Military need for C2 to C2 interoperability Pre-processing incoming - - PDF document

▶
military need for c2 to c2 interoperability
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Military need for C2 to C2 interoperability Pre-processing incoming - - PDF document

Jan 01, 2024 270 likes •404 views

2/4/09 Coalition Battle Management Language 2009 BML Symposium MSG-048 MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language Military need for C2 to C2 interoperability Pre-processing incoming data allow to Optimize in a timely fashion the huge

slide-1
SLIDE 1

2/4/09 1

MSG-048

Coalition Battle Management Language 2009 BML Symposium

MSG-048

Military need for C2 to C2 interoperability

  • Pre-processing incoming data allow to
  • Optimize in a timely fashion the huge amount of information
  • Notice and exploit unexpected and fleeting opportunities
  • Understand correctly the information at the right time
  • To act, react quickly automation of information is

necessary and requires a formal language that must be understood by systems

  • Orders, requests and reports convey sender’ s intent

that has to be unambiguous

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2/4/09 2

MSG-048

Military need for C2 to Simulation interoperability

  • Reduce the cost of Staff exercise
  • Orders must be processable by simulation
  • Orders must preserve meaning and intent of commander
  • Decision support
  • Provide quick and automatic reports in order to get an impression

how a specific order might influence an ongoing operation

  • Mission rehearsal
  • Staff gain accounted to execute course of action and react to

unexpected events

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

MSG-048

Military need for Simulation to Simulation interoperability

  • BML is not intended to replace HLA
  • BML provides what HLA is not made for
  • BML should be used to simulate military communication

between simulated forces

  • Simulated force can be substituted by a real force (vice versa)

without any change or adjustment

  • Training audience can have a synthetic commander
  • It will help SME to validate the models
  • VV&A process could be more efficient if one common language is

used for military experts to understand models’s behaviors based

  • n formal inputs and outputs

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

slide-3
SLIDE 3

2/4/09 3

MSG-048

Crawl (2002-2005): SISO Initiatives and ET-016

  • Concept development – Prove of feasibility

Walk (2006-2010): MSG-048 – SISO PDG CBML

  • Gather interests and first assessment

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

We are right now half way for CBML to become a reality

MSG-048

  • The requirement for improved M&S-C2 interoperability

is well recognized by NATO bodies for defence planning, training, exercises and support to operations

  • A NATO effort is necessary to define and standardize

M&S-C2 interoperability

  • The Coalition BML Technical Activity is based upon

voluntary contributions from Nations and provides insights regarding the usefulness of M&S-C2 interoperability and capability it can offer to coalition forces

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

Charter

slide-4
SLIDE 4

2/4/09 4

MSG-048

  • Evaluate the available specification of a Coalition BML

and to assess operational benefits to C2 and M&S communities

  • Conduct experimentation with national existing

systems that have been made compliant with this specification

  • Recommend a C-BML specification for standardization

consideration by NATO

  • Provide input to SISO in standardizing and improving

M&S-C2 interoperability for automatic, rapid and unambiguous command and control of one by the other

Objectives

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

MSG-048

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

Program of Work and Deliverables

Military needs Technical requirements Design, Goals, Priorities and Scope

2007 2006 2008 Substantiation for a NATO C- BML Design for a NATO C- BML Demonstration

Specifications for reference implementation Develop experiments and scenario roadmap Identify National candidate systems

Implementation of C-BML Reports C-BML Experimentation & Education

Test bed capability Align data of participating systems

2007 2006 2008

Integrate systems Perform Experimentation with operational users Release open source C-BML reference implementation Feed back lessons learned to SISO C- BML PDG Move to MIP

2009 2009

I/ITSEC ITEC I/ITSEC I/ITSEC ACT

slide-5
SLIDE 5

2/4/09 5

MSG-048

  • Prove the feasibility of the concept
  • ET-016 demonstration during 2005 NMSG conference
  • Share knowledge and get the same know-how
  • IITSEC 2007 and 2008 technical demonstration on NATO booth
  • Perform operational assessment
  • Conduct 2009 an experimentation involving military SMEs
  • Demonstrate the efficiency of CBML with multiple C2 & simulation
  • Collect via MOM & MOP end users required improvements
  • Provide information and education on NATO C-BML
  • Conduct a 2010 NMSG symposium with GMU

Past and current roadmap

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

MSG-048

C2IEDM Augmented with APLET BML

CAPES

COA Definition

APLET

COA Def. Simulation

JSAF

Simulation

Push CoA Pull CoA Push CoA

BML Web services

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

Purpose of ET-016 demonstration

  • Demonstrate the feasibility of a C2IEDM Web Services

interface between national C2IS and M&S systems

  • Indentify limitations of current standards that must be

addressed by MSG-048

  • Build experience to help structure the TA
slide-6
SLIDE 6

2/4/09 6

MSG-048

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

MSG-048 Scenario

Caspian Sea Region

1 (USA) TF 43 MNB 2 (NOR) TF 2 (NLD) TF A/1-66 AR A Team Mech B Team Mech C Team AR B/1-66 AR B/1-12 Mech C/1-22 Mech 1 MBT SQN 3 Mech Coy 4 Mech Coy CJTF TACP 3 (GBR) ATF ACC

MSG-048

  • Demonstrate C2-Sim interoperability
  • 8 systems/components (from 5 different Nations)
  • Work in concert orchestrated by the use of JBML
  • Show simulated units can be commanded directly
  • The commander (nor the operator of his C2 system) does not need

any knowledge about the simulation system

  • Demonstrate the potential of C-BML
  • Easy to expand and to adjust to new kinds of tasks

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

Purpose of 2007 experiment

slide-7
SLIDE 7

2/4/09 7

MSG-048

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

MSG-048

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language Lessons learned

  • It requires significant effort from participating Nations to bring, adapt,

integrate systems together in a short period of time (6 months)

  • Internet Reference implementation made this task possible and has given

Nations the capability to test before integration and to be more effective

  • Simulations used were improved to behave as automated as possible
  • In principle all Nations are now technically able to share the same

information

  • A list of improvements have been collected for future development of

reports, language and data model extensions and scenario’s

  • Military SME involvement from Nations is key in the development of

consistent scenario’s, shared understanding of doctrine and military terminology

slide-8
SLIDE 8

2/4/09 8

MSG-048

  • Demonstrate 2-way C2-Sim interoperability
  • 8 systems/components (from 6 different Nations)
  • Work in concert enabled by IBML WS and JBML Order
  • Highlight improvements since last year
  • automated generation of situation reports (spot and ground truth)

from simulations using IBML reports

  • display those reports in C2IS to enable the commander to reflect
  • n new orders or FRAGO as required
  • reduction of “man-in-the-loop”; the C2IS interface being able to

translate orders according to the C-BML grammar

  • introduction of air operations that proves multiple domains JBML

capabilities

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

Purpose of 2008 experiment

MSG-048

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

slide-9
SLIDE 9

2/4/09 9

MSG-048

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

Lessons learned

  • Time Management
  • C2IS displays a variety of status with different times of
  • ccurrence
  • There is a time delay in availability of information
  • Define expected performance of the web services
  • Simulation execution management
  • C2IS does not control simulation (start, stop, freeze, speed, …)
  • Create a specification the way the simulation uses the WS
  • Reporting frequency
  • Is strongly linked with simulation speed
  • Could overwhelm C2IS
  • Filter pulled reports : publish and subscribe mechanism regards

to units and sender

  • Simulation initialization process should be included

MSG-048

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

More lessons learned

  • BML complements Multilateral Interoperability Program
  • MIP developed for C2 interoperability during mission execution
  • MIP covers the exchange of OOB, actions, features, units location,

status, holdings, and enemy situation (JC3IEDM core management)

  • MIP has exchange mechanism based on subscription and

publication using data replication

  • Collaborative Planning can combine MIP and C-BML
  • Initialize C2 OOB and initial state using MIP
  • Exchange multiple plans and reports using C-BML
  • C-BML supports alternative views - allows collaborative planning

during mission execution

  • Web services support collaboration
slide-10
SLIDE 10

2/4/09 10

MSG-048

SICF (G3) Ba,leview (G2) NorTAC (22Bn) ABCS (Recce Squad) ICC (TACP) PAFAD (66 Btn) Brigade CP Ba+alion CP Ennemy CP ISIS

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

Operational architecture for 2009 experimentation

MSG-048

SICF JSAF

JC3IEDM +

IBML WEB SERVICES

ISIS NorTAC ICC ABCS PAFAD OneSAF SIMBAD Ba,leview UAV SimulaHon

DIS

Technical architecture for 2009 experimentation

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

MISSION REHEARSAL

slide-11
SLIDE 11

2/4/09 11

MSG-048

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

Conclusion & Expectations

  • MSG-048 is mature
  • Self organization of experimentation
  • Great knowledge and experience using C-BML
  • Well recognized within the NATO and SISO community
  • Follow on the activity
  • Proposal to create a new TA for 2010 - 2013
  • Perform series of experimentations with other bodies
  • Snow Leopard
  • JWC, JFTC
  • …
  • Improve, enrich, refine current C-BML specifications for it

becomes an efficient standard usable operationally

MSG-048

Crawl (2002-2005): SISO Initiatives and ET-016

  • Concept development – Prove of feasibility

Walk (2006-2010): MSG-048 – SISO PDG CBML

  • Gather interests and first assessment

Run (2010-2013): SISO Standardization with NATO mentorship

  • Conduct experimentations for refinement and

improvement Fly (2015): Field and everyday use– TRL 9

  • Operational benefits for National & Coalition forces

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

slide-12
SLIDE 12

2/4/09 12

MSG-048

MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language

TG 048 Cochairmen

FRANCE Lionel Khimeche Tel: + 33 1 42 31 95 46 lionel.khimeche@dga.defense.gouv.fr USA Michael Powers Tel: + 1 703 428 7804 michael.w.powers@erdc.usace.army.mil

National MSG-048 Members

CANADA Kevin HEFFNER Tel: +1 514 341 2000 ext. 4486 hkevin@cae.com DENMARK Karl Johan SIMONSEN Tel: +45 39 15 17 79 kjsimonsen@mil.dk GERMANY Thomas ORICHEL Tel: +49 261 896 83 14 schade@fgan.de The NETHERLANDs Wim HUISKAMP Tel: +31 70 374 02 74 wim.huiskamp@tno.nl NORWAY Ole Martin MEVASSVIK Tel: +47 63 80 74 23

  • le-martin.mevassvik@ffi.no

SPAIN Ricardo GOMEZ VEIGA Tel: +34 91 2711362 rgveiga@isdefe.es TURKEY Halil KOLSUZ Tel+90 312 266 72 76 halil.kolsuz@meteksan.com.tr UNITED KINGDOM Adam BROOK Tel: +44 1252 396427 rabrook@qinetiq.com

MSG-048

C4I Center