Transcript XMSF C4I TB - MOVES Institute

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
The Tower of Babel
An engineering marvel reduced to ruble
by a “confusion of languages”.
Our Past or Our Future?
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
2
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.
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
3
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
commander’s intent.
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
4
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 Army’s FM 101-5-1)

Associated grammar defined in other doctrinal manuals and from
years of use.

It’s focus is human – to – human.
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
5
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.
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
6
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)
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
7
BML Scope
C4I
BML
Order
C4I
Simulation
Unmanned
Platforms
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
8
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
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
9
Commonality
CCSIL
USMTF
Structured messages
Very little free text
Data structures
Complex (structures)
Enumerated (types)
Alphanumeric
Character
Boolean
Floating point
Structured messages
Free text
Problem area
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
JVMF
Structured messages
Free text (ANSI ASCII)
Data structures
Complex
Enumerated
DFI (Data Field Identifier)
DUI (Data User Identifier)
Numeric
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
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
10
Essence of Order Resides in the 5 Ws
The 5 Ws
HOW: In mission type orders,
WHO: which unit is to accomplish the task.
how to do a task is left up to
- Normally identified by a Unit_ID.
the subordinate. The “general”
- When Unit_ID is in doubt, could be identified by location. how for the order itself is found
- Could be identified by ROLE (Main Effort, etc.)
in the context of the
Commander’s Intent and the
Concept of Operations.
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.
WHERE: the location for accomplishing
- Control type (AT a certain time, NLT a certain time,
the task.
EVENT_PLUS_T (D+1, H+2, etc.)
- Lat/Long, UTM, MGRS, etc.
- Parameters: (DTG, Event, Time, Unit_ID, 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)
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
11
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.
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
12
Sources of BML
Messages
Doctrine
FM-101-5
BML
USMTF
JVMF
TADIL
OTH
Gold
ADAP3
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
ARTEPs
CCSIL
Data Models
Eagle
BML
JCDB
Data Model
15 May 2003
13
BML Concept
Messages
XML/
Data
Replication
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
Data/Object
Models
Doctrine
Tactical C4ISR
Data Model
Doctrinal
Manuals
BML
15 May 2003
14
Army, Joint and NATO
Doctrine Hierarchies
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
15
Army
Joint
International
BML Scalability
XML/
Data
Replication
BML
XML/
Data
Replication
C2 Core
Data Model
XML/
Data
Replication
JCDB
Data Model
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
NATO
Doctrine
LC2IEDM
Joint Doctrine
BML
FM-1-02
BML
15 May 2003
16
5 Ws in JCDB
ORGANIZATION-TYPE
ORGANIZATION
ORGANIZATION-TYPE identifier
ORGANIZATION-TYPE function code
ORGANIZATION-TYPE echelon code
WHO
ORGANIZATION-TASK
ORGANIZATION identifier
ORGANIZATION identifier (FK)
ORGANIZATION-TYPE identifier (FK)
ORGANIZATION-TASK identifier
…
TASK Identifier (FK)
…
ORGANIZATION-TASK requirement category
code
ORGANIZATION-TASK rejection code
ORGANIZATION-TASK support requirement
amplification text
….
ACTION category code
WHAT
1
EVENT
TASK
2
TASK
TASK identifier (FK)
3
NULL
TASK name
TASK desired effect description
code
WHY
TASK start date
TASK end date
TASK estimated duration
ACTION
TASK minimum duration
ACTION identifier
TASK maximum duration
ACTION category code
…
ACTION verb code
…
WHEN
ACTION-LOCATION
WHERE
ACTION identifier (FK)
ACTION-LOCATION index
ACTION-LOCATION latitude coordinate
ACTION-LOCATION longitude coordinate
…
Subset of LC2IEDM Tables
Showing the 5 Ws
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)
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
19
High Level View of LC2IEDM
 Very Similar to the
JCDB structure
 Deals with the 5 Ws
Action
Reporting Data
Location
Capability
 Very well
documented
•
•
•
•
Tables
Attributes
Relations
Extension rules
 XML tags
Object-Item
Object-Type
OBJECT-TYPE
OBJECT-ITEM
ORGANIZATION -TYPE
ORGANIZATION
MATERIAL-TYPE
MATERIAL
PERSON -TYPE
PERSON
FACILITY-TYPE
FACILITY
FEATURE-TYPE
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
FEATURE
20
Who is using LC2IEDM
International
 NDAG
• IER between C4I Systems
• Standard Data Elements
 MIP
• Data Exchange
 German Data
Management Group
• Reference Data Model for
Simulation Systems
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
 France, Italy, Spain, …
• Data Alignment Studies
 New NATO Nations
Overall, growing interest in LC2IEDM
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
21
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”.
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
22
The SIMCI / CECOM Testbed
The U.S. Army is supporting R&D in the domain of Battle
Management Languages (BML)
• A Common Syntax and Semantics for C4I, M&S 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 (M&S Component for COAA)
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
23
BML GUI
XML – BML
Parser
CAPES
C4ISI
Multi-Source Database
Augmented with BML
BML acts as
the common
denominator
OTB
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 M&S 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
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
25
BML Testbed (February 2003)
Develops Digitized
US Army Operations Order
BML GUI
ODBC
OneSAF
TB
ODBC
Multi
Source
DB
ODBC
CAPES
Based on the
U.S. Army’s JCDB
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
26
XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 1)
Develops Digitized
US Army Operations
Order
XML/
SOAP
BML GUI
XMSF
XML/
SOAP
OneSAF
TB
XMSF
XML/
SOAP
Multi
Source
DB
XML/
SOAP
XMSF
CAPES
Based on the
U.S. Army’s JCDB
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
27
XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 2)
XML/
SOAP
BML GUI
XMSF
XML/
SOAP
OneSAF
TB
XMSF
XML/
SOAP
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
Multi
Source
DB
XML/
SOAP
XMSF
CAPES
Based on the
LC2IEDM
15 May 2003
28
XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 3)
XML/
SOAP
XML/
SOAP
XML/
SOAP
BML GUI
OneSAF
TB
XMSF
XMSF
XMSF
XML/
SOAP
JSAF
Transition to NCES prototype
when available
XMSF
XML/
SOAP
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
Multi
Source
DB
GCCS/
Planning
App
XML/
SOAP
XMSF
CAPES
Based on the
LC2IEDM
15 May 2003
29
XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 4)
BML GUI
XML/
SOAP
Army
OneSAF
TB
XML/
SOAP
XML/
SOAP
Joint
XMSF
XMSF
XMSF
XML/
SOAP
JSAF
XMSF
XML/
SOAP
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
Multi
Source
DB
GCCS/
Planning
App
XML/
SOAP
XMSF
CAPES
Based on the
LC2IEDM
15 May 2003
30
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
M&S Functionality into Developing C4I Systems
Ability to Interoperate with C4I Systems will be a crucial part of XMSF
Acceptance
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
31
Benefits of a XMSF C4I Testbed
Harmonization of Initialization Data for M&S Components,
C4I Components, and Robotic Forces
Extensible Solution for additional Components
• C4I Components (e.g., NATO ACCS, Service C4I Systems)
• M&S Functionality (Maneuver, Chem/Bio, Logistics, etc.)
Develop Configurations for BML based on various
Doctrines
• NATO Doctrine
• Joint Doctrine
• Service Doctrine
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
32
Backups
Implementation Plan
Two year duration
Participating Organizations
• ACS / CECOM RDEC
• VMASC / ODU
• ALION
• C3I Center / GMU
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
34
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 M&S Components
Future Years
Phase 4 – Extending BML to Joint Doctrines
Phase 5 – Distributing the Testbed nationwide
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
35
XMSF Benefits of a C4I Testbed
Widespread Use of a Distributed Testbed will
Facilitate Incorporation of M&S Functionality into
Developing C4I Systems
Ability to Interoperate with C4I Systems will be a
crucial part of XMSF Acceptance
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
36
Past C4I – Simulation Interfaces
Prior to automated C4I devices.
Field Environment
Training Audience
X
Tactical Communications
Or
Simulated Tactical
Communications
Simulation Center
Workstation Controllers
II
X
TOC
CMD
TAC
X
TOC
II
II
TOC
TOC
X
REAR
FM Voice, USMTF, MSE,
AM RATT, Land Line,
FAX
Manual translation of orders
into simulation keyboard input.
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
15 May 2003
37
Past C4I – Simulation Interfaces
Advent of automated C4I devices.
Field Environment
Training Audience
X
Tactical Communications
Or
Simulated Tactical
Communications
Simulation Center
Workstation Controllers
II
X
TOC
CMD
TAC
X
TOC
X
FM Voice, MSE, AM
RATT, Land Line, FAX
REAR
II
II
TOC
TOC
MCS
USMTF Trans
AFATDS
Trans
XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003
Combination of manual and automated
translation of information – no
OPORDS
15 May 2003
38