extensible modeling and simulation framework (xmsf) c4i testbed

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

15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 2

The Tower of Babel An engineering marvel reduced to rubleby a “confusion of languages”.

Our Past or Our Future?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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)


BML Scope

C4I C4I

Simulation

Unmanned Platforms

BMLOrder


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


Commonality

CCSIL

Structured messages Very little free textData structures Complex (structures) Enumerated (types) Alphanumeric Character Boolean Floating point

USMTF

Structured messages Free textData 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

Problem area

Data structure of messages favors data base application

Structure built into free text areas would expand data base applicability

Well thought out relationships between tables built into the data base can facilitateuser friendly GUI applications (drop down menus, graphics, automatic fills) for creating messages

Structure built into free text areas focused on the 5 Ws (Who, What, When, Where, Why)and coordination information


Essence of Order Resides in the 5 Ws

The 5 Ws

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 (D+1, H+2, 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)

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 Commander’s Intent and the Concept of Operations.


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.


Sources of BML

USMTF

JVMF

TADIL

OTHGold

ADAP3

JCDBData Model

EagleBML

CCSIL

Messages

Data Models

BML

Doctrine

FM-101-5

ARTEPs


BML Concept

BML

Messages

Data/Object Models

XML/Data

Replication

Tactical C4ISRData Model

Doctrine

DoctrinalManuals


Army, Joint and NATODoctrine Hierarchies


BML Scalability

BML

XML/Data

Replication

JCDBData Model FM-1-02

BML

XML/Data

Replication

C2 CoreData Model Joint Doctrine

BML

XML/Data

Replication

LC2IEDM NATO Doctrine

Arm

yJo

int

Inte

rnat

iona

l

5 Ws in JCDBORGANIZATION-TYPE

ORGANIZATION-TYPE identifier

ORGANIZATION-TYPE function code

ORGANIZATION-TYPE echelon code

…

ORGANIZATION-TASK

ORGANIZATION 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

1 EVENT

2 TASK

3 NULL

ACTION

ACTION identifier

ACTION category code

ACTION verb code

…

ORGANIZATION

ORGANIZATION identifier

ORGANIZATION-TYPE identifier (FK)

…

WHO

ACTION-LOCATION

ACTION identifier (FK)

ACTION-LOCATION index

ACTION-LOCATION latitude coordinate

ACTION-LOCATION longitude coordinate

…

WHERE

TASK

TASK identifier (FK)

TASK name

TASK desired effect description code

TASK start date

TASK end date

TASK estimated duration

TASK minimum duration

TASK maximum duration

…

WHY

WHAT

WHEN

Subset of LC2IEDM TablesShowing 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)


High Level View of LC2IEDM

Reporting Data

Object-Item

Capability

Object-Type

Location

Action Reporting Data

Object-Item

CapabilityCapability

Object-TypeObject-Type

Location

Action

OBJECT-TYPE OBJECT-ITEM

ORGANIZATION -TYPE

MATERIAL-TYPE

PERSON -TYPE

FACILITY-TYPE

FEATURE-TYPE

ORGANIZATION

MATERIAL

PERSON

FACILITY

FEATURE

OBJECT-TYPE OBJECT-ITEM

ORGANIZATION -TYPE

MATERIAL-TYPE

PERSON -TYPE

FACILITY-TYPE

FEATURE-TYPE

ORGANIZATION

MATERIAL

PERSON

FACILITY

FEATURE

Very Similar to the JCDB structure

Deals with the 5 Ws

Very well documented

• Tables• Attributes• Relations• Extension rules

XML tags


Who is using LC2IEDMInternational 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

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

Overall, growing interest in LC2IEDM


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”.


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)

BML GUI

CAPES OTB

C4ISIXML – BML

Parser

BML acts as the common denominator

Multi-Source DatabaseAugmented with BML


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


BML Testbed (February 2003)

Multi Source

DB

OneSAFTB

BML GUI

CAPES

ODBC

ODBC

Based on the U.S. Army’s JCDB

ODBC

Develops Digitized US Army Operations Order


XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 1)

Multi Source

DBOneSAF

TB

BML GUI

CAPES

XMSF

XMSF

Based on the U.S. Army’s JCDB

XMSF

XML/SOAP

XML/SOAP XML/

SOAP

XML/SOAP

Develops Digitized US Army Operations

Order



Multi Source

DB

OneSAFTB

BML GUI

CAPES

XMSF

XMSF

Based on the LC2IEDM

XMSF

XML/SOAP

XML/SOAP

XML/SOAP

XML/SOAP



Multi Source

DBJSAF

BML GUI

CAPES

XMSF

XMSF


XMSF

XML/SOAP

XML/SOAP

XML/SOAP

XML/SOAP

OneSAFTB

XML/SOAP

XMSF

GCCS/Planning

App

XMSF

XML/SOAP

Transition to NCES prototypewhen available



Multi Source

DBJSAF CAPES

XMSF

XMSF


XMSF

XML/SOAP

XML/SOAP

XML/SOAP

XML/SOAP

OneSAFTB

XML/SOAP

XMSF

GCCS/Planning

App

XMSF

XML/SOAP

BML GUI

Army Joint



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


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

Backups


Implementation Plan

Two year duration

Participating Organizations

• ACS / CECOM RDEC

• VMASC / ODU

• ALION

• C3I Center / GMU


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 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


Past C4I – Simulation Interfaces

Prior to automated C4I devices.

X

CMD

X

TACX

TOC

X

REAR

II

TOCII

TOC

II

TOC

Training Audience Workstation Controllers

Tactical CommunicationsOr

Simulated Tactical Communications

FM Voice, USMTF, MSE, AM RATT, Land Line,

FAX

Field Environment Simulation Center

Manual translation of orders into simulation keyboard input.

Manual translation of orders into simulation keyboard input.


Past C4I – Simulation Interfaces

Advent of automated C4I devices.

X

CMD

X

TACX

TOC

X

REAR

II

TOCII

TOC

II

TOC

Training Audience Workstation Controllers

Tactical CommunicationsOr

Simulated Tactical Communications

FM Voice, MSE, AM RATT, Land Line, FAX

Field Environment Simulation Center

MCSUSMTF Trans

AFATDS Trans

Combination of manual and automated translation of information – no OPORDS

Combination of manual and automated translation of information – no OPORDS

extensible modeling and simulation framework (xmsf) c4i testbed

Documents

c4i devices

management language

simulation training

control live forces

control forces

control information

doctrinal manuals

problemour current bml