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?
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 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.
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 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 commander’s intent.
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 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 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.
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 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.
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 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)
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 8
BML Scope
C4I C4I
Simulation
Unmanned Platforms
BMLOrder
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 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
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 10
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
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 11
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.
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 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.
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 13
Sources of BML
USMTF
JVMF
TADIL
OTHGold
ADAP3
JCDBData Model
EagleBML
CCSIL
Messages
Data Models
BML
Doctrine
FM-101-5
ARTEPs
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 14
BML Concept
BML
Messages
Data/Object Models
XML/Data
Replication
Tactical C4ISRData Model
Doctrine
DoctrinalManuals
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 15
Army, Joint and NATODoctrine Hierarchies
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 16
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
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 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)
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 20
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
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 21
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
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 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”.
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 23
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
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 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 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
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 26
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
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 27
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
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 28
XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 2)
Multi Source
DB
OneSAFTB
BML GUI
CAPES
XMSF
XMSF
Based on the LC2IEDM
XMSF
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 29
XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 3)
Multi Source
DBJSAF
BML GUI
CAPES
XMSF
XMSF
Based on the LC2IEDM
XMSF
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
OneSAFTB
XML/SOAP
XMSF
GCCS/Planning
App
XMSF
XML/SOAP
Transition to NCES prototypewhen available
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 30
XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 4)
Multi Source
DBJSAF CAPES
XMSF
XMSF
Based on the LC2IEDM
XMSF
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
XML/SOAP
OneSAFTB
XML/SOAP
XMSF
GCCS/Planning
App
XMSF
XML/SOAP
BML GUI
Army Joint
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 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 M&S Functionality into Developing C4I Systems
Ability to Interoperate with C4I Systems will be a crucial part of XMSF Acceptance
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 32
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
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 34
Implementation Plan
Two year duration
Participating Organizations
• ACS / CECOM RDEC
• VMASC / ODU
• ALION
• C3I Center / GMU
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 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 M&S Components
Future Years
Phase 4 – Extending BML to Joint Doctrines
Phase 5 – Distributing the Testbed nationwide
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 36
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
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 37
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.
15 May 2003XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003 38
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