Australian/US Collaborative Development of Joint Meta- FOM for Coalition Training in Synthetic Environments

Transcription

1 Australian/US Collaborative Development of Joint Meta- FOM for Coalition Training in Synthetic Environments Dr Peter Ryan; Dr Peter Clark; and Dr Lucien Zalcman Air Operations Division, Aeronautical & Maritime Research Laboratory, Defence Science & Technology Organisation (DSTO), PO Box 4331, Melbourne, Victoria, 3001, Australia Major Trevor Colton SO2 Simulation Army Simulation Office Puckapunyal, Victoria Peter Kassal US Naval Sea Systems Command, PMS Isaac Hull Avenue SE Washington Navy Yard, DC Doug Clark Anteon 2341 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA Absract: Both the United States (US) and Australia are developing distributed maritime warfare training capabilities. The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) is developing the Maritime Warfare Training System (MWTS) which will initially link several existing surface warfare trainers to provide enhanced command team and tactical training. The United States Navy (USN) is developing the Battle Force Tactical Training System (BFTT) which uses distributed simulation to provide training for individual and multiple sets of ships. Australia and the United States are in the process of finalizing a collaborative arrangement that will ultimately ensure that Australian Navy training systems both in the ships and ashore will be able to communicate with their US counterparts. The RAN could then participate in coalition training exercises with the USN in a series of exercises, which might be termed Virtual Tandem Thrust. A key issue in establishing interoperability is the networking standard adopted. Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) is the current mature standard for simulator interoperability and is used by BFTT. Similarly the MWTS will initially use DIS as its networking standard. However, BFTT under an HLA Memorandum of Agreement established between the Services and the US Department of Defense, will migrate to the High Level Architecture (HLA). Further in its development, the MWTS will also need to migrate to HLA to ensure continuing interoperability. This paper describes the development of a Joint Australian/US Federation Object Model (FOM) based on the USN Naval Training Meta-FOM (NTMF) that will enable the necessary interoperability under HLA. 1. INTRODUCTION Both the US and Australia are developing distributed maritime warfare training capabilities. The RAN is developing the Maritime Warfare Training System (MWTS) which will provide enhanced command team and tactical training. The USN is developing the Battle Force Tactical Training System (BFTT) which uses distributed simulation to provide training for individual and multiple sets of ships. It is in Australia's interests to collaborate with the USN, since this will ultimately ensure that Australian Navy training systems both in the ships and ashore will be able to interoperate with their US counterparts. The RAN could then participate in coalition training exercises with the USN in a series of exercises which might be termed Virtual Tandem Thrust. A key issue in establishing interoperability is the networking standard adopted. Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) [1], the current mature standard for simulator interoperability, is used by BFTT and will be used initially by the MWTS. However, in accordance with the High Level Architecture (HLA) memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Services and the US Department of Defense, BFTT will migrate to HLA [2]. Further in its development, the MWTS will also need to migrate to HLA to ensure continuing interoperability. This paper describes the

2 development of a Joint Australian/US Federation Object Model (FOM) based on the USN Naval Training Meta-FOM. This FOM will enable the necessary interoperability under HLA for the RAN and USN. 2. BACKGROUND Across the next 10 years Australia will be developing a set of trainers including shore-based, dockside or at sea that will have the capability of being networked. This capability will allow the stimulation of sensors on real platforms. 2.1 Australian Navy Development of Maritime Warfare Training System The RAN will initially establish a Maritime Warfare Training Centre (MWTC), through Project SEA 1412, in Sydney. The MWTC will provide enhanced command team and tactical training for the RAN into the 21st century [3]. Initially, this Centre will have the capability to network only shore-based naval warfare training systems. As it matures, a Wide Area Network will be added which will enable the MWTC to link other trainers and ship On Board Training Systems (OBTS) to form the Maritime Warfare Training System, an Australian wide-area maritime simulation network. This system will enable combined training to be achieved with ships alongside at the Fleet Bases in Sydney and Perth, networked together via their onboard training systems. Connectivity to other ADF simulators, such as RAN helicopter simulators, the RAAF AP-3C, F/A-18 and Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) simulators, and Army systems could also be achieved providing expanded joint force training and mission rehearsal for the whole Australian Defence Force. 2.2 USN BFTT Program The US Navy s BFTT System provides on board naval training using DIS and HLA. This technology enables a number of ships and shore units to participate in the same virtual battlespace even though they may be geographically dispersed. The BFTT system provides a scenario generation, stimulation/simulation, data collection and afteraction review (AAR) capability that stimulates the ship s combat systems and tactical data links. The BFTT system includes shipboard, shorebased and portable configurations. It is designed to train several ships together as a Battle Group while networked in port (or distributed among several ports). BFTT also allows a single ship to train inside the lifelines while underway. Development is in progress to provide a multi-ship training capability while at sea. The BFTT system is currently installed on US Navy Aircraft Carriers (CV/CVN), Aegis Cruisers (CG), Destroyers (DD/DDG), and Amphibious Ships (LHA/LPD/LSD) and is also interoperable with various submarine (SSN) combat system trainers. BFTT is managed through the Naval Performance Monitoring, Training & Assessment (PMTA) Program Office in Naval Sea Systems Command [4]. Although BFTT currently employs DIS as its internal networking architecture, a migration to HLA is underway [5]. Currently BFTT can communicate externally with other simulators / stimulators (federates) via HLA. 2.3 International Collaboration between USN and RAN The Coalition Readiness Management System (CReaMS) project is a Coalition Warfare Program initiative with USN, UK Royal Navy (RN), RAN, German Navy & Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) participation. The aim of CReaMS is to create four (or more as additional Nations join) bilateral projects with the USN as the parent in each case. Issues of interoperability, commonality of databases, and latency will be researched in a synthetic environment via an international Wide Area Network (WAN). Collaboration between Australia and the US in maritime coalition warfare training is being expedited via the CReaMS Project Arrangement between the USN and RAN/DSTO. The CReaMS PA was agreed between the two nations in 2001 and has already demonstrated initial interoperability between RAN and USN systems at the I/ITSEC 2001 Conference [6]. The DSTO component of CReaMS is undertaken within the Air Operations Division s JOint Air Navy Networking Environment (JOANNE) Project. JOANNE is providing a prototype synthetic environment for ADF training through the utilization of existing simulation assets. Project JOANNE is also a Research and Development Testbed for distributed simulation research that will provide benefits to a number of existing sponsored Projects including SEA 1412, the Virtual Air Environment, and also include linkages to the United States Navy. 2.4 Army Synthetic Environment In a related development, the Australian Army has developed the Army Synthetic Environment (ASE) which has adopted HLA as its architecture [7]. The ASE combines virtual and constructive systems within a common synthetic battlespace to provide tactical warfare training for Army units. Army also has an interest in coalition and joint exercises with the USN and RAN via distributed simulation.

3 3. INTEROPERABILITY UNDER HLA 3.1 High Level Architecture HLA is a methodology designed to support distributed simulation exercises [8]. HLA designates simulations federates and a set of participating federates as a federation. The Federation Object Model (FOM) identifies the essential classes of objects and interactions and their respective attributes and parameters that are supported by an HLA federation. All participating federates need to agree on a FOM so that they can exchange the required data. HLA compliance alone does not guarantee that systems can interoperate. The FOM has a tabular format with an object class structure table and an interaction class structure table. Object classes typically refer to simulated physical entities such as aircraft and ships while interaction classes describe the entity actions and interactions that occur in simulations such as weapon fire and communications. Each object class is characterised by a set of attributes describing its properties such as position and velocity whereas each interaction class is characterised by a set of parameters such as the result of a munitions detonation. Various Reference FOMs such as the Real-time Platform Reference (RPR) FOM have been proposed to assist with conversion of DIS-compatible systems to HLA and to further promote interoperability. The RPR FOM is a HLA description of the DIS protocols [9]. RPR-FOM 1.0 supports DIS IEEE DIS functionality [10] and is now a Simulation Interoperability Standards Organisation (SISO) standard [11]. RPR FOM 2.0, yet to be released, will support DIS IEEE a-1998 functionality [12]. 3.2 Naval Training Meta-FOM Since December 1998, US Government and Industry personnel representing Navy air, surface and subsurface trainers, and Marine Corps training systems, have explored the potential value of the interoperation of training devices [13]. The meetings have focused on applying HLA concepts, tools, and processes to develop a means to enable the interoperability of Naval simulation and training systems in a consistent manner. The envisioned solution, the Naval Training Meta-FOM (NTMF), will provide a common battlespace representation allowing for interoperability and consistency between Naval simulation and training systems. The initial development of the NTMF [14] has been based on the following systems: Battle Force Tactical Training Program (BFTT) as described in section 2.2. Generic Acoustic Stimulation System (GASS) which provides acoustic stimulation for Anti- Submarine Warfare (ASW) trainers. SH-60B/R Trainer Upgrade, which is an upgrade to existing Weapons Tactics Trainers and Weapons Systems Trainers for the SH60 airframe. Submarine Multi-Mission Team Trainer (SMMTT) which provides the capability to train submarine combat systems and acoustics crews in team, joint, and synthetic battlegroup operations. Systems under consideration have generally used either the RPR-FOM or the STOW-FOM and various versions of the Run Time Infrastructure (RTI). 3.3 Development of NTMF from RPR-FOM The NTMF was developed as an extension of the RPR- FOM 2.0. The NTMF includes 36 new classes with 4 new base object classes: TrackReport, Track Characteristics, Technical Data and Metoc Observation. These new classes were added to integrate with the Tactical Environment Data System (TEDS) [15] which is a Defense Information Infrastructure (DII) Common Operating Environment [16] compliant set of database, data, and software segments that serve as the primary repository and source of Meteorology and Oceanography (METOC) data and products. The NTMF will thus have access to realistic environmental data for use in simulations. A new interaction class, CentreofGamingPoint, was also added for consistency with the BFTT FOM to satisfy BFTT Operator Processor Console (BOPC) functionality requirements. There is a total of 8 additional complex data types required for the new object and interaction classes. There are also 35 new enumerated data types that come from the new object classes. Many of these refer to tracking environmental conditions such as ice related to TEDS. No enumerated data types were added for any interaction classes. The NTMF is at version 0.2 and is incomplete. Many of the new classes have not yet been fully defined and require additional effort. 3.4 HLA FEDEP Process for NTMF The NTMF is being developed using DMSO s HLA Federation Development and Execution Process (FEDEP). This provides a template to develop FOMs incorporating six steps: Define federation objectives Develop federation conceptual model Design the federation Develop the federation Integrate, test, and execute the federation Report results A systems engineering use case approach has been adopted. The use case aids in defining the models

4 and data elements that will be required by all members of the federation and hence in determining the composition of the FOM. 3.5 USN Use Cases Three USN use cases were investigated as described below. Expeditionary Warfare: A landing from the sea is opposed by troops, naval forces, aircraft, and mines. The Task force includes ships, aircraft, and makes use of shore bombardment. Littoral ASW is also conducted with submarines, aircraft, and ships. 1st Carrier group First air battle 2nd Carrier group Strike Warfare: Opposing forces consisting of air defence, tanks, and artillery are entrenched. A landing is precluded due to minefields or politics so a naval strike operation is launched against the ground forces from ships and submarines. Coordinated Anti Submarine Warfare (air, surface and undersea): A deep-water choke point must be cleared using a combined force of ships, submarines, helicopters, aircraft coordinated by data links and satellite communications. The opposing force consists of several submarines. 4. REQUIREMENT FOR A COALITION FOM A Coalition FOM must define the attributes and interactions necessary for meaningful interoperability under HLA between the RAN, RAAF, Army and USN. Context, level of detail, and consistency of the synthetic environment must be addressed within the Use Cases described below. 4.1 Australian/US Coalition Use Case 1: Pacific Warfare Scenario This involves two task groups: one task group stationed south of Japan and the other west of Hawaii. The Task Groups comprise USN carriers, destroyers and cruisers with Australian FFGs taking the role as pickets. RAN submarines are allocated to the task groups with USN attack submarines. Initial contact with enemy Orange forces is made between aircraft from both carriers (see Figure 1) and then a submarine/ship conflict ensues between Orange forces and USN/RAN coalition forces. The Australian assets for this Use Case include FFG and ANZAC Class frigates, Collins Class submarines, Seahawk SH-60 and Seasprite SH-2G helicopters, and a P3 Orion maritime surveillance aircraft. These assets can deploy: (a) missiles such as SM-1, Harpoon, NATO Sea Sparrow Missile NSSM, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile ESSM (ANZACS), (b) torpedoes including MK48 Heavyweight and MK46 Lightweight Torpedoes), (c) FFG 76mm gun and ANZAC MK45 Mod 2 5 inch gun), countermeasures such as Super RBOC Chaff and the Nulka Active Missile Decoy. Figure 1: Use Case 1: Pacific Warfare Scenario 4.2 Use Case 2: I/ITSEC Demonstration Scenario A second use case is being developed based on the I/ITSEC 2001 demonstration scenario described in a complementary SimTecT 2002 paper [17]. This demonstration scenario involved Australian and US forces forming a coalition battlegroup to defend the sovereignty of a friendly Pacific island nation against a neighbouring hostile island nation as shown in Figure 2. Blue forces include Australian FFG, ANZAC ships and helicopters, USN air and surface warfare assets and a submarine. Orange forces include aircraft, patrol boats and a submarine. Figure 2: Use Case 2: I/ITSEC Coalition Warfare Scenario 4.3 Australian Systems required for interoperability with US It is expected that the initial Australian systems which will be required to interoperate with the USN will be: The Integrated Operations Team Training Facility (IOTTF) which provides training for the RAN s FFG and DDG operations room teams,

5 The Combat Systems Tactical Trainer (CSTT) which provides training to the ANZAC ship operations room team, and FFG OBTS and FFG shore-based trainer which provide training for the RAN s enhanced FFGs. These systems will be able to participate in the scenarios described above. Indeed, the IOTTF and CSTT participated in the initial CreaMS interoperability exercise with the USN via prototype DIS interfaces [17]. These systems, soon to be fully DIS-compliant, will be able to interoperate via RPR- FOM 2.0 with USN systems, when it has been developed and standardised. Other systems such as the AP-3C s Operational Mission Simulator (OMS) will be added to the network as they are upgraded to advanced distributed simulation capability. 4.4 Parsing the Use Cases After developing the Use Cases and nominating the participating simulators, a functional decomposition must be undertaken to identify the FOM components required (objects, classes, attributes, interactions, data elements and operations). FOM development depends on the analysis of the Use Case to develop the context of the scenario. Data element analysis must be conducted in the following functional areas: Scenario definition Platform behaviors Tactical data Tactical voice Exercise coordination 4.5 Model Interoperability The FOM does not provide all the data necessary for meaningful interoperability. Model differences may also affect the functioning of the federation. Thus the trainer models must be fully investigated to determine their inputs, outputs, coordinate systems, assumptions, and algorithms. This will provide a means for achieving consistency among the various components of the federation. The USN is developing techniques for enhancing interoperability between models [18-19] that will establish guidelines for achieving a consistent representation across a federation. This process can be applied here to define meaningful interoperability between Australian and USN systems. 5. MODIFICATIONS TO NTMF The NTMF can be considered as a set of tables that describe the objects and interactions that will be employed during a federation execution. The areas where changes may be needed to accommodate Australian requirements are summarized in Table 1. These are being investigated through interaction with RAN and USN personnel. Table 1: Areas for Australian Input Table Classes Interaction Attributes Parameters Complex Datatypes Enumerated Datatypes Lexicon Routing Space Comment May need extra subclasses Unlikely to need extra interactions May need extra attributes for Australian subclasses Unchanged Present set should suffice Will need to add additional enumerations for Australian systems May need to add extra definitions and descriptions Presently unpopulated In its current form, the NTMF should provide most classes for interoperability with Australian systems. It is unlikely that the DIS compliant Australian simulators will need to define additional classes. It is more likely that additional enumerations and thus enumerated data types will be required, especially for systems such as the ANZAC trainer which employ a variety of non-us designed equipment. The requirement for Australian systems to be integrated with TEDS is uncertain at present since these systems will not have access to this database. Version 0.2 of the NTMF was released in January, 2002 for community review. It is anticipated that Australian contributions will be incorporated in subsequent versions to comprise a Coalition FOM. 6. CONCLUSION For interoperability under HLA between Australian and US systems, a Coalition FOM is required. The USN s NTMF provides a starting point for this effort. Australian input into the development of the NTMF is necessary for coalition interoperability under HLA. Australian/US coalition Use Cases are being developed which will provide enable Australian platforms and sensors to be incorporated into the NTMF. While HLA will provide interoperability for a federation of trainers, model differences among federates may lead to fair fight issues. New tools and models for sensors, weapons, and the synthetic natural environment, as well as expanded development methodologies and understandings will be required to achieve meaningful interoperability between USN and Australian HLA federates. With some modifications, the NTMF should provide the required level of interoperability under HLA. The NTMF development process described here with relevant contributions from Australia provides a means to achieve this goal.

6 7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of LEUT Rob Teasdale RAN and Andrew Goulding, of YTEK Ltd. 8. REFERENCES 1. DIS Vision: A Map to the Future of Distributed Simulation. (1994). Prepared by the DIS Steering Committee, Institute of Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida /iss_75/art_368.htm 3. Marshall, S. LCDR RAN, Maritime Warfare Training Centre Project Director. (1998). Maritime Warfare Training Centre Project Management Issues, Industry Day, SimTecT98, Adelaide. 4 BFTT web site: 5. Clark, P., Ryan, P., Zalcman, L., O Neal, M., Kotick, D., Brewer, J. (2000). Australian collaboration with USN Battle Force Tactical Training Program. Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry, Simulation and Education Conference, Orlando, Florida, December Clark, P., Ryan, P., Zalcman, L., O Neal, M., Brewer, J., and D. Beasley, (2001). Building Towards Coalition Warfighter Training, Proc. I/ITSEC 2001, Orlando, Florida, November, Colton, T, (2001). Army Synthetic Environment, Proc. SimTecT High Level Architecture Homepage, Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO) website: 9. Shanks, G.C. (1997). The RPR-FOM. A Reference Federation Object Model to Promote Simulation Interoperability, 1997 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, 97S- SIW IEEE (1995). IEEE Standard for Information Technology - Protocols for Distributed Interactive Simulation Applications. 11. Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization: IEEE a-1998 (1998). IEEE Standard for Information Technology - Protocols for Distributed Interactive Simulation Applications. 13. Bergenthal, J.J, Clark, D, Maassel, P.W., and C. Root, (1999). Development of a Naval Training Federation, 99F-SIW-054, 1999 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando Florida 14. Kassal, P., D. Clark, D, and Reilly, S., (2001). Meaningful Interoperability of Training Systems via the Naval Training Meta-FOM, Proc. SimTecT 2001, Canberra, May Tactical Environment Data Server (TEDS) page, Common Operating Environment Homepage, Clark, P., Ryan, P., Zalcman, L., Quinn, P., M., Brewer, J., and D. Beasley, (2001). CReaMS PIE: Coalition Readiness Management System Preliminary Interoperability Experiment Proc. SimTecT 2002, Melbourne, May, Clark, D., Howard, R., Chadbourne, C., Root, C., Esslinger, R., 1999, Consistency as a First Step in Moving Toward a Common Synthetic Natural Environment Standard, Paper MS 018, 1999 Proc I/ITSEC 19. Clark, D., Numrich, S., Howard, R., Purser, G., 2001, Meaningful Interoperability and the Synthetic Natural Environment, Paper 01E- SIW-080, Proceedings of the 2001 Euro SIW Conference.