Presentation 072, Spring 2001 SIW

1
The Naval Air Systems Command Aircraft Carrier
FOM A Federation Object Model for Carrier Vessel
Aircraft Launch,and Recovery, and Information
Management Systems Spring 2001 Simulation
Interoperability Workshop Paper
01S-SIW-072 Andrew Joskowski and Joseph
Nimas NAVAIR Joseph Lacetera MSTI/Monmouth
University
2
Outline

• Introduction and Background
• The Lakehurst Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)
  Conceptual Model of the Mission Space (CMMS)
• Transition to the FOM
• The NAVAIR FOM
• Summary
• Conclusions and Key Points
• Recommendations to SISO

3
Relevance to SISO

• Development of NAVAIR CMMS and FOM
• Utility of Integrated Definition (IDEF) modeling
  in transition from a CMMS to a FOM
• Lack of a comprehensive correspondence between
  the Defense Data Model (DDM) and SISO FOMs
• Interoperability with Joint Semi-Automated Forces
  (JSAF)
• Compatibility of a unit-level FOM with an
  aggregate-level FOM

4
NAVAIR MS Background

• The NAVAIR FOM supports Lakehurst internal MS
  requirements
• MS of aircraft-related processes and Information
  Management systems of Nuclear Carrier Vessels
  (CVN)
• The NAVAIR internal MS environment currently
  consists of a constructive model federation,
  which is evolving toward a constructive-virtual-li
  ve federation
• The NAVAIR FOM supports external MS requirements
• The Lakehurst MS team is leveraging its internal
  efforts to support the Warfighting Concepts to
  Future Weapon System Design (WARCON) Joint
  Synthetic Battlespace (JSB)
• Joint SemiAutomated Forces (JSAF) federation

A single FOM for all NAVAIR applications gt
Maximum flexibility
5
Warfighting Concepts to Future Weapon System
Design
Warfighters Requirements
Collaborative Engineering Reuse -
Networks/Models Interface Standardization
Integrated Design Environment
Joint Synthetic Battlespace
vs. Performance
Personnel Requirements Operational
Procedures Effectiveness

Hardware Design / Support Infrastructure
6
HLA Compliance

• Ensurance of DMSO HLA compliance for both
  internal and external NAVAIR MS efforts is being
  accomplished by following the DMSO FEDEP
• Development of a Requirements Definition document
• Development of a NAVAIR CMMS
• Ongoing FOM development

7
NAVAIR Mission Space

• The NAVAIR mission space is that of a CVN and
  external elements including Joint forces weapon
  systems and personnel
• The simulation space includes both Windows
  platforms supporting the NAVAIR models, and Linux
  platforms supporting the WARCON JSB

8
Nuclear Carrier Vessels

• A CVN is a very large facility, which involves
  large numbers of individual entities
• Approximately 6200 personnel involved in various
  operations
• Thousands of bombs of different munition types
• Approximately 70 fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing
  aircraft
• A myriad of support equipment, computer
  equipment, and software systems

The NAVAIR MS program supports the evolution to
network-centric program operations and initiatives
9
Conceptual Analysis for integration into WARCON

• The conceptual analysis for extension of NAVAIR
  CMMS to support WARCON involved Time Critical
  Target (TCT) scenarios
• Joint Force Air Component Commander (JFACC) sends
  TCT queries asking the CVN to provide the Time to
  Launch (TTL) for aircraft
• TTL estimates were provided by IM models

10
The NAVAIR CMMS

• The Conceptual model development phase of FEDEP
  was executed for the real world domain of an
  aircraft carrier vessel federation (CVF) in fleet
  operations
• The NAVAIR CMMS comprises set of real-world
  entities and their interactions
• essential personnel
• aircraft
• fuel
• ordnance
• support materiel

11
NAVAIR Entities, Actions, Tasks, and Interactions

• CMMS is developed at a high level
• CMMS modeling entities are developed in a
  structured-class-form
• Allows an easy transition to FOM development
  phase of FEDEP

12
Examples of DDM entity types used as superclasses
for the NAVAIR CMMS entities

• DDM Entity
• ACTOR
• FACILITY
• FEATURE
• NETWORK
• MATERIEL
• PERSON
• PLAN

NAVAIR subClass Entities CVN Commander, Fueler,
Loader CVN Land mass Local Area Network Fuel,
Munition, Support Equipment Flight Deck
Personnel, Support personnel, Pilot ATO, Air
Plan, Load Plan
Utility of the DDM is limited A comprehensive
correspondence does not exist between the DDM and
extant FOMs
13
NAVAIR CMMS Item Level Entities

• Entity Class
• Support Equipment
• Support Vehicle
• Support Personnel
• Military Air Vehicle
• Military Ship

Entity sub-Class Jet Blast Deflector, Catapult,
Ordnance Loader Tow Tractor, Start Cart, Crash
Crane Munition handlers, Fuelers, aircraft
maint. Fixed Wing aircraft, Rotary Wing
aircraft Carrier Vessel
14
NAVAIR CMMS Actions and Tasks

• Action (verb/entity)
• Send/TCT Query
• Generate/air plan
• Query/IM database
• Generate/TTL
• Send/TTL message

Actor JFACC CVN cdr CVN personnel

• Task
• Determine targeting
• capability for TCT
• Implement ATO
• Answer TCT query

15
NAVAIR Message Interactions

• Actor
• JFACC
• CVN command
• IM system

• Interaction
• Send TCT Query
• Query IM database for TTL
• Response to TCT query
• Response to TTL query

16
NAVAIR Physical Interactions

• Actor
• Fueler
• Handler
• Loader
• Flight Deck Personnel
• Aircraft pilot
• Munition

• Interaction
• Fuels aircraft
• Moves aircraft
• Moves and loads ordnance
• Move aircraft to Catapult
• Fires munition
• Strikes target

17
NAVAIR CMMS Entity Attributes

• Entity
• Aircraft
• Computer system
• Database
• IM System
• Munition
• Target

• Selected Attribute
• Location (non-persistent)
• Tail number (persistent)
• Status (e.g., bomb on aircraft)
• Accesses database, hosts IM
• Relates munitions to target Pk
• Matches munitions to target
• Pk based on target, quantity
• Pk based on munition

18
IDEF and the Transition to the FOM

• The transistion from CMMS to FOM was
  facilitatied by analysis of IDEF0 and IDEF1X
  models of ALRE and IM systems
• IDEF models identified detailed system and data
  transfer relationships between entities

19
Transition to the FOM - Capabilites versus
Attributes

• A basic problem encountered in the transition
  from CMMS to FOM is that the OMT does not allow
  the FOM developer to distinguish between
  Capabilites and Attributes
• Capabilities and Attributes developed in the CMMS
  must be mapped to Attributes of the FOM

20
Leveraging the JSAF FOM
Class I BaseEntity Environment
Class II DREntity Weather Sea
Class III Emitters Aggregate Platform
21
Problems with Leveraging the JSAF FOM

• Aggregate nature of many of the JSAF entities
  precludes a complete mapping of JSAF objects into
  NAVAIR FOM
• There does not exist a standard approach to
  aligning a FOM in development to both aggregate
  and unit-level reference FOMs at this time

22
Selected NAVAIR Object Classes under the JSAF
Platform Class
Class I Air Vehicle Ship Support Vehicle
Class II Fixed Wing RotaryWing Aircraft
Carrier Crash Crane Start Cart Tow Tractor
Class III F14 F18 SH60 CVN68
23
Selected NAVAIR FOM Interactions

• Message Interactions
• Physical Interactions

• Send TCT/TTL Query
• Query IM for TTL
• Response to TCT/TTL query
• Fuel aircraft
• Load ordnance
• Move aircraft to Catapult
• Fire Catapult
• Fire munition
• Munition strikes target

24
Summary

• A NAVAIR CMMS and FOM have been created for a
  mission space of a CVN and higher levels of
  command
• The FOM supports a simulation space involving
  higher levels of command
• This work lays the groundwork for future CVN MS
  efforts

25
Conclusions

• IDEF models can assist in FOM development through
  identification and detailed descriptions of
  objects, attributes, and interactions
• The use of a FOM-style class structure in the
  CMMS facilitates the transition to the FOM
• A comprehensive correspondence does not exist
  between the DDM and the JSAF FOM or SISO RFOMs
• OMT does not allow the FOM developer to
  distinguish between Capabilites and Attributes

26
Key Points and Recommendations for SISO

• Key Point 1 A comprehensive correspondence does
  not exist between the DDM and the JSAF FOM or
  SISO RFOMs
• Key Point 2 The use of a FOM-style class
  structure in the CMMS facilitates the transition
  to the FOM
• It is recommended that SISO consider the
  formation of a study group to address the
  alignment of FOMs with the DDM
• Investigate lessons learned from previousFOM
  development efforts
• Investigate the potential of IDEF in supporting
  FOM development
• Develop modus operandi for standardized FOM
  development
• A plan for feedback to the DDM
• An approach for aligning FOMs for aggregate and
  unit level federates