Title: APL Integrated Multiwarfare Simulation AIMS: Providing Resource Conflict Resolution in MultiWarfare
1APL Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS)
Providing Resource Conflict Resolution in
Multi-Warfare Analyses
- Dr. Joseph G. Kovalchik
- Mr. Jonathan W. Labin
2Outline
- Introduction
- Federation Development
- Commander Federate Details
- Federation Execution
- Future Work
- Acknowledgments
- Questions
3Introduction Why multi-warfare analysis?
- Defense community shows growing interest in
multi-warfare analysis - Capabilities-based acquisition
- Multi-mission structures (e.g., Sea Shield)
- Assessment of multi-mission platforms (e.g.,
DD(X)) - Competition for multiple-missions capable assets
(e.g., helicopters, for ASW and SUW)
4Introduction Previous Work
- Complexity involved in multi-warfare analysis has
led to - Abstraction to campaign-level simulations
- Can address multi-warfare situations
- Loss of simulating operational and tactical
details - Artificially stove-piped analyses
- No single model replaces specialized
mission-level simulations - Best models are used independently for each
warfare area - Outputs of one model are fed as inputs to the
next - Time-intensive and manpower-intensive process
- Difficult to integrate results
- Difficult to address inter-warfare area resource
conflicts
5Introduction Project Overview
- APL Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS)
- Incorporate simulations of choice based on the
analysis task - Consider the effects of competing resources
across multi-warfare areas and the warfare area
dependencies - Provide a Single Point of Entry (SPE) for
scenario data - Coordinate execution of scenario runs and data
collection - Visualize the scenario interactions
- Assist in post-run analysis
6Federation Development FEDEP
- Followed guidance provided in High Level
Architecture (HLA) Federation Development and
Execution Process (FEDEP) Model
7Federation Development Analysis Tools
- Development began with an existing study
involving - Air defense (AD) against cruise missiles
- Surface warfare (SUW) against a small-boat attack
- Anti-submarine warfare (ASW)
- Theatre ballistic missile defense (TBMD)
- Analysis tool selection criteria
- Critical mission-level simulations
- Preferred by JHU/APL analysts for above warfare
areas - HLA-compliant or augmentable to become compliant
8Federation Development Federates
- Extended Air Defense Simulation (EADSIM)
- Naval Simulation System (NSS)
- Surface AAW Multi-Ship Simulation (SAMS)
- Battle Force Engagement Model (BFEM)
- Orbis
- Commander Federate (CDR)
- HLA Results data logger (hlaResults)
9Federation Development Architecture
- Simulations tied together with HLARunTime
Infrastructure (RTI)1.3 Next Generation version
6.0 - Existing HLA compliant tools used(e.g., results
collection hlaResults) - Simulations executed onWindows Desktop Systems
10Commander FederateResponsibilities
- Performs basic federation management
- Manages warfare priorities
- Performs inter-warfare area conflict resolution
for asset allocation - Directs transfer of ownership of assets between
simulations
11Commander FederateRules Rule Engine
- Java Expert System Shell (Jess) based rule engine
- Commander behavior dictated by Jess rule file
- Can be written/extended by subject matter experts
- New behaviors can be explored without recompile
- JavaBeans Technology
- Commander Federate updates JavaBeans to match
current simulation state - Updated fields in JavaBeans cause Jess rules to
fire - Fired rules call Java methods to act in Federation
12Commander FederateFederation Management
- Orchestrates coordinated initialization
- Waits for all other federates to join
- Manages HLA synchronization points
- Federation execution control
- Standard video style controls play, pause, step
- Initiates federation shutdown based on current
rules - Execution time limit
- High-value unit destroyed
- High-value unit crossed a geographic finish
line - All red assets destroyed
- All blue assets destroyed
13Commander FederateDamage Assessment
- Attack between simulations
- Each simulation publishes all blue assets
- Red assets in different simulation can attack a
published blue asset - Where should damage be assessed?
- Owner of red asset is expert in red weapon
systems - Owner of blue asset is expert in blue platform
defenses - Solution Commander Federate
- Message protocol
- HLA interaction WeaponHit sent to Commander
- Reception of interaction causes Jess rules to
fire - Rules may cause HLA interaction DamageAssessment
14Commander FederateCommon Operational Picture
(COP)
- Commander Federate bases actions on perceived
state (not ground truth) - Commander Federate does not have any assets or
sensors of its own - Simulations periodically send Commander an HLA
interaction ContactReport for each red asset
tracked - Merges the collective detections of red assets
into COP
15Commander FederateSet Warfare Priorities
- Commander Federate assigns priority values
- Baseline rules set default priorities based on
geographic location of platforms - Firing rules may raise the priority of some
Warfare Area - Rules of Engagement (ROEs)
- Peacetime, Crisis, Wartime
- Crossing priority thresholds cause ROE state to
increase - Commander sends HLA interaction when ROE state
changes
16Commander FederateProcessing Asset Requests
- Simulations request ownership of additional blue
assets - Commander processes requests according to current
Warfare Priorities - Commander replies with either
- GRANTED, PENDING, or DENIED
- READY (not busy) assets are transferred first
- Only simulations acting in higher priority
warfare area are allowed to preempt a busy asset
and take ownership
17Ownership Transfer Protocol
18Federation Execution
- Execution coordinated by APL Distributed
Scheduler (ADS) - Maximizes federation Monte Carlo replication
count - Executes multiple instances of the federation
simultaneously - Built on Windows Management Infrastructure (WMI)
- Maintains a list of available computing
resourcesconstructed by crawling network - Resources are assigned one federate from one
federation instance - Once federation instanceterminates, it is
restartedusing free resources - Output data collected to shared file system
storage
Federation 1
Commander SAMS BFEM Orbis EADSIM hlaResults RTIExe
c
NSS
Shared File System
Fed N
Fed 2
Fed 3
Fed 4
19Status
- Simulation federation executes reliably
- Executed 50 replications of a baseline scenario
in September and about 40 replications of two
excursions each - Demonstrated asset conflict resolution through
re-allocation of helicopters between ASW and SUW
warfare areas - Utilized APL analysts with subject matter
expertise in all five warfare areas to setup,
execute, and analyze multi-warfare scenario using
the AIMS (Sea Shield) federation - Moving to apply to Sea Strike area by federating
NSS with Expeditionary warfare simulation as part
of AIMS in FY06
20Future Work
- Additional Warfare Analysis capabilities
- Expeditionary Warfare simulation
- Conflict resolution on weapon and sensor systems
- Commander Federate responsibilities
- General force motion
- Motion plans for sensor usage optimization
- Producing water/air management assignments
- Take advantage of FuzzyJess extension
- Usage improvements
- Single Point of Entry for scenario information
expanded to other simulations - Improving 3D visualization of execution playback
- Performance optimizations
21Future Work Fuzzy Jess
- Rather than basing priority on the single most
threatening event - Accumulate the contributions of each event
- Normalize across all warfare areas
- Smoother transitions
- Example of a Fuzzy Jess rule
22Acknowledgements
- Requirements and Rules John Benedict, Paul
Gulotta, Mike Morris, Ted Smyth, and Joe
Kovalchik - Tactical situation Matt Scarlett
- Combat Model modification scenario
implementation - Orbis Eric Hu, Dennis Patrone, Todd
Warfield - SAMS Kay Stuckey, Ben Kerman
- BFEM Ian Craig, Trey Vecera
- NSS Steve Lange
- EADSIM Kanaya Chevli, Ken Ryals
- HLA Wrappers Jonathan Labin, Joe Kovalchik,
Todd Warfield, Chris McDonald - Infrastructure and ADS Bruce Miller
- SPE testing John Schloman
23Summary
- APL Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS)
provides a flexible architecture to conduct
analysis on the execution of integrated warfare
in multiple mission areas - AIMS can add value to multi-warfare analysis
- A Commander Federate, utilizing an expert system,
sets warfare priorities either by time or event,
and provides inter-warfare area conflict
resolution for asset allocation, motion plans,
and (in the near future) weapon and sensor
allocation among warfare area commanders - Eliminates sequential, time-consuming data
transfers between stove-piped single-warfare
analysis simulations when conducting
multi-warfare studies - Enhances integrated warfare analysis through
selective use of appropriate simulations which
have been used in individual warfare area
analyses - Focuses several warfare areas to a common
scenario selection across all warfare areas - Preserves the ability for each model to be used
in a stand-alone mode - Streamlines development of three-dimensional
visualization of common OPSITs/TACSITs - Single Point of Entry reduces duplication of
effort and data entry errors by using a single
interface for scenario creation