Modeling and Simulation Employment of Common C4I InterfacesThe Challenges and Successes

1
Modeling and Simulation Employment of Common C4I
InterfacesThe Challenges and Successes
SISO SPRING SIW PAPER S01-SIW-043 JOHN
DIEMLANE ALLRED C4I FORUM 28 MARCH 2001
2
WHY THE PAPER

• Paper Purpose-
• Share early observations and conclusions of Army
  sponsored study
• Study title-
• STANDARD C4I COMPONENTS FOR MS/C4I
  INTEROPERABILITY SUPPORT
• Sponsors-
• DISC4,STRICOM, AMSO
• Directed through AMSO C4I Standards Category
  Manager

3
THE ENVIRONMENT-ABCS

• Army C4I digitization managed as the Army Battle
  Command Systems (ABCS) at the Central Technical
  Support Facility(CTSF) at Ft Hood, Texas
• Multiple program managers
• Single hierarchical organization
• Transformed from stovepipe growth in the several
  Battlefield Functional Areas (BFAs) to an
  integrated system of systems

4
ABCS KEY ELEMENTS
DTSS
GCCS-A
MCS
CSSCS
IMETS
AFATDS
ABCS BFAs
AMDPCS
ASAS
TAIS
5
THE ENVIRONMENT--MS TO C4I SUPPORT

• Serves multiple domains TEMO, ACR AND RDA
• Must have ability to support events in given
  domain regardless of where the tools may be
  developed
• Must respond to the rapid ABCS spiral development

6
MS DOMAINS--TEMO

• Training, Exercises, and Military Operations
  (TEMO). TEMO includes most forms of training at
  echelons from individual simulation trainers
  through collective, combined arms, joint, and/or
  combined exercises. TEMO includes mission
  rehearsals and evaluations of all phases of war
  plans. Analysis conducted during the rehearsal
  or evaluation validates the plan as best the
  simulation environment will allow.
• Representative organizations and applications
  NSC, BCTP Warfighter, DBST

7
MS DOMAINS--ACR

• Advanced Concepts and Requirements (ACR). ACR
  includes experiments with new concepts and
  advanced technologies to develop requirements in
  doctrine, training, leader development,
  organizations, materiel and soldiers which will
  better prepare the Army for future operations.
  ACR evaluates the impact of horizontal technology
  integration through simulation and
  experimentation using real soldiers in real
  units.
• Example supported events JCF AWE, Battle Lab
  experiments

8
MS DOMAINS--RDA

• Research, Development, and Acquisition (RDA).
  RDA includes all MS used for design, development
  and acquisition of weapons systems and equipment.
  MS in the RDA domain are used for scientific
  inquiry to discover or revise fact and theories
  of phenomena, followed by transformation of these
  discoveries into physical representations. RDA
  also includes test and evaluation (TE) where MS
  are used to augment and possibly reduce the scope
  of real-world TE
• Examples Tests of new equipment, software
  tools, Developmental Test Command, Operational
  Test Command, Proving Grounds

9
ORGANIZATIONS FOSTERING REUSE

• U. S. ARMY DCSOPS DIRECTOR OF INTEGRATION (DOI)
• DA level digitization oversight including support
  to SIMCI to facilitate software integration and
  reuse
• DEFENSE MODELING AND SIMULATION OFFICE (DMSO)
• Foster cooperation among DoD components to
  maximize MS interoperability and reuse while
  eliminating redundant development of advanced MS
  technologies
• DISC4
• Army proponent for information and computer
  systems establishes architecture and data
  standards

10
ORGANIZATIONS FOSTERING REUSE Contd

• U. S. Army Modeling and Simulation Office (AMSO)
• Focuses on reuse and development of common MS
  components and tools
• Simulation-C4I Interoperability (SIMCI)  
• Alignment of MS and C4I requirements,
  standards, architectures, and common C4I
  components to foster interoperability 
• Simulation Interoperability Standards
  Organization (SISO)
• Focuses on facilitating simulation
  interoperability and component reuse across DoD,
  other government and non-government applications

11
SIMCI

• Chartered by-
• Deputy Under Secretary of the Army (Operations
  and Research) and Director of Information Systems
  for Command, Control, Communications and
  Computers
• Mission-
• Provide recommendations on Army level policy to
  the AMSEC for improving interoperability between
  the Models and Simulations (MS) and Command,
  Control, Communications, Computers, and
  Intelligence (C4I) Domains.

12
SIMCI ORGANIZATION
SIMCI Overarching IPT (OIPT)
Organization Chart,
Simulation
-
to
-
C4I Interoperability OIPT
OIPT Co
Chairs
-
As of 13 February 2001
TEMO
STRICOM
PEO
-
C3S
ACR
DAMO
PM STI
REO
TRAC
DOI
RDA
TPIO
AMSO
STE
ALL
AMSO
TPIO
SCC
TD
NEW
NEW
NEW
TPIO
ATEC
ABCS
Council of
TRADOC
Architects
PEO
DISC4
CECOM
DCSCD
PEO
STAMIS
RDEC
Working
IEWS
Groups
CMP / JCDB
Future Research
Business Model
Requirements
TBD
Consortium
Initiatives
/ Certification
Synchronization
13
SIMCI CONSORTIUM Digital Collection, Analysis
and Review System/Data Collection Module
(DCARS/DCM)

• A data collection and analysis system that
  combines a data collection system (DCM) with an
  after-action review system
• DCM IS a DII COE compliant segment now an ABCS
  foundation software component for use by all
  domains
• Consortium focus on an establishment of a DII COE
  segment resident on ABCS to support reduced
  overhead data collection/AAR and provide access
  to rich data source

14
SIMCI CONSORTIUMEAGLE/ Digital Leaders Reaction
Course (DLRC)

• EAGLE--a combat model that represents the command
  and control system and physical battlefield
  dynamics
• DLRC leverages EAGLE as the core simulation to
  provide a low-overhead, cost-effective training
  support and analysis environment focused on the
  battle staff of a digitized Army unit
• Consortium focus on CMP and JCDB integration,
  particularly in the areas of emulating the data
  server contained within a tactical operations
  center (TOC)

15
SIMCI CONSORTIUM Enhanced Protocol Interface
Unit (EPIU)

• Translates fire support messages from tactical
  devises to a simulation standard that can be used
  by a variety of simulations
• Derived from a predecessor program, the Protocol
  Interface Unit (PIU) intended to add additional
  fire support messaging functionality and
  simulation interface capabilities to the PIU
  current ability to generate legacy fire support
  messages
• Researched approaches to leverage both DII COE
  solutions and the unique PM software that is
  currently used for fire support messaging

16
SIMCI CONSORTIUM One Semi-Automated Forces
(OneSAF)

• Will be a composable, next generation computer
  generated force (CGF) for all three MS domains
• can represent a full range of operations,
  systems, and control processes from the
  individual combatant and platform level to
  Brigade level
• Will accurately and effectively represent
  specific activities of combat, command, control,
  communications, computers, and intelligence
  (C4I), combat support, and combat service support
  (CSS)
• Consortium focus on JCDB database alignment and
  on the integration of DII COE components

17
SIMCI CONSORTIUM Run Time Manager (RTM)

• An interface system that permits the Corps Battle
  Simulation (CBS) or Brigade Battalion Simulation
  (BBS) to stimulate ABCS subsystems
• Frequently used with CBS primarily at Fort Hood,
  TX and Korea in support of Battle Command
  Training Program (BCTP) based exercises
• Translates/reformats BBS, CBS, or CSSTSS data for
  five ABCS BFAs
•  Consortium focus on integration of foundation
  software and DII COE components for messaging and
  communications interface

18
SIMCI CONSORTIUM Simulation Testing Operations
Research Model (STORM) Role Player WorkStation
(RPWS)

• Federation of DIS compliant tools for
  developmental and operational testing to provide
  interface for live Force XXI Battle Command
  Brigade and Below (FBCB2) equipped forces note
  FBCB2 provides SA, C2 and messaging C4I
  capability to individual vehicles and weapon
  systems
• Provides C2 messaging capability between
  simulated and live units through the use of
  surrogate FBCB2s and RPWS. RPWS tasks focus on
  the integration of common FBCB2 messaging and map
  components into the RPWS

19
SIMCI CONSORTIUM Tactical Simulation (TACSIM)

• Serves as both the US Army primary simulation for
  training intelligence soldiers and Joint Training
  Confederations intelligence simulation model
  adaptation of TACSIM (NS) developed for and still
  used in ASAS for operational testing
• The system simulates or stimulates the full
  spectrum of the United States Intelligence
  capability from National through tactical levels
• Consortium efforts concentrated on re-use of
  messaging and communications interface software 

20
SIMCI CONSORTIUM Enhanced Tactical Simulation
Interface Unit (ETSIU)

• Interfaces simulations with tactical C4I systems
  while minimizing modification of simulation and
  provides non-intrusive tactical communications
  with the C4I systems
• Communicates with C4I systems using tactical
  messages then translates and routes information
  between simulated and live systems to enable live
  tactical system operators/cells/staffs to perform
  their tasks and missions the same as in live
  operations
• Consortium focus on enhancement of legacy TSIU by
  integrating ABCS messaging and communications
  software

21
SIMCI CONSORTIUM Warfighters Simulation
(WARSIM)

• Creates synthetic environment allowing commanders
  and staff at Division above to use their organic
  Command and Control (C2) equipment in full
  spectrum operational scenarios, from operations
  other than war to high intensity non-nuclear
  warfare
• Land component of the Joint Simulation System
  (JSIMS)
• Consortium focus Army and DII COE messaging, data
  alignment and communications interfaces

22
SIMCI CONSORTIUM SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TEAM (SDT)

• WARSIM, RTM, Eagle, and ETSIU teams created a
  software development team (SDT) as part of the
  consortium efforts to specifically establish a
  common Application Programmer's Interface (API)
  for DII COE communications and message software
• Lessons learned and technical insights are
  provided to PEO C3S software applications
  developers to insure that MS requirements for
  this common software were documented and
  communicated to the developers
• Events supported by the SDT and other consortium
  members were observed by the SIMCI Standard C4I
  Components for MS/C4I Interoperability Support
  study team to validate and certify that MS
  systems could properly support ABCS

23
OBSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES

• Examined all reasonably accessible events
• Where SIMCI Consortium MS members were employed
  in support of C4I activities
• Where available software tests, certifications
  and product development activities were available
• Observations were on real MS to C4I integration
• Not representative
• Not prototyping
• No abstracts
• No models

24
OBSERVATION EVENTS

• WARSIM integration efforts at the CTSF
• EAGLE integration efforts at the CTSF
• Two National Training Center (NTC) rotations with
  TSIU, PIU, DCARS/DCM, and STORM with the Digital
  Battle staff Sustainment Trainer (DBST)
  federation
• Fort Hood Force XXI DBST exercises
• STORM Certification events at CTSF
• Joint Contingency Force Advanced Warfighter
  Experiment (JCF AWE) train-up exercises with
  DBST
• Corps Warfighter (CWF) Ramp-up and Command Post
  Exercises employing RTM, TACSIM, DCARS/DCM
• European DBST exercises employing the EPIU
• SIMCI CTSF Certification event with TSIU, ETSIU,
  PIU, STORM, DCARS/DCM
•  

25
CERTIFICATION

• Key in managing and controlling the many ABCS
  elements
• Army letter directing certification of systems
  interfacing with ABCS
• SIMCI generated certification event to certify
  consortium members
• Led through simulation support team at Ft Hood
• Brokered from concept through certification event
  
• Fully embraced by the CTSF leadership
• MS now integral within new ABCS certification
  center within the CTSF

26
OBSERVATION INSIGHTS

• Foremost
• ABCS foundation products can be leveraged by MS
  interfaces (near-term)
• MS community developed interfaces and components
  can be leveraged by ABCS (long-term)
• Common products, components and information must
  be shared across domains
• SDT successes
• Collaboration with multiple contractors and
  commands
• Review and integration of a common API

27
OBSERVATION INSIGHTS--CHALLENGES

• Defining C4I architectures -- systems, technical,
  and operational -- prior to the event is critical
  
• The ABCS spiral development process offers some
  unique challenges since that process is basically
  a fast moving train with frequent changes
• Sufficiently detailed lessons learned are not
  being captured during MS - ABCS integration
  events that can benefit other developers and
  integrators
• The configuration management and documentation of
  common components of ABCS has had to focus on
  specific Force XXI and Army Transformation events
  and are still evolving to a broader Army-wide
  context

28
OBSERVATION INSIGHTSCHALLENGES Contd

• Integrating MS and ABCS at test, training and
  experimentation events still requires a robust
  technical support infrastructure and often
  involves some on-site development, integration
  and testing by both parties
• The stability and capability of MS-C4I
  integration efforts is often camouflaged by
  real-world C4I to C4I integration problems
• Lessons learned tend to be very transient and are
  not always applicable to following events due to
  software spiral
• Event preparation windows envisioned as being
  final systems checks end up being combined
  development, integration, test, and data
  initialization events

29
OBSERVATION INSIGHTSCHALLENGES Contd

• Some problems with the maturity and stability of
  C4I and MS software components must be accepted
  until the ABCS spiral achieves a less compressed
  development cycle
• A system of systems approach in which MS -ABCS
  integration efforts are viewed as a key component
  of ABCS -- just like the other ABCS BFAs -- is
  the only viable, economical way to get inside the
  ABCS spiral
• Catching up with the ABCS spiral once doesnt
  infer compliance with the spiral at the next event

30
RAMIFICATIONS

• Two major themes seem to recur with each attempt
  to integrate MS and ABCS
• First theme-
• A lifecycle process for both simulation and
  C4I systems is required to have a truly
  interoperable MS and C4I environment. Needs an
  institutionalized process with staff, funding,
  and mandate from Army leadership that is
  sufficiently strong to be able to influence
  programmatic changes in either the MS or C4I
  sector

31
RAMIFICATIONS Contd

• Second theme-
• The economic impact of achieving greater C4I
  and MS interoperability through common
  components economies may be such that development
  and integration costs may be reduced or even
  eliminated however, there will still be
  long-term sustainment costs not anticipated in
  major-system budgets
• Much unanticipated cost is ramification of C4I
  spiral and not negative on the goodness of common
  components themselves
• Costs driven by need to replicate new operational
  capabilities, tactics, techniques, and
  procedures, Army and also across DoD brought
  forth through new C4I technologies

32
CONCLUSION

• Authors contend that the efforts examined via the
  SIMCI study are documenting much more than a
  short point-in-time research effort
• Documenting start of what must be a new way of
  doing business based on collaboration across all
  MS domains and forging a strong alliance with
  ABCS and C4I developers