Extensible Modeling and Simulation Framework XMSF C4I Testbed

1
Extensible Modeling and Simulation Framework
(XMSF) C4I Testbed
Mark Pullen, George Mason University LTC Ken
Wilson, Army Model and Simulation Office Michael
Hieb, ALION Science Technology Andreas Tolk,
Old Dominion University
2
The Tower of Babel An engineering marvel reduced
to rubleby a confusion of languages.
3
What Is Battle Management Language (BML)?

• BML is the unambiguous language used to
• Command and control forces and equipment
  conducting military operations and
• To provide for situational awareness and a
  shared, common operational picture.

4
Four Principles of BML

• BML must be unambiguous.
• BML must use the existing C4ISR data
  representations when possible.
• BML must allow all elements to communicate
  information pertaining to themselves, their
  mission and their environment in order to create
  situational awareness and a shared, common
  operational picture.
• BML must not constrain the full expression of a
  commanders intent.

5
Do we have a BML?

• Battle Management Language currently exists.
• Used on a daily basis to command and control live
  forces.
• Vocabulary defined by the doctrinal manuals (such
  as the Armys FM 101-5-1)
• Associated grammar defined in other doctrinal
  manuals and from years of use.
• Its focus is human to human.

6
The Problem

• Our current BML is a loosely knit language
  tailored to interpersonal communication.
• Its vocabulary is found in doctrinal manuals ,
  but it lacks clearly delineated rules governing
  its use (semantics and syntax).
• It is riddled with ambiguity and overlapping
  definitions.
• As such, it is incapable of transitioning to the
  full range of automation that the Army is
  implementing.
• It will not support the integration of advanced
  modeling and simulation with digitized command
  and control.

7
The Problem (cont.)

• If we are to train as we fight, then we must be
  able to communicate command and control
  information via the same C4I devices in all
  environments
• Live training and operations (soldier to
  soldier).
• Simulation training, mission rehearsal, and
  decision aids with the C4I devices stimulating
  and being stimulated by simulations. (Live,
  Constructive, Virtual simulation)

8
BML Scope
BML Order
C4I
C4I
Simulation
Unmanned Platforms
9
Past Efforts

• Eagle BML/CCSIL
• Very Structured
• Required detailed knowledge of what was needed by
  the simulation
• Not familiar or friendly to the operational user
• Specific to application/simulation

10
Commonality
CCSIL
USMTF
JVMF
Structured messages Very little free
text Data structures Complex (structures)
Enumerated (types) Alphanumeric
Character Boolean Floating point
Structured messages Free text Data
structures Complex Enumerated A-
Alphabetic L- Lower case letters N-
Numeric (0-9) B- Blank spaces S-
Special characters E- Extended special
characters / - Field marker - Colon
Non-printing special characters
Structured messages Free text (ANSI
ASCII) Data structures Complex
Enumerated DFI (Data Field Identifier)
DUI (Data User Identifier) Numeric
Problem area
Data structure of messages favors data base
application
Structure built into free text areas would expand
data base applicability
Structure built into free text areas focused on
the 5 Ws (Who, What, When, Where, Why) and
coordination information
Well thought out relationships between tables
built into the data base can facilitate user
friendly GUI applications (drop down menus,
graphics, automatic fills) for creating messages
11
Essence of Order Resides in the 5 Ws
The 5 Ws
HOW In mission type orders, how to do a task is
left up to the subordinate. The general how
for the order itself is found in the context of
the Commanders Intent and the Concept of
Operations.
WHO which unit is to accomplish the task. -
Normally identified by a Unit_ID. - When
Unit_ID is in doubt, could be identified by
location. - Could be identified by ROLE
(Main Effort, etc.)
WHAT the task to be accomplished. - Could
be either an operation or ARTEP task. -
Selection maybe dependent on how much the higher
commander wants to limit his subordinate.
The more specific the task the less it
conforms to mission type.
WHEN the timing of the task. - Control type
(AT a certain time, NLT a certain time,
EVENT_PLUS_T (D1, H2, etc.) - Parameters
(DTG, Event, Time, Unit_ID, etc..)
WHERE the location for accomplishing the
task. - Lat/Long, UTM, MGRS, etc. -
Terrain_Feature_ID, Graphic_Control_Measure_ID
WHY the reason for accomplishing the task.
- Purpose term. (Attrit, Defeat, Destroy,
Contain, Clear, etc..) - Parameters
(dependent on the term but required for
clarification Destroy what? Enemy Force,
Terrain Feature)
12
Additional Information for Coordination /
Synchronization

• Information that does not fit the 5Ws format.
• Priority of effort.
• Priority of support.
• Weapons control status.
• Mission Oriented Protective Posture.
• Etc.

This information is/can be represented in data
formats.
13
Sources of BML
Doctrine
Messages
FM-101-5
BML
USMTF
JVMF
ARTEPs
CCSIL
TADIL
Data Models
Eagle BML
JCDB Data Model
OTH Gold
ADAP3
14
BML Concept
Data/Object Models
Messages
Doctrine
Doctrinal Manuals
XML/ Data Replication
Tactical C4ISR Data Model
BML
15
Army, Joint and NATODoctrine Hierarchies
16
BML Scalability
XML/ Data Replication
NATO Doctrine
LC2IEDM
International
BML
XML/ Data Replication
Joint Doctrine
C2 Core Data Model
Joint
BML
XML/ Data Replication
FM-1-02
JCDB Data Model
Army
BML
17
5 Ws in JCDB
18
Subset of LC2IEDM TablesShowing the 5 Ws
19
Why migrate to LC2IEDM?

• History of LC2IEDM
• Developed by NATO data modeling experts (ATCCIS
  Permanent Working Group)
• Based on the Information Exchange Requirements on
  the Battlefield
• Unambiguous Representation of Information
• Extensible Data Model
• NATO Standard ADatP-32
• Use by the NATO Data Administration Group
• Core Data Model for various C4I Systems
• Reference Data Model for various Simulation
  Systems
• Data Model for Multilateral Interoperability
  Program (MIP)

20
High Level View of LC2IEDM

• Very Similar to the JCDB structure
• Deals with the 5 Ws
• Very well documented
• Tables
• Attributes
• Relations
• Extension rules
• XML tags

21
Who is using LC2IEDM

• United States
• Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport, RI
• The Technical Corporation Program (TTCP)
• Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA
• Battlefield Generic Hub
• Institute for Defense Analysis, Alexandria, VA
• Data Alignment Studies

• International
• NDAG
• IER between C4I Systems
• Standard Data Elements
• MIP
• Data Exchange
• German Data Management Group
• Reference Data Model for Simulation Systems
• France, Italy, Spain,
• New NATO Nations

Overall, growing interest in LC2IEDM
22
Benefits from BML

• Increase in preciseness and conciseness of
  communication between human operators.
• Improvement of Joint interoperability due to
  language built into database and linked to
  doctrinal sources.
• Improvement of Combined/Coalition
  interoperability due to reduction of free text
  and doctrinal language linked through common
  database.
• Increased interoperability between C4ISR systems
  and simulations through
• Adoption of doctrinal terms and graphics.
• Relating terms and graphics through data model to
  physical aspects of battlefield.
• Adoption of structure in messages to reduce free
  text.

23
The SIMCI / CECOM Testbed

• The U.S. Army is supporting RD in the domain of
  Battle Management Languages (BML)
• A Common Syntax and Semantics for C4I, MS and
  Robotics
• BML Semantics are based on Approved Doctrinal
  Terms
• BML Testbed presented in December 2002
• BML Interface (Develops Digitized Operations
  Order)
• CAPES (C4I Component for COA Development)
• Multi-Source Database extending Army Standard
  Database(JCDB)
• OneSAF Testbed (MS Component for COAA)

24
BML GUI
XML BML Parser
C4ISI
Multi-Source Database Augmented with BML
CAPES
OTB
BML acts as the common denominator
25
Objectives and Implementing Phases

• Phase 1 Bringing the Testbed into the XMSF (and
  NCES) Environment
• Embedding all components into XML/SOAP wrappers
• Replacing the ODBC protocols with XML/SOAP
  protocols
• Phase 2 Introducing International Data
  Standards
• Converting the Multisource DB from US Army JCDB
  to NATO LC2IEDM
• Phase 3 Introducing Joint C4I and MS
  Components
• Adding GCCS/NCES
• Adding JSAF
• Phase 4 Extending BML to Joint Doctrines
• Develop Joint BML Methodology
• Phase 5 Distributing the Testbed nationwide
• Develop Website to Distribute Testbed
  Infrastructure to Qualified XMSF Partners

26
BML Testbed (February 2003)
BML GUI
Develops Digitized US Army Operations Order
ODBC
CAPES
OneSAF TB
Multi Source DB
ODBC
ODBC
Based on the U.S. Armys JCDB
27
XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 1)
XML/SOAP
BML GUI
Develops Digitized US Army Operations Order
XMSF
CAPES
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
Multi Source DB
OneSAF TB
XMSF
XMSF
Based on the U.S. Armys JCDB
28
XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 2)
XML/SOAP
BML GUI
XMSF
CAPES
XML/SOAP
OneSAF TB
XML/SOAP
Multi Source DB
XMSF
XMSF
XML/SOAP
Based on the LC2IEDM
29
XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 3)
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
Transition to NCES prototype when available
BML GUI
XML/SOAP
OneSAF TB
GCCS/ Planning App
XMSF
XMSF
XMSF
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
Multi Source DB
JSAF
CAPES
XMSF
XMSF
XML/SOAP
Based on the LC2IEDM
30
XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 4)
BML GUI
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
Joint
XML/SOAP
Army
OneSAF TB
GCCS/ Planning App
XMSF
XMSF
XMSF
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
Multi Source DB
JSAF
CAPES
XMSF
XMSF
XML/SOAP
Based on the LC2IEDM
31
XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 5)

• Testbed Infrastructure is distributed to
  Qualified XMSF Partners
• Distributed via a Secure Website
• Configuration Controlled and Managed
• Available for Experimentation, Testing and
  Development
• Phase 5 can started after Phase 1 and run in
  parallel with the remaining Phases
• Widespread Use of a Distributed Testbed will
  Facilitate Incorporation of MS Functionality
  into Developing C4I Systems
• Ability to Interoperate with C4I Systems will be
  a crucial part of XMSF Acceptance

32
Benefits of a XMSF C4I Testbed

• Harmonization of Initialization Data for MS
  Components, C4I Components, and Robotic Forces
• Extensible Solution for additional Components
• C4I Components (e.g., NATO ACCS, Service C4I
  Systems)
• MS Functionality (Maneuver, Chem/Bio,
  Logistics, etc.)
• Develop Configurations for BML based on various
  Doctrines
• NATO Doctrine
• Joint Doctrine
• Service Doctrine

33
Backups
34
Implementation Plan

• Two year duration
• Participating Organizations
• ACS / CECOM RDEC
• VMASC / ODU
• ALION
• C3I Center / GMU

35
Phasing
FY03 Phase 1 Bringing the Testbed into the XMSF
(and NCES) Environment Phase 2 Introducing
International Data Standards Phase 5
Distributing the Testbed nationwide FY04 Phase 3
Introducing Joint C4I and MS Components Future
Years Phase 4 Extending BML to Joint
Doctrines Phase 5 Distributing the Testbed
nationwide
36
XMSF Benefits of a C4I Testbed

• Widespread Use of a Distributed Testbed will
  Facilitate Incorporation of MS Functionality
  into Developing C4I Systems
• Ability to Interoperate with C4I Systems will be
  a crucial part of XMSF Acceptance

37
Past C4I Simulation Interfaces

• Prior to automated C4I devices.

Field Environment
Simulation Center
Tactical Communications Or Simulated Tactical
Communications
Workstation Controllers
Training Audience
FM Voice, USMTF, MSE, AM RATT, Land Line, FAX
Manual translation of orders into simulation
keyboard input.
38
Past C4I Simulation Interfaces

• Advent of automated C4I devices.

Field Environment
Simulation Center
Tactical Communications Or Simulated Tactical
Communications
Workstation Controllers
Training Audience
FM Voice, MSE, AM RATT, Land Line, FAX
MCS USMTF Trans
AFATDS Trans
Combination of manual and automated translation
of information no OPORDS