchange mission planning information throughout the task group organisation. Initial teething problems, such as webpage replication delays (documents posted in Australia were not available in the US until four hours later) and network stability, were experienced in the very first FST exercise. These problems were not anticipated, but in retrospect should have been incorporated into the exercise risk management document, given that this was the first trans-pacific use of the CAS website for many of the participants. 5.7 Global Command and Control System - Maritime The Global Command and Control System Maritime (GCCS-M) is an application suite that provides a

5 common operating picture between coalition units. In these exercises the GCCS-M computer at HMAS WATSON was networked to GCCS-M computers onboard the USN vessels. 5.8 Audio and Video Teleconferencing Whilst not an explicit function of the training simulation, Video Tele-Conferencing (VTC) was used in most CReaMS/FST exercises to support the debrief following each day of the exercise. Several different VTC technologies were used, including ISDN connectivity, secure connectivity over the BLUE network (which excluded USN shipboard participants due to the lack of a coalition network to their assets), and finally connectivity to all participants by a secure ISDN VTC bridge. In addition to VTC, unclassified and secure teleconferences were held during the planning phases prior to each FST exercise. 5.9 Technical Problem Analysis Technical problems were encountered in the initial exercises for the majority of the listed functional areas. A final teleconference was typically held in the week following each exercise to discuss significant technical problems. This provided an opportunity to compare performance against the risk management documentation (prepared prior to the exercise), and to discuss potential improvements for subsequent exercises. Data concerning the occurrence of technical problems, their impact on the training audience, and their resolution, was captured by DSTO and has been reported internally within the Australia Defence Organisation. This data is expected to be used in the planning of additional MWTS nodes. 6. TRAINING ASSESSMENT 6.1 Learning Methodology in the CReaMS series Another objective for the CReaMS exercises was to validate a learning methodology that combined both Objective Based Training (OBT) and Team Dimensional Training (TDT) for coalition team training [12]. Learning objectives and the learning process in military simulation environments have been previously identified in the development of LM theory, key elements derived from theory, a conceptual model of the learning environment, and the LM process model. Objective Based Training deals with the warfare or outcome, and associated warfare processes. Predominately objective data was collected and assessed against a set criterion for the outcome of an event. Additionally, expert subjective data was collected mainly on the warfare process or where judgement was needed to balance to requirements of different warfare environments. OBT highlights the development of objective-based assessment, which is based upon task lists and training objectives. This approach reflects how teams learn and also encourages continuous improvement of team performance; each successive cycle enables a higher level of performance. OBT promotes a learner-centred approach, whereby team members are active participants in the planning, execution, evaluation and reflection of the learning process. Team Dimensional Training provides a methodology for assessing the performance of a team and a team of teams in the warfare environment. Only subjective data can be collected against the dimensions of teamwork. TDT is an instructional strategy which aims to develop the dimensions of teamwork within teams. The model emphasises the importance of four dimensions of teamwork: (1) information exchange, (2) communication, (3) supporting behaviour, and (4) team leadership. TDT incorporates guided team self-correction to develop key knowledge and skills amongst team members. The TDT approach describes three stages in team training. The pre-brief emphasises the four teamwork dimensions; the exercise is conducted and teamwork behaviours assessed; finally a debrief is conducted post exercise. 6.2 Assessment of Training in the FST series An objective based training approach was evaluated incrementally throughout the CReaMS demonstration events. This work has led to the acquisition of a training support system known as the Maritime Assessment Training and Evaluation System (MATES). The objective of MATES is to improve the management of operational readiness by linking highlevel mission tasks lists to lower-level individual and team training objectives, and providing Navy with consistent scenario development, performance assessment and reporting tools that are aligned with these objectives. The performance evaluation tool, which forms one component of MATES, was used during PC FST to demonstrate the technology to visiting Naval seniority. The tool was operated by instructor subject matter experts and facilitated the collection of subjective performance measures of the HMAS Anzac command team. Two daily reports, a team traffic light report and detailed report card, were generated from the data collected [8]. These reports were presented as part of the local daily debrief. The assessment tool demonstration did not directly involve the USN training participants. Figure 3 displays the traffic light report for the three warfare regimes of air, surface, and under sea.

6 Figure 3: Warfare commander level assessment as displayed in the debrief software Although a demonstration, some observations were made concerning the suitability of the tool. In previous training exercises the measurement tool program had been installed on ruggedised hand-held Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) computers. These were substituted in the PC FST exercise with A4- sized Tablet PCs. Despite the increased screen size and hand writing recognition abilities offered by the Tablet hardware, their battery life and weight were found to be inadequate, as six hours of training were programmed for each day of the exercise. A compromise between the PDA and Tablet computer is sought. 8.1 Personnel Evaluation Training System Development Development of the Personnel Evaluation Training System (PETS) team competencies, doctrine, and mission capability has commenced, led by the Maritime Warfare Training System Office and DSTO. PETS will build on the knowledge gained during the progression of MATES. A prototype PETS After Action Review (PETS AAR) was developed in 2009 to explore frameworks for storing information and human machine interfaces. Close attention was given to the speed of use, the ease of navigation, and the flexibility of the interface presented to the assessor. The needs of the current assessor group at MWTC, concentrating on qualitative and constructive feedback, were analysed, and these became the basis of the design. The prototype PETS user interface is shown in Figure INDUSTRY SUPPORT Throughout the history of this work, Australian and also US industry has played a critical role: o The initial training simulators at HMAS WATSON were delivered by CSC (the ANZAC trainer) and BAe Systems (the DDG/FFG IOTT). o Adacel and CSC were contracted to carry out SEA 1412 Phase 2, the integration of the systems at HMAS WATSON. o The FFG Team Trainer was developed by Thales, Thales Underwater Systems and AAI Corporation. o Novonics (US) was instrumental in coordination of the CReaMS and FST exercises from the US. o Novonics Oceania was contracted to develop MATES and later the PETS prototype with subcontractors YTEK and Vo Tech. 8. FUTURE PLANS While Navy has been successfully running the MWTS in the FST exercises, it is anticipated that future extensions and upgrades of the system will occur. Figure 4: PETS in Data Entry Mode running on an HP IPAQ 212 PDA A representative set of facets, competencies, comments and qualifiers for air warfare serials was loaded into the hand-held device (PDA) for the trialling of this first prototype. A generic team assessment data set was also loaded, as were the role assessment criteria for the Principle Warfare Officer. 8.2 New Systems on the Network It is anticipated that there will be additional systems on the training network including: o The FFG UP On Board Training System, when fully delivered, will provide Navy with the ability to run synthetic training exercises on board; o ANZAC ships that are scheduled to have On Board Training Systems installed; o The Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) and Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) command team trainers that will be installed at HMAS WATSON when the ships are delivered;

7 o Simulation elements at Fleet Base West including ANZAC and a Collins trainer; and also o RAAF simulation assets such as the AEW&C and Hornet simulators that could be integrated into the system. 8.3 Expanded Involvement in Coalition Exercises Navy plans to expand its involvement in FST exercises drawing on additional RAN assets (Anzac, Air Warfare Destroyer, Landing Helicopter Dock) and possibly RAAF assets (such as AEW&C and F/A-18) Navy will play a key role in Talisman Sabre 2011 providing simulated assets that will form part of a synthetic Coalition Task Force. Navy is considering regional engagement with Singapore and Malaysia, and possibly other South Eastern Asian nations. The RAN would take the lead and act as the hub for potential training exercises. Navy also plans to run large local synthetic training exercises with RAN (and RAAF) assets for enhanced training. 8.4 Technology Upgrades Most of the existing systems use the IEEE DIS standard for interoperability. SISO and IEEE are upgrading this 1998 standard with the reviewed standard expected to be balloted during 2010 [11]. When this standard is approved, it is expected that the current systems would need to be upgraded so that they will be compatible with the new standard. Interoperability issues may arise with newer simulators connected to the network using the latest version of DIS. As mentioned in section 6.2, both PDAs and tablet computers have been trialled in the development of MATES and later PETS. Newer technology such as Apple's IPAD that combines features of both these systems may provide a superior solution for Navy. 10. REFERENCES 1 Ryan, P., Clark, P., & Zalcman, L. (1996) Distributed Interactive Simulation for RAN Training, SimTecT Hanham, E.E. (1996), Linking Navy Tactical Training Systems for Voice and Data, SimTecT Marshall, S., (1999), Future Directions for Maritime Warfare Training in the ADF, SimTecT Zalcman, L., Ryan, P., Clark, P., & Mason, M., (2001) Project JOANNE: Joint Air Navy Networking Environment, SimTecT Ryan, P., Clark, P., Zalcman, L., & Britton, M., (2003), JOANNE Standards for Enhancing Training Simulator Interoperability, SimTecT Ryan, P., Clark, P., Zalcman, L., & Quinn, P. (2002), CReaMS PIE: Coalition Readiness Management System Preliminary Interoperability Exercise, SimTecT Spithill, A. & McGarity, M., (2002), A Legacy Military System DIS Implementation: Lessons Learnt From I/ITSEC2001, SimTecT Clark, P., Ryan, P., Ross, P., Macdonald, R., Bowden, S., & Britton, M., (2004), Coalition Readiness Training For Navy, SimTecT Clark P., Ross P., Oliver W., Macdonald R., & MacNeill M., (2007), Coalition Fleet Synthetic Training, SimTecT Ryan, P., Clark, P., & Zalcman, L., (2002), Australian/US Collaborative Development of Joint Meta-FOM for Coalition Training in Synthetic Environments, SimTecT Ryan, P., Ross, P., & Oliver, W., (2009), Distributed Interactive Simulation Revisited: Capabilities of the Revised IEEE Standard, SimTecT Baldwin-King, V., Clark, P., Colton, T., Bowden, S., & Nightingale, D., SimTecT SUMMARY Navy is moving to higher levels of training and readiness at minimal cost compared with live training, and can prepare for coalition operations without leaving Australia. DSTO has provided S&T support to Navy during the past 15 years to enhance the effectiveness of naval team training through advanced distributed simulation. This has comprised impartial advice at the Project stage, assistance with managing and executing large distributed training exercises, performing scientific analysis of the exercises, developing improved tools for measuring system and crew performance, and providing Project Management and contractor management.