Geo and JC3IEDM enabled C2 Kay Lindgaard Pedersen Head of Solution Center, Systematic Software Engineering Headlines of my presentation Interoperability according to Systematic The Mother of JC3IEDM The Multilateral Interoperability Programme (MIP) from an Industry standpoint What is MIP after all? How broadly used is the MIP standard? MIP as foundation for Interoperability? Geo-Enabled Battle Command Geo and C2 what is the difference? How can COA bridge betw. Geo, M&S and C2? Information Superiority As Force Multiplier? How do we make all available information actionable? The technology is here, but is it in the hands of the warrior? 2 1
Interoperability of Yesterday HQ s planning - Written Orders - Plastic overlays Dispatch Riders distributing: - Written Orders -Paper maps - Plastic overlays... measured in hours 3 Interoperability requirements Today! Must be deployable for Coalitions and Joint Proven to work in theater through extensive tests Update cycle... measured in seconds 4 2
Interoperability according to Systematic Net- Centric Coalition Partner Net-Centric Battlefield Network Web Services Replication Messaging (MTF) Complete Interoperability Solution from Systematic National Information System 5 Interoperability according to Systematic National MIP Information Coalition Partner System National Messaging Information Coalition Partner System Net- Centric Coalition Partner Net-Centric Battlefield Network Web Services Replication Messaging (MTF) MIP Coalition Partner Complete Interoperability Solution from Systematic Messaging Coalition Partner National Information System 6 3
What is MIP after all? The aim of the Multilateral Interoperability Programme (MIP) is to achieve: international interoperability of Command and Control Information Systems (C2IS) interoperability at all levels from corps to battalion, or lowest appropriate level to support multinational combined and joint operations (MIP Organization) 7 The MIP challenge Task Org. wise xxx xx xx x x XX x x l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l II II II II X X l 8 4
MIP is broadly used Association of voluntary and independent Nations FULL MEMBERS CAN TacC2IS DNK DACCIS + NMS FRA SICF, SIR DEU HEROS-2/1 ITA SIACCON NLD ISIS NOR NORTaC/NORCCIS ESP SIMACET TUR TACCIS GBR ATacCS/ComBAT USA MCS ASSOCIATE MEMBERS AUS JCCS, BCSS LTU TAVVIS AUT PHOENIX POL SZAFRAN BEL ISIS PRT SICCE BUL FICIS ROU SIAAB CZE GF-TCCS SVN SITAWARE FIN FINACCIS SWE ISMARK,SLB GRC HARCCIS ACT BiSC - AIS HUN HAVIR JFC *Country codes according NATO STANAG 1059 Ed 8. 9 MIP as foundation for Interoperability 1 Comprehensive tests to prove interoperability: MIP System level Test 1 (MSLT 1 (Internet Test)) MIP System level Test 2 MSLT 2 (Internet/On-site Test)) MIP System level Test 3 MSLT 3 (On-site Test)) MIP Operational Level Test (MOLT) (On Site Test)) Triad Vignette Dissemination Vignette Continuous Vignette 10 5
MIP as foundation for Interoperability 2 Inception Elaboration Construction Baseline 2 Integration Transition Baseline Release Inception FOC Elaboration In service period Construction Baseline 3 Integration FOC Transition Baseline Release In service period Inception Elaboration Baseline 4 Construction Integration 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Today FOC Transition B4 Release In service p. 11 11 MIP as foundation for Interoperability 2 Combined Endeavor (CE) Multi-National Corps Trial Coalition Warrior Interoperability Demonstration (CWID) Nato Response Force (NRF) scenario ALLIED COMMAND TRANSFORMATION 2007 12 6
MIP wrap-up The best trade-off between Benefit: Operational readiness Extensive test program that requires commitment Time synchronized releases may slow development Benefit: Shortening the decision cycle Benefit: No single point of failure Instant and ongoing data sharing (one-off not good enough) Benefit: Internationally accepted Occasional foot dragging (the nations struggle to keep pace) Benefit: Honoring the physical limitations on Band-Width Sending small portions ( over-normalized database) High granularity in specifications (makes JC3IEDM complex) 13 Geo-Enabled Battle Command 14 7
Geo and C2 what is the difference C2 C2 is supporting the Art of War (MDMP, exec.) Plans & Orders, Situational Overview, Holdings, Timeline Geo is essential in understanding the Battlefield Key component in Situational Overview, IPB and BTRA JC3IEDM focus is full coverage of C2 and some Geo Today: Two overlapping environments Future: Closer integration between C2 and Geo/ERP/M&S/FASS... Geo (from road to route) Geo C2 ERP FASS Powerful MDMP and Tactical Solution M&S 15 From Road to Route Geo DB: The road from A to B (red) is represented as geo-feature by 10.000+ points JC3IEDM: The tactical graphic (black) that describes the advance route from A to B is represented by 7 points as used in JC3IEDM Merge of the two paradigms: Route described by references to Geo DB: geo-feature (the road) start point A end point B Back A B 16 8
The Systematic ESRI product offering MIP Coalition Partner MIPDEM A merge of two Of-The-Shelf products ArcGIS Engine 9.2, 3D Analyst Extension, MOLE SitaWare 4.5 17 Information Superiority 18 9
Information Overload or Force Multiplier? How can the enormous amount of information become a competitive advantage? How can industry help? 19 Computerized decision support Aggregate and filter information from both people and sensors to keep the commanders focused on the overall picture allow distribution on limited tactical networks provide value to a large audience route right information to relevant audience Terabytes Megabytes UAV's Digitized terrain data Plans and Situational Picture Infra Red sensors Satellite feed Radars Actionable data 20 10
Funnel example Course Of Action Satellite feed Radars IR sensors Mission Analysis Develop COAs Analyze COAs (Wargaming) and decision Write OPORD Terrain Weather Population Obstacles... (The Fairfax Framework) Continuous IPB process 21 Funnel example Course Of Action Satellite feed Radars IR sensors Mission Analysis Develop COAs Analyze COAs (Wargaming) and decision Write OPORD Terrain Weather Population Obstacles... (The Fairfax Framework) Continuous IPB process 22 11
Funnel example Course Of Action Satellite feed Radars IR sensors Mission Analysis Develop COAs Analyze COAs (Wargaming) and decision Write OPORD Terrain Weather Population Obstacles... (The Fairfax Framework) Continuous IPB process 23 Live Demo... 24 12
Wrap up on Product Demo SitaWare provides Interoperability through: A globally accepted standard MIP Instant Connectivity and Replication between Coalition Partners Merge of GIS and MIP in a C2 solution Intuitive User Interface COTS product 25 SitaWare variants Battle Management System (BMS) 26 13
Integrated Solution with C2 and Office Tools The information portal is the entry to the CCIS The user has a set of tightly integrated tools: C2 SitaWare Office Documents Messaging Outlook & IRIS IOM FAS tools 27 Effective Working Environment The right tools are available: Tactical graphics Geographic overview Making orders/plans, briefings, memos, as on paper. Collaboration through: Portal Alerts Military Messages C2 information Email Chat Forums Support by: Workflows Templates Re-use of previous orders/plans, briefings, Automatic briefings? 28 14
Thank you for your attention Questions? 29 Back-up slides 30 15
The Fairfax Framework participants C 4 I Center 31 The Fairfax Framework objectives George Mason University US Army TEC SitaWare og ESRI (BTRA) (Future) Mäk Systematic (SitaWare) 32 16
The Fairfax Framework evolution The past Today The future Fairfax Framework 33 The Fairfax Framework whitepaper Whitepaper awarded at European Simulation Interoperability Workshop (Euro SIW) June 2007 Authors: Dr. J. Mark Pullen Dr. Michael R. Hieb C4I Center - George Mason University David Swann Gary Scoffield ESRI Kay Pedersen James Muguira Systematic Software Engineering Back Michael W. Powers Topographic Engineering Center US Army ERDC 34 17
From Road to Route Geo DB: The road from A to B (red) is represented as geo-feature by 10.000+ points JC3IEDM: The tactical graphic (black) that describes the advance route from A to B is represented by 7 points as used in JC3IEDM Merge of the two paradigms: Route described by references to Geo DB: geo-feature (the road) start point A end point B Back A B 35 MIP Organization MIP Steering Group (MSG) Chair Vice Chair Programme Management Group (PMG) Chair Vice Chair EJR TS, FIN, JIC JRL, RBJ Operational Working Group Chair (OWG) Systems Engineering & Architecture Working Group (SEAWG) Data Modelling Working Group (DMWG) Test & Evaluation Working Group (TEWG) Configuration Control Working Group (CCWG) Deputy NDAG Back Multi-Disciplinary Working Parties (MDWPs) 36 18
MIP Block 2 MSLT 3 test coverage 37 MIP Block 2 MSLT 3 test result 38 19
Systematic s IRIS products IRIS Forms IRIS Organisational Messaging 39 IRIS Information Mapping Tool (IMT) 40 20