INNOVATIVE C2 TRAINING SOLUTIONSFOR AIR FORCE MODULAR CONTROL SYSTEMS

Rebecca B. Brooks, Ph.D.Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)/Aerospace

Command and Control Intelligence Surveillance andReconnaissance Center (AC2ISRC)

130 Andrews St., Ste 216; Langley AFB, VA 23665-1993

Richard A. Breitbach, Lt ColSusan Pegg, Major

Robert Steffes, SMSgt133 Air Control Squadron

IA Air National Guard, Fort Dodge, IA 50501

Gary R. George P.E. *Air Force Research Laboratory

*L-3 Communications Link Simulation and TrainingBinghamton, N.Y. 13904

ABSTRACT

Although the importance of command and control (C2) training has grown in recent years, many C2 organizations arehaving difficulty in meeting training requirements. A number of solutions have recently been proposed to provideeffective training for the Air Force (AF) battle management crews responsible for tactical-level command and control(C2) in the Theater Air Control System (TACS) Modular Control Equipment (MCE). Some proposed solutionsinclude intelligent tutors and stand-alone systems. Stand-alone systems currently do not provide training for thecomplete TACS MCE functionality. The most effective way to provide TACS training is to have the traineesemploythe equipment they aetuaIly use, interfaced with other entities, and all operating in a realistic synthetic battlespace.Although it has been possible to interface several operational modular control units together for operator training,these Systems Training Exercises (STEs) have typically involved a large investment of time and manpower forplanning, scenario generation, and operation. In addition, these training exercises have been expensive. Joint ServiceTraining Exercises (JSTEs) have involved an even greater investment of time, manning, and funding. The JSTE costis so great that operators do not have an opportunity to participate on a regular basis. This paper will focus on the useof innovative training tools that could result in enhanced C2 training with minimal investment oftirne, manpower, orfunding. This paper will report the success of a low-cost interface of the MCE with Joint Semi-Automated Forces(JSAF) and Distributed Mission Training, the use of this interface in an operational STE, the combination of thisinterface with a virtual reality capability for training, and future plans for expanded MCE training using theseinnovative tools.

AUTHORS' BIOGRAPHIES

Dr. Rebecca Brooks is the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Commander's Representative to AC2ISRC atLangley AFB, Virginia. Prior to assuming this position in the spring of 2002, she was a Research Psychologist at theWarfighter Training Research Division of AFRL located at Williams-Gateway Airport, Mesa, AZ for 24 years. Shewas team lead for Modular Control Equipment training research, and represented the Human Effectiveness DirectorateofAFRL on a cross-directorate effort with the Information Systems Directorate in a Command and Control EmbeddedTraining (C2ET) effort. Dr Brooks received her PhD in Learning and Instructional Technology from Arizona StateUniversity in 1997.

Lt. Colonel Richard A. Breitbach is currently the Commander of the 133d ACS located in Fort Dodge, IA. Withover 17 years of operational experience in special operations, battle management, and engineering command andcontrol networks. Before his recent promotion he was Director of Operations for the 133d ACS. He is a graduate ofthe University of Dubuque, in Dubuque, IA with postgraduate work completed at Webster University.

Gary R. George is a Principle Systems Engineer at L3 Communications-Link Simulation and Training with over 25years of experience in modeling and simulation. He holds a B. S. in Mechanical Engineering, an M. S. in bothMechanical and Electrical Engineering from the State University ofNY and Syracuse University.

SMSgt Robert Steffes is the Supervisor of Computer Maintenance at the 133d ACS located at Fort Dodge, lAo.Recently he has been actively involved in developing new simulation programs for command and control usingcomputer generated forces. He is a graduate of the Air Force Senior NCO Academy.

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE APR 2002

2. REPORT TYPE Proceedings

3. DATES COVERED 01-01-2001 to 30-03-2002

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Innovative C2 Training Solutions for Air Force Modular Control Systems

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER F41625-97-D-5000

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 62205F

6. AUTHOR(S) Rebecca Brooks; Richard Breitbach; Susan Pegg; Robert Steffes;Gary George

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 1123

5e. TASK NUMBER AM

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 1123AM01

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Air Force Research Laboratory/RHA,Warfighter ReadinessResearch Division,6030 South Kent Street,Mesa,AZ,85212-6061

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER AFRL; AFRL/RHA

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Air Force Research Laboratory/RHA, Warfighter ReadinessResearch Division, 6030 South Kent Street, Mesa, AZ, 85212-6061

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) AFRL; AFRL/RHA

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) AFRL-RH-AZ-PR-2002-0003

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Published in Proceedings of 2002 ITEC, Europe’s Training, Education and Simulation Conference, held9-11 April 2002, in Lille, France

14. ABSTRACT Although the importance of command and control (C2) training has grown in recent years, many C2organizations are having difficulty in meeting training requirements. A number of solutions have recentlybeen proposed to provide effective training for the Air Force battle management crews responsible fortactical-level C2 in the Theater Air Control System (TACS) Modular Control Equipment (MCE). Someproposed solutions include intelligent tutors and standalone systems. Standalone systems currently do notprovide training for the complete TACS MCE functionality. The most effective way to provide TACStraining is to have the trainees employ the equipment they actually use, interfaced with the other entities,and all operating in a realistic synthetic battlespace. Although it has been possible to interface severaloperational modular control units together for operator training, these Systems Training Exercises (STEs)have typically involved a large investment of time and manpower for planning, scenario generation, andoperation. In addition, these training exercises have been expensive. Joint Service Training Exercises(JSTEs) have involved an even greater investment of time, manning, and funding. The JSTE cost is sogreat that operators do not have an opportunity to participate on a regular basis. This paper will focus onthe use of innovative training tools that could result in enhanced C2 training with minimal investment oftime, manpower, or funding. The paper reports the success of a low-cost interface of the MCE with JointAutomated Forces (JSAF) and Distributed Mission Training, the use of this interface in an operationalSTE, the combination of this interface with a virtual reality capability for training, and future plans forexpanded MCE training using these innovative tools.

15. SUBJECT TERMS Command and control; C2; Training solutions; Air Force modular control systems; Modular controlequipment; MCE; Training requirements; Battle management crews; Theater Air Control System; TACS;Tactical air environments; Training tools; Distributed mission training; DMT; Virtual reality; Training;Mission planning; Scenario generation; Operator training

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATIONOF ABSTRACT

Public Release

18.NUMBEROF PAGES

11

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

Major Susan Pegg is an action officer for the 133d ACS at the Iowa Technology Center with over 12 years Air BattleManagement experience. Prior to her assignment to the 133rd she was the Air National Guard representative to AirCombat Command for command and control. Maj Pegg earned a BA in International Relations from the UniversityofMinnesota and an MHSA from Armstrong Atlantic State University in Savannah Georgia.

INNOVATIVE C2 TRAINING SOLUTIONSFOR AIR FORCE MODULAR CONTROL SYSTEMS

Rebecca B. Brooks, Air Force Research Laboratory/AC2ISRCRichard A. Breitbach, 133d Air Control Squadron, Iowa Air National Guard

Gary R. George, L3 Communications-Link Simulation and TrainingRobert Steffes, 133d Air Control Squadron, Iowa AirNational Guard

Susan Pegg, 133d Air Control Squadron, Iowa Air National Guard

INTRODUCTION TO THEATER AIRCONTROL SYSTEMS/

MODULAR CONTROL EQUIPMENT

The ANITYQ-23 MCE provides the Air Force with atransportable TACS automated air C2 system forcontrolling and coordinating the employment ofaircraft and air defense weapons. A completedescription of the MCE may be found in thefollowing references: Janes (1994), Litton (1995a,1995b), and Defense Information SystemsAssociation (DISA) (1997). The Air Force version ofthe MCE uses the ANITPS-75, three-dimensional,long-range, high-power, air defense radar.

The basic system element of the MCE is theOperations Module (OM). A single OM is comprisedof a six-meter enclosure and contains the C2equipment, including a full range of tactical digitaldatalinks to perform the air defense function. Systemsensors and power supplies are external to the shelter.Figure 1 shows an operator inside the OM, andFigure 2 shows the MCE with two OMs.

~. Inside the Operations Module.

Up to five OMs can be interconnected through theuse of fiber optic cables to provide variable OMconfigurations at locations of up to 500 meters fortactical or terrain advantages. Typical configurationsare four OMs for the Control and Reporting Center(CRC) and two OMs for a Control and ReportingElement (CRE) configuration. The local radars canbe located up to two kilometers from the OM and areconnected using fiber optic cable. Remote radars canbe located at various distances and are only limitedby the capability of the medium being used totransmit data to the OM.

Figure 2. Modular Control Equipment.

Automatic target detection, acquisition, and trackingare accomplished by an automatic radar/ldentifyFriend or Foe (IFF) capability in the AN/TPS-75radar system. The tracker software is installed in theMCE Interface Group (MIG) located in the radarshelter. An external tracking capability called theModem Tracking System (MTS) performs similarfunctions as the MIG, but integrates one externalsensor feed into the MCE. The MCE surveillancetasks include the correlation of tracks reported fromthe MTS with other system tracks and with tracksreceived from digital data links from other sources.Automatic identification (friend, unknown, hostile)and classification (fighter, bomber, tanker) are alsoperformed by the surveillance function. Thisfunction performs automatic threat evaluation andclassifies aircraft and air-to-surface missile tracksaccording to their potential threat to defended assets.Within the OM, the weapons control functionprovides the capability to exercise positive control offighter aircraft employed in tactical operations: Airdefense, counter-air, interdiction, close air support,reconnaissance, refueling, search and rescue, andmissions other than war.

Inside each OM are four multicolor operator monitorsfor four C2 operators. These displays provide real­time information about the various tracks on theplanned position indicator displays in regard to rangeand azimuth as well as IFF and jamming status. Thedisplay shows superimposed track symbols, map oroverlay lines, and alphanumeric data. There is amonochrome auxiliary display presenting storedalphanumeric data to supplement the situationaldisplay. Touch sensitive screens allow the operatorsystem control.

CURRENT TRAINING SYSTEM DEFICIENCY

The MCE has an embedded training capabilityknown as MC SIM (Litton, 1995b) that allows theOM to be put in a training mode where target tracksand raw video are simulated. An update to MC SIMadded an external workstation that emulates the OM'soperator control unit and provides an instructorremote control over the embedded simulationprograms and scenario generation. This allows allfour of the consoles in the OM to be dedicated to thetraining exercise. Without this update one of the OMconsoles would be required to execute the embeddedsimulation and would be unavailable for operatortraining.

The MC SIM is difficult to use and inadequate forpreparing operators for theater and full-mission duty(Chubb, 1997). The existing simulation and portrayalof the synthetic forces is not scalable and does notprovide realistic autonomous behaviors. There areother disadvantages associated with MC SIM. First,it requires operators to run the simulation, and theyare not proficient in console inputs, so they are notable to maintain the tempo required. Second, theOperational Training Officer (OTO) has no ability toinsert events in the synthetic battIespace that were notalready preprogrammed to occur. Third, "kills" and"drop track" commands do not occur as rapidly astheir real-system counterparts, creating an unrealisticsituation display. Finally, the existing trainingoptions and portrayal of synthetic forces is not easilyor cost effectively interoperable with otherdistributed simulations.When an MCE "Schoolhouse" was established in1999, it was stood up with limited funding and animmediate training need. The existing trainingsystem described earlier is not sufficient to meet therequirements of the "Schoolhouse." Therefore, anytechnology or training strategy designed to assist theSchoolhouse in meeting their training requirementshad to be low-cost, and available as soon as possible.

and providing a trammg environment that theoperator is accustomed to.

This concept has been partially demonstrated with thestimulation of the MCE with Joint Semi-AutomatedForces (JSAF). JSAF has been integrated to theMCE system via the Litton gateway providing trackson the operator displays. The proprietary gatewayused with the embedded training system allowssimulated entities to be communicated and thendisplayed in the OM. The interface software in theDistributed Interactive Simulation (DIS)/MCEtranslator uses DIS 2.0.4 protocol to communicatewith JSAF. Much of the interface software wasreused from the AFRL Network Interface Unitsoftware developed for the Distributed MissionTraining (DMT) testbed and hosted on a Sun Sparcworkstation. The radar system and tracking functionsare simulated using entity state data from thecomputer generated forces (CGF). These tracks alsohave the simulated video from the Remote InterfaceUnit (RID). The raw video functionality is from theexisting embedded simulation system. The ability todisplay JSAF tracks was demonstrated in June 1998.

The MCE stimulation program was further extendedto the RoadRunner '98 DMT exercise that wasconducted by AFRL in the summer of 1998. JSAFwas hosted by AFRL at Mesa, AZ, and providedsynthetic entity state information for the two remotesites to the 107th Air Control Squadron (ACS) inPhoenix, Arizona, and the 133d ACS in Fort Dodge,IA. This prototype evaluation indicated that the useof the proprietary gateway and reverse engineeringthe interfaces was not the best approach in regard tooverall cost and in providing a full trainingcapability. The use of existing interoperablesimulation techniques and interfaces proved to be amore cost-effective and lower risk approach toprovide an immediate "Schoolhouse" trainingsolution.

Soar Speak and Analog Communication

C02 13 bit '"-----'

OMAN/TYQ-23

Solipsys MultiSourceCorrelatorTracker

DIS SimulationSystem

DESCRIPTION OF CD2 CONVERSIONAND MCE INTERFACE

In order to stimulate the OM, the syntheticbattlespace/CGF data must be translated into a formatthat OM Digital Data Bus (DDB) can use in its nativeformat. This requires a translator from the DIS

PAST RESEARCH AND PROTOTYPES

AFRL has been experimenting with stimulation ofthe actual MCE equipment over the past few years(George, Brooks, Conquest, & Bell, 1998; George,Brooks, Bell, Breitbach, Steffes, & Bruhl, 1999).Stimulation requires the use of actual operationalequipment. In stimulation, an external syntheticbattIespace provides target state, behavior, andenvironmental effects that would normally berepresented by the radar and detection algorithms.Ideally, the operator should not perceive anydifference between the real and stimulated systems.Stimulation has the advantage of easily supportingupgrades to the operational hardware, training at site,

context to the OM fonnat. Based on provenperfonnance during JEFX, a reusable low-costtranslator developed by the Solipsys Corporation andknown as the Multi-Source Correlator Tracker(MSCT) Simulation System was investigated. TheMSCT takes DIS data from interoperable simulationsand converts to the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) standard Common Digitized 2 (CD2) fonnat,which can then be connected directly to the MCEOM. The simulator is personal computer (PC)-basedand is a cost-effective approach to MCE stimulationusing existing hardware and software assets. Aproof-of-concept test of this solution was done at the133d ACS (Iowa Air National Guard) in December2000 and will be discussed in the next section.

JSAF was selected as the initial CGF, although anyDIS-compatible CGF could have been used. Forexample, the Joint Interim Mission Model (JIMM)might have been used instead. JSAF was selectedbased on our past experience with this system, a veryuser-friendly scenario generation capability, and theavailability of highly autonomous AF entities (the AirSynthetic Forces (AirSF) portion of JSAF) using theSOAR (Taking a State, applying an Operator Andgenerating a Result) expert behaviors (Johnson, et al.,1994). These types of autonomous entities aredesirable to reduce the workload on role players.Entities from AirSF perfonn their missionsautonomously and integrate seamlessly to the virtualsimulators. Once briefed, they plan and execute theirmissions in conjunction with the virtuals usingappropriate doctrine and tactics.

Even though each entity is autonomous, it is notacting in isolation. Individual entities coordinatetheir actions using existing doctrine and Command,Control, Communications, Computers, andIntelligence (C41) systems. They use sharedknowledge of doctrine, tactics, and missionobjectives as well as explicit radio communication toachieve common goals. As the mission develops,entities may change roles dynamically as in the realworld.

AirSF provides behaviors for most commonly flownair roles and missions including: air-to-air (DefensiveCounter Air (DCA), Offensive Counter Air (OCA),and escort), air-to-ground (strike and Suppression ofEnemy Air Defenses [SEAD]), control (Forward AirControl (FAC), Air Electronic Warfare (AEW),Ground Control Intercept (Gel), reconnaissance, andrefueling. It can provide friendly, opponent, orneutral forces. As illustrated in Figure 3, JSAFprovides DIS entity, emission, and event ProtocolData Units (PDUs) to the translator

Figure 3. The Stimulation System Block Diagram.

The translator interfaces directly to the MTS. TheMTS operates with any radar as a stand-alone system,accomplishes sensor integration with command andcontrol centers, and supports multi-radar integrationactivities. Designed for continuous, unattendedoperation, the MTS automatically initiates and trackstargets throughout the surveillance volume of theradar. It adapts automatically to accommodatechanging environments. Both air and surface targetswith velocities from zero to 40,000 knots (kts) can betracked. The MTS initiates tracks in clear, cluttered,and high-density regions, with a full air pictureestablished.

Communication back to role players at the JSAFmonitors is accomplished using nonnalcommunications channels from the OM. Currentlythe 133d ACS is exploring the possibility ofinterfacing SoarSpeak, which would provide voicecontrol of synthetic, SOAR-based entities.SoarSpeak uses natural voice recognition and speechgeneration to direct and interact with synthetic,constructive entities controlled by the AirSF airbehavior system. This capability allows suchsynthetic entities to maintain autonomy, flexibility,and realism. Rather than requiring a system operatorto manually intervene to change an entity's behavior,SoarSpeak allows OM operators and relativelyuntrained role players to retask aircraft via voicedirectives, which will provide a realistic trainingcapability.

RESULTS OF DECEMBER 2000DEMONSTRATION

The Solipsys MSCT Radar Simulation System wasdelivered to the 133d ACS on 18 December 2000.This system was used to integrate JSAF to the MCE,fully stimulating the OM. Completed integration andtesting was completed on 20 December 2000,illustrating the ease of integration. Photos of thisequipment may be seen in Figures 4 and 5 below.

Figure 4. Solipsys MSCT Radar Simulation Systemon left and Litton MTS on right.

~. Solipsys MSCT Radar Simulation Systemwith Flat Panel DispaylKeyboard Drawer opened.

The MSCT Radar Simulation System consists of acollection of hardware and software programs thatprovide the impetus to stimulate external systemswith radar data in the CD2 13-bit format. Thesoftware was pre-installed by Solipsys Corporationprior to shipping. The hardware platform providedby Solipsys Corporation with this delivery included arack-mounted computer with the followingspecifications:

• Dual Pentium III 750 Mega hertz (MHz)Processors

• 512 Mega-byte (MB) Random AccessMemory (RAM)

• 18 MB Removable Hard Disk Drive• Viper 11 Video Card with 32 MB Memory• 15" Active Matrix Rack Mount Flat Panel

DisplaylKeyboard Drawer• Internal Compact Disk (CD)-Read Only

Memory (ROM)

• Internal 3.5" 1.44 MB Floppy Disk Drive• PTI-334 RS-232 Synchronous Interface Card

(4 serial ports)• Windows NT 4.0 Workstation Operating

System

The MSCT Radar Simulation System is configured toreceive input from JSAF, which provides simulatedsynthetic battlespace. JSAF delivers DIS PDUs viaUser Datagram Protocol/Internet Protocol (UDPIIP)network packets. The MSCT Radar SimulationSystem successfully received all simulated entitiesand events, which were provided to the SolipsysTactical Display Framework (TDF) for display. Inaddition, air assets within the coverage area of a user­defined simulated radar were then passed to theLitton MTS system for further processing.

The MSCT Radar Simulation System is used tooutput simulated radar data to the Litton MTSsystem. The MSCT Radar Simulation Systemoutputs CD2 13-bit formatted messages via an RS­232 synchronous serial port. Due to the limiteddocumentation for the internal workings of the LittonMTS system, several key elements to this interfacehad to be addressed on-site in a reverse engineeringmanner. To illustrate, it was discovered that eachbyte must be inverted prior to transmission to theLitton MTS system. The configuration andintegration was completed successfully, with theLitton MTS system displaying plots and initiatingtracks based on the MSCT Radar Simulation Systemoutput

The demonstration showed that several hundredsimulation entities could be displayed in the OM. Theoperators received a week training in JSAF operationand scenario generation capabilities. This wassufficient for the operators to execute variousmissions and scenarios. The displayed tracksrepresented both highly autonomous entities based onAirSF behaviors as well as lower fidelity modelsbased on standard ModSAF task frames. Thedemonstration further illustrated the ease of usingreusable assets that promote interoperability andstandardized interfaces. The gateway also providesthe opportunity to interface virtual devices such as afour ship from the AFRL Warfighter TrainingResearch Center manned simulation facility in Mesa,AZ.. This innovative concept and solution fits wellinto the Air Force's Distributed Mission Training(DMT) vision that ultimately will integrate live,virtual and constructive simulations.

POTENTIAL TRAINING ADVANTAGES

At this time, the MCE Schoolhouse personnel areanxious to obtain this capability because they feelconfident that it will be valuable in helping them tomeet their training requirements. The system that wasdemonstrated in December of 2000 provides thecapability for immediate training. This solutionprovides a quick cost effective solution that theSchoolhouse needs today. Other anticipated trainingadvantages of this solution include the following:

• JSAF and DMT provide higher fidelity oftrainingo JSAF aircraft perform realistic maneuvers

and have automatic kill removal.o JSAF allows rapid generation and archival

of training scenarios to meet instructionalobjectives.

o Manned cockpits in DMT provide practicein communication with actual pilots.

o DMT allows all data to be recorded andplayed back for debrief.

o DMT provides the opportunity to train aspart of the combat team in the JointSynthetic Battlespace.

• JSAF does not require many "sim drivers,"which will result in reduced manning forsimulation training.

• Training from your home unit via DMT resultsin Temporary Duty (TDY) cost savings andreduced scheduling conflicts.

• Creates potential to expand to includeSystems Training Exercises (STE) and JointService Training Exercises (JTE).

• The ability to replay exercise scenarios fromthe MCE stimulation on full visualizationequipment as employed in virtual realitysystems.

VIRTUAL REALITY VISUALIZATION

Visualization technology is of critical importance fortoday's command and control, intelligence,surveillance, and reconnaissance operators. (Durbanet. al. (1998), Rosenblum et. al. (1997» Virtualreality may play an important role in C2 visualizationtraining. Virtual Reality visualization may alsoprovide critical information in a timely manner infuture exercises and wars. Information has alwaysbeen an important resource, and accurate, timelyinformation with details on an enemy's location,strength, and intentions could influence the outcomeof the battle. The complexities of C2 tasks requirenot only fast computers and communicationssystems, but also visualization systems that allow theoperators to sift through and digest a large amount ofdata in a very brief time. Presentation of information

in a clear, concise way depends on the developmentofnew visualization technologies.

The Human Effectiveness Directorate and theInformation Systems Directorate of the Air ForceResearch Laboratory (AFRL) are sponsoring aneffort to investigate the effects of various types ofvirtual reality visualization technology on C2operator training. As part of this effort, the VirtualReality Applications Center (VRAC) of Iowa StateUniversity is supporting this effort through theinterface of JSAF with the virtual reality devices atthe VRAC. In addition, VRAC personnel have builtan interface so that all VRAC technologies canaccept Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS)entities from DMT. This interface includes thedevices depicted in figures 6-9.

The C6 (Figure 6) is a lOxlOxl0 foot room in whichcomputer generated images ofthe syntheticbattlepace are back projected on all four walls, theceiling and the floor. In the C6, several participantscan explore and interact with entites created by asynthetic battlespace or computer generated force.

Figure 6. The C6.The C4 (Figure 7) supports multiple screenconfigurations ranging from a cave-like environmentto a 36 foot wide power wall. Multipleconfigurations are made possible by swinging themoveable sidewalls.

~. TheC4.

The workbench (Figure 8) is an interactive virtualreality environment designed to support a team ofusers that would typically stand over a table orworkbench as part of their professional routine.

~. The Workbench.

The Lee Liu/Alliant Energy Auditorium shown inFigure 9 allows for a large group not directly in thevisualization to view the activities that is beingexecuted in the various display devices justdescribed.

The VRAC has developed generalized software (VRJuggler) that can handle the various display mediumsillustrated in Figures 6-9. Furthermore, this softwaresupports DIS inputs. This allows the systems to usesynthetic battlespace information directly fromsimulations or replay DIS data that may have beengenerated in STEs with the MCE stimulation. Theadditional virtual realities capabilities resulting fromthese interfaces offer a number of unique trainingcapabilities for C2 operators. The replay capability isespecially important in the sense that displays in theMCE Operations Module (OM) are two-dimensionaland VR provides full, three-dimensionalvisualization. This allows MCE operators to see thescenarios experienced in the MCE to be replayed infull visualization following their "in box" training.During replay, operators have the opportunity tolearn to visualize the scenarios encountered in theMCE OM in more than just two dimensions.

Figure 9. The Lee Liu/Alliant Energy Auditorium.

These capabilities currently exist in an earlydevelopment stage and further human factors work isrequired to support C2 training research. Key issuesinclude the types of human interface tools, iconsversus computer imagery of simulated entities, typesof displays required for various C2 functions andeffects of time delays on human performance.

SYSTEMS TRAINING EXERCISE

A Systems Training Exercise (STE) was conducted inAugust, 2001 at the 133 ACS in Ft Dodge, IowaThe system for MCE stimulation that was previouslydescribed was effectively used as the trainingmedium. This training scenario was conducted inthe OM with two-dimensional radar displays,containing over 50 entities. The STE DIS datapackets were recorded and replayed at the VRAC atISU on the following day. Observers were able toview the STE on the large screen in the VRACauditorium and were also provided the opportunity tobe completely immersed in the battlespace in the C6virtual reality facility. This was the fIrst time that theSolipsys MSCT was used to conduct an STE, and thefIrst time that a training scenario recorded onoperational equipment was replayed in the VRACfacility

JSAF scenarios can be developed in a few hours bypersonnel at the 133'd ACS. Using the embeddedsystem that came with MCE, the generation requiredseveral hours to develop. A number of 133rd

personnel spent four days in JSAF training foroperational use of JSAF. This core then cross-trainedother personnel. VRAC members also got thistraining as well as technical details of JSAF. Thedata from this embedded MCE system was not in aformat (DIS) that supported interoperability andreplay at the VRAC.

Immersion in the battlespace at the VRAC is depictedin Figure 10.

Figure 10. Immersion ofC2 Operators in the C6Battlespace.

The use of JSAF intelligent agents reduces thenumber of operators and role players required. Thisis particularly important since STEs can be personnelintensive for large scenarios. With a reducedrequirement for operators and role players in order toconduct C2 training, more effective use of existingmanning is accomplished.

Perhaps the most significant benefit is from a costbasis. The MCE MSCT solution leverages onreusable assets to create a DMT training capabilityfor the MCE. The DIS interface to the VR systemswere done by students at ISU that are very costeffective. The VR systems at ISU are also employedfor several other projects, thus spreading the financialburden over those programs. The ability of AirControl Squadron personnel to generate theirscenarios and data logs does not require contractorsupport, thus further reducing cost for STEs.

The use of both the MCE stimulation and the variousVR systems provides further training and debriefcapabilities for C2 operators. Although this first STEused the large scale fixed C6, more mobile types ofVR will be explored in future research. Lower cost,workbench systems that could be employed at theunit sites will be investigated. Initial comments fromthe MCE operators has been positive with manysuggestions of display formats to further enhance thevisualization ofthe battlespace.

FUTURE DIRECTION

The concept of Distributed Mission Training (DMT)will be further expanded to fit the requirements ofDistributed Mission Operations (DMO) which maybe seen as a combination of DMT, MissionRehearsal, test and evaluation, and Simulation BasedAcquisition (SBA). The role of 133d ACS is as a testunit. Here, all aspects of DMO will be utilized toaccomplish testing of MCE. The Control andReporting Center (CRC) piece of DMO provides alllevels of training and mission rehearsal. Testing andevaluation of MCE components and software ismaximized in the distributed environment. Inaddition, SBA for future systems is maximizedthrough validation of requirements. The Operationscrew members maintain a high level of combatmission readiness through DMT and use missionrehearsal extensively during the experimentationprocess. Given the high price of large forceemployment training sessions, bringing in live andconstructive elements of the air battle plan allows formultiple practices of a scenario without the cost ofbringing together those weapons systems a few daysbefore the operators deploy to overseas locations.The cornerstone of the ability to operate in thedistributed environment is the Multi-sourceCorrelator Tracker (MSCT) which allows MCE toplug into the DMO architecture and can be reusedwith system upgrades to network architectures.Further, the combination of the MCE stimulationwith full visualization of training and test scenariosprovides capability to integrate into all categories ofDMO activity.

Plans are currently underway to develop additionalcapabilities to support C2 training using these uniquetraining tools. Included are C2 performancemeasurement, effective operator interfaces for thevirtual reality environment, and voice capability forthe computer generated forces. In addition, ademonstration of the Distributed Mission Trainingportion of the MSCT interface is planned in FY 02.This capability to participate in DMT training willgreatly enhance MCE training opportunities, and willallow participation in major DMT exercises such asDesert Pivot. More sophisticated STEs and JointService Training Exercises are planned for late FY 02andFY 03.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has described two separate but highlycoupled training tools for C2 GTACS: MCEstimulation and use of VR for battlespacevisualization/debrief This powerful combination ofsimulation tools can be used for concept

development, exploration of actual C2 visualizationsystems, using live feeds and numerous humanfactors issues.

Reuse of existing interface hardware and softwarethat is fully interoperable has provided a cost­effective stimulation system that provides a trainingenvironment for the Modular Control System. Thedemonstration showed an effective solution thatprovides a "Schoolhouse" capability for the MCEoperators. It immediately provides on-demandtraining for the majority of C2 training requirementsin the setting and environment with which theoperator is most familiar. The design leverages oninteroperability standards that allow for full trainingscenarios of live, virtual, and constructive operationin a Joint Synthetic Battlespace which is part of theDMTvision.

The STE described focused mainly on training.However, future STEs can further expand the conceptof DMO using both the stimulation and the ability touse virtual reality to visualize training exercises.Initial results of the STE showed that C2 operatorsget a better understanding for the battlespace afterreviewing their two- dimensional training mission inthe virtual reality environment.

REFERENCES

Chubb, G. P. (1997). Use of air SYnthetic forcesfor GCI trainin& exercises. Final Report: SummerFaculty Research Program, Mesa, AZ: Air ForceResearch Laboratory, Warfighter Training ResearchDivision.

Defense Information Systems Association.(1997). Modular Control Equipment VerificationTest (Brochure AD-TR-86-100).

Durbin, J, Swan II, JE, Colbert, B, Crowe, J,King, R, King, T, Scannell, C, Wartell, Z, and

Welsh, T. (1998). Battlefield visualization on theresponsive workbench. Proceedings of. IEEEVisualization 1998,463-466.

George, G. R, Brooks, R., Bell, H., &Conquest., M. (1998). Integration ofAirSF to themodular control equipment: An effective distributedmission training approach for C2 operators.Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on ComputerGenerated Forces and Behavioral Representation.Orlando. FL. 7. 377-388.

George, G. R., Brooks, R., Bell, H., Breitbach, R.,Steffes, R., & Bruhl, C., (1999). Synthetic forces inthe Air Force command and control distributedmission training environment, current and future.Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on ComputerGenerated Forces and Behavioral Representation.Orlando. FL. 8, 319-331.

Jane's Military Communications. (1994). 14'"Edition, Janes Data Division.

Johnson, W. L., Jones, R. M., Koss, F., Laird, J.,Lehman, 1., Nielsen, P., Rosenbloom, P., Rubinoff,R., Schwamb, K., Tambe, M., van Lent, M., & Wray,R. (1994). Collected papers of the SOARlIFORProject (CSE-TR-207-94). Ann Arbor, Michigan:University ofMichigan.

Litton Corporation (16 Oct 1995a). MCS SimSystem Manual (Brochure).

Litton Corporation (Oct, 1995b). MC SIMSystem Manual. (l§) (Brochure).

Rosenblum, L., Durbin, J., Doyle, R., and Tate, D.(1997, July). Situational awareness using the VRresponsive workbench. IEEE Computer G!1!Phicsand Applications. l7(4)' 12-13.