Distributed Threat Evaluation in Naval Tactical Battle Management

Similar documents
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE. SUBJECT: Electronic Warfare (EW) and Command and Control Warfare (C2W) Countermeasures

First Announcement/Call For Papers

Air Defense System Solutions.

N/SHIP SELF DEFENSE - DEM/VAL

ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R-2 Exhibit)

C4I System Solutions.

Cybersecurity United States National Security Strategy President Barack Obama

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE D8Z: Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) FY 2011 Total Estimate. FY 2011 OCO Estimate

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED. Unclassified

Su S rface Force Strategy Return to Sea Control

Request for Solutions: Distributed Live Virtual Constructive (dlvc) Prototype

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

EXHIBIT R-2, RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION N/Space and Electronic Warfare (SEW) Support

SSC Pacific is making its mark as

Capability Integration

navy strategy For AChIevIng InFormAtIon dominance navy strategy For AChIevIng InFormAtIon dominance Foreword

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Analysis Center (TRAC)

aselsan EW SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT

The Integral TNO Approach to NAVY R&D

9 th Annual Disruptive Technologies Conference

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

Chapter 13 Air and Missile Defense THE AIR THREAT AND JOINT SYNERGY

INTRODUCTION. Chapter One

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION

CURRICULUM OUTLINE OF INSTRUCTION SURFACE WARFARE OFFICER DEPARTMENT HEAD COURSE CIN: A-4H-0107 CDP: 9545 VER: 2.0 CHANGE: 3

Information Operations in Support of Special Operations

Unmanned Systems and Mine Warfare RADM Matthew Klunder Chief of Naval Research November 5, 2014

AGI Technology for EW and AD Dominance

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE A: RADAR DEVELOPMENT

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE FY 2013 OCO

STATEMENT BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL RICHARD P. FORMICA, USA

Strike Group Defender: PMR-51 and MIT Lincoln Laboratory

The Verification for Mission Planning System

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base

Joint Warfare System (JWARS)

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2017 Base FY 2017 OCO

Simulation Approaches for Supporting Tactical System Development

A C2 Framework for Dynamic Battlespace Resource Management Based on Networking Concepts and a Post and Smart Pull Approach

24th Air Force/ AFCYBER Delivering Outcomes through Cyberspace

03F-SIW-100. A Standard Simulation Framework to Support Operational Evaluation of Ship Self Defense

Littoral OpTech-West. Panel 4: Seeing Through the Clutter: On the Surface & Over the Shore

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO

Engineering, Operations & Technology Phantom Works. Mark A. Rivera. Huntington Beach, CA Boeing Phantom Works, SD&A

Team 3: Communication Aspects In Urban Operations

Use of Modeling and Simulation (M&S) in Support of the Quantitative Assessment of FORCEnet Systems and Concepts

17 th ITEA Engineering Workshop: System-of-Systems in a 3rd Offset Environment: Way Forward

WARFIGHTER MODELING, SIMULATION, ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION SUPPORT (WMSA&IS)

AMRDEC. Core Technical Competencies (CTC)

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE D8Z: Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) FY 2012 OCO

NCW NCW ROADMAP 2009 ROADMAP 2009 DPS:FEB005/09

Research on the command mode of ship formation cooperative engagement under the network condition

The Marine Corps Operating Concept How an Expeditionary Force Operates in the 21 st Century

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO

Salvo Model for Anti-Surface Warfare Study

SM Agent Technology For Human Operator Modelling

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO

The Effects of Display Type on Operator Decisions and Confidence. Mike Oliver

Logbook Adm. Greenert and Gen. Amos: A New Naval Era Adm. Greenert and Gen. Welsh: Breaking the Kill Chain

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE. FY 2014 FY 2014 OCO ## Total FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

Afloat Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations Program (AESOP) Spectrum Management Challenges for the 21st Century

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2009 RDT&E,N BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET DATE: February 2008 Exhibit R-2

UNCLASSIFIED. R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE PE A: Military Engineering Advanced Technology

MISSILE S&T STRATEGIC OVERVIEW

UNCLASSIFIED. Cost To Complete Total Program Element : Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology

Executing our Maritime Strategy

Risk Management Fundamentals

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2008/2009 RDT&E,N BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET DATE: February 2007 Exhibit R-2

Cognitive Triangle. Dec The Overall classification of this Briefing is UNCLASSIFIED

COTS Impact to RM&S from an ISEA Perspective

Winning in Close Combat Ground Forces in Multi-Domain Battle

The best days in this job are when I have the privilege of visiting our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,

[ Command & Control systems ] member of ICZ GROUP

CAPT Heide Stefanyshyn-Piper

Amphibious Landings in the 21 st Century

Trusted Partner in guided weapons

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base

Effects-Based Information Operations: Some Observations

Navy Information Warfare Pavilion 19 February RADM Matthew Kohler, Naval Information Forces

Research Proposal Major William Torn Tompkins ISR RTF Vigilant Horizons. Working Title

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE

Global Vigilance, Global Reach, Global Power for America

UNCLASSIFIED. FY 2016 Base FY 2016 OCO

EVERGREEN IV: STRATEGIC NEEDS

Test and Evaluation Strategies for Network-Enabled Systems

UNCLASSIFIED R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2016 OCO. FY 2016 Base

Rapid Force Structure Analysis

UNCLASSIFIED. UNCLASSIFIED Army Page 1 of 7 R-1 Line #9

UAV s And Homeland Defense Now More Critical Than Ever. LCDR Troy Beshears UAV Platform Manager United States Coast Guard

Sea Viper Maritime Missile Defence

Subj: ELECTRONIC WARFARE DATA AND REPROGRAMMABLE LIBRARY SUPPORT PROGRAM

RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET (R-2 Exhibit)

WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION DIRECTORATE OVERVIEW SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE WORKING GROUP 22 SEPTEMBER 2016

The APL Coordinated Engagement Simulation (ACES)

Transcription:

Distributed Threat Evaluation in Naval Tactical Battle Management Dr. H. Irandoust Decision Support Systems for C2 Section DRDC Valcartier

Outline Threat Evaluation in the context of Naval Tactical BM Collaborative Threat Evaluation Overview of the System Automation Testbed Advisory Capability Coordination Modes Future Work 2

Context Wide range of sophisticated threats with different modes/guidance systems (cruise missiles, bombs, shoulder-launched rockets, etc.) Threats may originate from the sea, land or air, or a combination thereof Requirement to operate in littorals, jointly and in coalitions, has increased the complexity of operations and introduced additional challenges to the Navy 3

Threat Evaluation and C2 Functions Sensors Picture Compilation Threat Evaluation Engageability Assessment Combat Power Management (Response Planning & Execution) Softkill, Hardkill, Deterrence, Navigation 4

Threat Evaluation: Definition Intent assessment: determine the goal and/or the plan (course of actions) of the threat. Capability assessment: evaluate whether the threat has sufficient resources to achieve its goal or execute its plan. Opportunity assessment: verify whether the tactical environment provides the required preconditions for the threat s plan to succeed. Output: - Threat List - Classification - Ranking 5

Threat Evaluation Inference Model A priori knowledge (e.g., intelligence, operational constraints and restraints, evaluation criteria, etc.) Dynamically acquired and inferred information (based on various indicators observed/obtained from various sources) Response Planning Goals Beliefs A priori Knowledge Beliefs Hypothesis Generation Evidences Observations (Evidence perception) Model Expectations Actions Actions 6 Environment

Threat Evaluation Challenges Overload Large amount of data Situation Analysis Uncertainty Imperfection of information sources Ambiguity in human behaviour Time pressure Information gathering & processing vs. Decision/action Dynamic environment Validity of information 7

Distributed TE: Advantages Information superiority (multiplying the information sources) Enhanced real-time response (deploying observers and processors close to the threat) Functional separation Robustness and resilience (tolerant to failure and bias of individual entities) 8

Distributed TE: Challenges Overload Situation Analysis Collaborative Decision Making Data overload Time pressure Coordination overhead Double-hatting Red force Uncertainty Dynamic environment Blue force Reference point different than own ship Awareness of other units capabilities & limitations Information exchange, sensemaking Interoperability Connectivity - Security Remote communication Multiple (conflicting) decision nodes Coordination Synchronization of activities Resource planning 9

FLEET Decision Support System User OMI/HCI Advisory Capability Testbed Simulates the world User Information Interaction Manager Special Interaction Facilities Automation Algorithms Threat Evaluation o Classifies threats (H, M, L) Domain Knowledge Operational Constraints Threat Evaluation Dynamic Operational Constraints Picture Compilation Scenario Animator Engageability Assessment Automation Algorithms Scenario Visualization o Ranks threats in each class Engageability Assessment o Generates feasible actions Advisory Capability Displays automation algorithms results Supports mixed-initiative interaction Static Operational Constraints Scenario Generator 10 Mission Testbed

FLEET Architecture Layer 1: Scenario Generation and Control Human in the loop Layer 2: Task Group Operations Modelling & Simulation Virtual Ship 1 Virtual Ship 2 Virtual Ship 3 Layer 3: Automation and Coordination Unit and Force TE Algorithms Unit and Force TE Algorithms Unit and Force TE Algorithms Layer 4: Decision Aids and Collaboration 11

Automation: Rules Speed Tracks IFF No No Identity VOI? CPA No Yes Reactive? Friendly? Conformance to Yes No High civilian airlanes No / Intent? Yes Manoeuvres Unknown Coordinated threats No Yes / No / Deceptive behaviour Unknown Unknown Low Medium Reactive Threat Evaluation Deliberative Threat Evaluation No Low Capability? Capability? Opportunity? Opportunity? Yes / Unknown Medium No / Unknown Medium Don t care Not threat High Yes Yes 12

Automation: Plan Recognition Plan Library Goal 1 Goal 2... SubGoal 1 Action 3 SubGoal 2 SubGoal 3 Action 1 Action 2 Action 4 Action 2 Action 1 Action 5 Action 6 a b c d e b c a f g h 13 a, b, c... are observations from which actions of the observed agent are inferred. A plan specification also includes (not shown in the figure): Observation probabilities : p(observation actions) Subgoal selection/decomposition probabilities A priori goal selection probabilities.

Example of a Plan: Attacking an asset AttackShip (track, target) SetUp (track, target) Target (track, target) HeadTowards (track, target) InWeaponRange (track, target) Engage (track, target) LoadASM (track) Locate (track, target) GetBelowRadar (track) LaunchASM (track, target) HeadAway (track, target) LocateVisually (track, target) ReceiveLocation (track, friend, target) 14

Advisory Capability 15

Coordination Modes Spectrum of coordination modes Can be performed along 2 axes: PC and TE CC: Centralized PC / Centralized TE DC: Decentralized PC / Centralized TE DD: Decentralized PC / Decentralized TE Adapt to requirements (command structure) or evolving situation (degradation/loss of communication; changes to force composition) 16

Coordination: Mode 1 (CC) A common Tactical Picture A common Threat List 17

Coordination: Mode 2 (DC) A common Tactical Picture De-conflicted Threat Lists 18

Coordination: Mode 3 (DD) De-conflicted Tactical Pictures De-conflicted Threat Lists 19

Adaptive/Robust Coordination Approach Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Centralized PC Centralized TE Centralized PC Decentralized TE Decentralized PC Decentralized TE With Central Authority Decentralized PC Decentralized TE Independent Ops No real-time coordination Use static rules Context 20 + - Bandwidth Availability - Reaction Time + ----

Scenario 21

Future: Adaptive/Robust AAD Capability Link units, share information, coordinate activities, adapt to context 22 Provide a robust and optimized coverage to all units within the force and protect assets in theatre

23