APL Integrated Multiwarfare Simulation AIMS: Providing Resource Conflict Resolution in MultiWarfare

1
APL Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS)
Providing Resource Conflict Resolution in
Multi-Warfare Analyses

• Dr. Joseph G. Kovalchik
• Mr. Jonathan W. Labin

2
Outline

• Introduction
• Federation Development
• Commander Federate Details
• Federation Execution
• Future Work
• Acknowledgments
• Questions

3
Introduction 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)

4
Introduction 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

5
Introduction 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

6
Federation Development FEDEP

• Followed guidance provided in High Level
  Architecture (HLA) Federation Development and
  Execution Process (FEDEP) Model

7
Federation 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

8
Federation 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)

9
Federation 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

10
Commander 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

11
Commander 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

12
Commander 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

13
Commander 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

14
Commander 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

15
Commander 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

16
Commander 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

17
Ownership Transfer Protocol
18
Federation 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

19
Status

• 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

20
Future 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

21
Future 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

22
Acknowledgements

• 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

23
Summary

• 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