Merging National Battle Management Language Initiatives for NATO Projects Dr. Andreas Tolk VMASC, Old Dominion University, United States atolk@odu.edu Dr. Michael R. Hieb Alion Science & Technology, United States Michael.R.Hieb@us.army.mil Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen! The following presentation is a real international NATO presentation, as we have collaborators from four nations. I would like to thank my co-authors: Mike Hieb from the US, Kevin Galvin from the UK, and Lionel Khimeche from France. Although I am working in the US for three years now, I am from Germany, so you can count that 3 ½ NATO nations worked on this idea. However, I have to warn you: I intend to raise much more interest in this topic and want to show you that the work done so far should be brought to the broader NATO community to generate feedback to us. We want more nations to actively participate, and we already established some frameworks to do so. Furthermore, this work is based on recommendations of the previous NMSG Conference in Antalya, Turkey. Therefore, be careful what you wish for, we may take you serious and come back with derived proposals like the following one. Major Kevin Galvin Ministry of Defence, United Kingdom kgalvin@QinetiQ.com Lionel Khimeche Délégation Générale pour l’Armement France lionel.khimeche@dga.defense.gouv.fr NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

Critical Importance of Data What is a Battle Management Language Presentation Outline Critical Importance of Data What is a Battle Management Language Existing National Efforts United States United Kingdom France International Activities and Candidates Coalition Battle Management Language NATO Pathfinder Activities Recommendations We structured our presentation as follows To set the operational framework – and we see M&S as a tool to support the soldiers of NATO, not as a value per se – I want to talk about the importance of data, current shortcomings, and how we want to close the gap. Then, I will give you on overview on the ideas underlying the Battle Management Language concept: What is it, what is it for, what can you do, etc? To show you that this is more than just another nice academically valuable paper, I want to point you to some works already done within NATO nations, and as we know by now, this is just a fraction of related work going on in other nations as well. Finally, I want to show you the international collaboration frames currently in use to facilitate collaboration and I will give some recommendations on how to use this potential to fulfill NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

The Critical Importance of Data Introduction So let us start with the first topic: Why is data so critically important? During the last workshop in Antalya, Turkey, at least a third of the presentations dealt with data exchange between the systems. We still have the problem that we have “stove piped” solutions support the NATO requirements for Command and Control Training Functional support of operations And the other application domains as mentioned in the NATO M&S Master Plan. Our vision, however, points away from the system centric approaches characterized by systems, interfaces, and federations. We are targeting an information centric environment. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

NATO moves towards NET CENTRIC OPERTIONS & WARFARE (NCOW) New Requirements NATO moves towards NET CENTRIC OPERTIONS & WARFARE (NCOW) Text formats (ADatP-3) and binary formats (TADIL) reached the limit of their potential Heterogeneous service-oriented architectures Web-enabled applications for easier collaboration NCOW is about networks Networking people and organizations IT infrastructure is enabler, not driver “Power to the Edge” And NATO does this as well. The idea is to move towards NET CENTRIC OPERATIONS AND WARFARE. Many people think that this means to web-enable our systems and to bring them into a common infrastructure. But Net-Centricity is not a technique, it is a new philosophy, a real paradigm shift for Command and Control. However, technology is clearly a necessary enabler. If we want to reach the warfighter and support him - wherever he is whatever he does, and whatever system he uses We have to exchange what we know. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

Net Centric Value Chain Awareness Quality Knowledge Quality Information Quality Data Quality This slide shows the value chain of net centricity Everything starts with data. If our data is inconsistent and incomplete, we will have worse decisions. If we put data into context, for example by using a common shared reference model or a common information exchange data model, we reach the next level of quality: information knowing how to apply the information, adding dynamics and agile behavior, we reach the first cognitive level: knowledge about what is going on. the highest level, however, is the level of awareness. The leader understands his options as well as the options of the enemy, and he is able to communicate this perception with his staff and allies to create a common situational awareness Until recently, with text based messages and unique data models, we remained on the data level. New concepts like common operational pictures and common information exchange data models lifted us up to the information level. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

Implications Data describing the planed, conducted and supported operations are of critical importance National Battle Management Language (BML) efforts migrate C2 into the information age Digitised tasks, missions, and Operation Plans Digitised Commander’s Intent Related Challenge: C3I and M&S Systems Interoperability (NATO MSG 2003) Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO) Multilateral Interoperability Program (MIP) / Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model (C2IEDM) Among the most important data domains in this context is the data domain describing the military operations. Nothing is as important to the success of an operation than the description of the forces, their capabilities, and the intend of the commander how to use them. What BML does is targeting this area. We are directly using two recommendations derived from last years conference: A closer relationship between SISO and NMSG for international collaboration and the use of the Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model, a NATO standard for information exchange between C2 systems, for M&S purposes. We will deal with this later in more detail. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

What is BML Definitions We now know what BML should do, but what is BML. Let us have a look at the definitions: NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

Currently, the Commander’s Intent is Prose, not Data! Current Situation Operations Orders are developed and distributed as textual documents without underlying data elements Operational Graphics are also not supported by underlying data elements Our current approach 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 already pointed out, the current situation concerning data describing Command and Control on the battlefield is driven by human-to-human communication needs. Operational orders and graphics are not supported by underlying standardized data structures. The definition of terms is suitable for humans, but not rigid enough for machines, and often not even readable – and even less understandable – by machines. In summary, the commanders intend is characterized by prose instead of unambiguous data. Currently, the Commander’s Intent is Prose, not Data! NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

What is BML BML = Battle Management Language Command and Control State of the Art Human-to-human language Essence of Orders and Operation Plans often in the FREETEXT section Lack of data standards coping with new requirements Where do we want to go Digitised system Automated systems consuming information (not simply data) Data/Information oriented communication BML belongs into the domain of Command and Control. It does not want to cover all aspects of interoperability or data exchange between humans and systems supporting operations, but it should migrate the current state of the art towards Digitized systems Applicability to systems without humans-in-the-loop, and Setting data into context – resulting in information – by using a common information exchange data model NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

BML Scope & Requirements BML must be unambiguous BML must not constrain the full expression of the commanders intent BML must exchange relevant information with all components in the (virtual) battle space C2IS C2IS Simulation Systems This results in the following requirements and the BML scope: - BML must be unambiguous - BML must not constrain the full expression of the commanders intent - BML must exchange relevant information with all components in the battle space As such, BML is not only facilitating Information Exchange between C2 systems, the same sort of information needed to command and control real forces can be applied to simulation systems and – in future scenarios – robotic forces. Robotic Forces NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

Doctrine Protocols Representation BML Views BML Terms rooted in XML Military Doctrine, such as AAP-6 … XML Web Services/ Grid Services Doctrine Protocols BML How is this reached? We decided to divide and conquer: BML is described in three views: every term is rooted in doctrine. There is not a single term which is not well defined at least in a military manual, a concepts, etc. NATO AAP-6 or the JP1.01 are good starting points The representation of the command elements and their relations is done using the NATO standard C2IEDM. We are currently evaluating another ontological layer above C2IEDM, but the information exchange is based on C2IEDM Finally, the executable tasks must reach the user. To this end, web and grid services based on open web-based standards are used for the protocol view of BML. Representation Command & Control Information Exchange Data Model (C2IEDM) NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

Existing National Efforts United States United Kingdom France The slides shown so far were mostly produced by the US BML group, however, when we started to present these ideas in SISO workshops – starting 2001 – more and more international partners came to make us aware of there work. There are even some prototypes out there. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

Multi-Source Database BML acts as the common denominator United States (1/2) BML GUI Combined Arms Planning & Execution System OneSAF Test Bed XML – BML Parser C4ISI Multi-Source Database Augmented with BML This slide shows the US Army Prototype (proof of feasibility). We used the US C4I Planning System CAPES – Combined Arms Planning & Execution Systems – to generate an operations plan. Via an XML interface, these data were brought into a data base (structured based on the Joint Common Database – JCDB) and manipulated via a BML Graphical User Interface. The result was brought into the simulation system OneSAF Testbed and executed. CAPES OTB BML acts as the common denominator NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

United States (2/2) SOAP S U O D A P P BML GUI JDBC Interface CAPES MSDB Data Updates S O A P Data for OTB XML document MSDB XML Parser C4ISI JDBC Interface ODBC In the next phase, we took this prototype and chopped the parts apart, connecting them with web-services. Also, we replace currently the JCDB data with C2IEDM data. This simple steps allowed us to move from local net solutions to the Internet and global applications. During I/ITSEC 2003, we had the components distributed between Florida and Virginia, and we were able to support collaborative planning without having to touch the components. Currently, we are bringing new systems in on both sides, the US Air Force Planning System and the Joint Semi-Automated Forces (JSAF) simulation system. OTB U D P C2IEDM CAPES NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

UK R&D community recognized United Kingdom (1/2) UK R&D community recognized C2 and M&S interoperability needed (in particular for training) Network Enabled Capability (NEC) increases the burden of manual translations Need of a common language across the functions Human and machine interpretation needed Future applications, such as Course of Action Analysis using simulation within C2 Strong alignment with the US processes Evaluation of the US BML approach Instead of implementing its own prototype, UK decided to evaluate the US prototype. Even before this evaluation, the experiences in former exercises and studies already showed the urgent need for reducing manual translation between components, if the UK is serious about Network Enabled Capability, which is the UK counterpart to the US Net Centric Warfare. The use of the US BML approach fits into this analysis, although the requirement analysis showed some areas of necessary improvements, which will be evaluated in a common study under the umbrella of SISO. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

United Kingdom (2/2) Conceptual approach Evaluation of Command & Control Simulation Interface Language (CCSIL/STOW97) Software Agents as Facilitators of Interoperability in Collective Training (SAFICT) Traditional approach: data translation and exchange via interfaces Proposed approach: Adaptive Middleware Concept (definition and management of participating systems) National (UK) Solution must be adaptable to US Net Centric Operations and Warfare The conceptual approach of the UK targets the operational needs, not the technical constraints or limitations: The of Command & Control Simulation Interface Language (CCSIL), as used in exercises like the Synthetic Theatre of War (STOW), was a step into the right direction, but CCSIL was to academic and machine friendly. A new approach, based on software agents enabling mediation between various components, must result in a soldier-friendly adaptive middleware This solution must be adaptable to the US approach NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

France (1/2) APLET = Aide à la Planification d’Engagement Tactique Objectives Support Military Decision Making Process (Course of Action Analyses) Evaluate simulation based capabilities for operational systems Explore C3I and M&S Interoperability issues Studies APLET V1 APLET V2 2002 2003 - 2004 2005 - 2006 APLET Planning France is in the process of joining the BML activities coming from a different direction. Starting late 2001, the conducted a study the possibility to set up a planning support tool on tactical level, called APLET. You heard about it already in Presentation number 3 of this workshop. The objectives were to Support the military decision making process Evaluate simulation based capabilities, and The explore C3I and M&S issues The studies were followed by prototypical experiments. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

France (2/2) SICF APLET Architecture C2IEDM APLET Data Model Operator WS SICF Simulation XML (SICF) HLA Initialisation data APLET system XML This slide shows a very high-level view of the APLET architecture. Core idea is to use a common APLET database to facilitate the communication between the real-world C3I system SICF and a simulation component. Connectivity between the components is established via XML based message exchange. Currently, the APLET data model is aligned with the C2IEDM. Based on the high degree of similarity, participating experts from France, US, and UK decided to proposed a common experiment merging the ideas into a net centric system comprising components from all participating nations, based on common formats and open standards. APLET Architecture C2IEDM NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

International Activities and Candidates Coalition BML NATO Pathfinder MIP What I want to talk about in this last section is how we currently try to bring these ideas together and what other organizational constraints should be taken into account. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

SISO Coalition BML Recommendation NMSG Conference 2003 Finally, a closer relationship between the NATO M&S Group and the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO), in particular the observation, and where appropriate, active participation in Study Groups and Product Development Groups, is likely to support the process of gaining C3I and M&S interoperability effectively. SISO Study Group on “Coalition Battle Management Language” was started in September 2003 SISO Reflector http://www.sisostds.org/SISOconf.htm Join Group SIW-SG-CBML                                                         As already stated earlier, last years conference let to the recommendation to work closely together with the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO). We would like to invite the NATO M&S community in general, and in particular the NATO M&S Group, to follow this recommendation and join the SISO Study Group on standards for a Coalition Battle Management Language. Please see me for details in the break, but I just want to make you aware that – if you are interested to run your system in this environment – SISO is the place to be to standardize a solution. Study Groups are the place to actively influence future standards as well as the development of current standards. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

Multilateral Interoperability Programme Recommendation NMSG Conference 2003 The Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model (C2IEDM), … is … the data model of choice for the Multinational Interoperability Programme (MIP) connecting NATO’s Command and Control systems and the basis for various national C3I systems …; the extension to M&S systems is perceived as a valuable option. C2IEDM for representation of the information exchange layer Additional work required in the domain of military and C2 ontologies Complete definition at http://www.mip-site.org Another recommendation of last year was the use of C2IEDM for M&S purposes. If you know nothing about the C2IEDM, please visit the MIP website. It comprises – among more valuable information – a complete documentation set of the C2IEDM. Within all BML projects so far, we identified possible improvements and nation and/or M&S specific extensions and enhancements. We, as the NMSG community, must bring this information back to the MIP managers as valuable feedback. VMASC just finished its work on a C2IEDM based storage web service. In case of interest, let me know. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

NATO MSG activity MSG-027 “Pathfinder” NATO Pathfinder NATO MSG activity MSG-027 “Pathfinder” Initiated by the NATO M&S Master Plan Enable different purpose federations composed of Simulations and tools of NATO agencies Simulations and tools of nations Command and Control Common Integration Framework BML is directly applicable to MSG-027 Last but not least, we see a lot of potential to support the NMSG Pathfinder activity using BML. You will find some examples in the proceedings, but its applicability for integration of command and control is obvious. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

Recommendations Summary Let us summaries the main points of the briefing. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

Set up a NATO BML expert group Summary Set up a NATO BML expert group Evaluate national BML efforts Participate in Coalition BML Align BML with Multilateral Interoperability Programme (MIP) Information exchange based on C2IEDM Extensions and enhancements in alignment with MIP Data Management Group BML is not another paper tiger. It is getting speed and many international candidates expressed their interest, among them Sweden, Australia, Israel, and more. To evaluate national BML efforts (which may require to identify them first, as they can come with very different names) and to participate in the international standardization efforts, NATO should set up an expert group, which does not exclude some experimentation. Finally, the alignment of such activities with the MIP group is highly recommended. If we take the recommendations of last year serious, this can path the way to real and meaningful interoperability of C3I and M&S and will enable operational use of M&S functionality in real war fighting systems. NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

Questions? Dr. Andreas Tolk Dr. Michael R. Hieb Major Kevin Galvin Virginia Modeling Analysis & Simulation Center (VMASC) Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 23529, United States atolk@odu.edu Dr. Michael R. Hieb Alion Science &Technology 1901 N. Beauregard St. Alexandria, VA 22311-1705, United States Michael.R.Hieb@us.army.mil Major Kevin Galvin Ministry of Defence, Directorate of Equipment Capability (Ground Manoeuvre), Darenth House, 84 Main Road Sundridge, Nr Sevenoaks Kent, TN 14 6ER, United Kingdom kgalvin@QinetiQ.com Lionel Khimeche Délégation Générale pour l’Armement (DGA); DSA/SPOTI 18, rue du Docteur Zamenhof Fort d’Issy les Moulineaux 92131 Issy les Moulineaux cedex, France lionel.khimeche@dga.defense.gouv.fr I would like to say thank you to my co-authors, to DMSO, AMSO, Joint Forces Command and General Dynamics for the funding received to make this possible, and To all of you for listening to this presentation. We have a lot of publications out there, so please check the references in the paper as soon as you have the proceedings. Also, feel free to contact me in case of need. Are there any questions? NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004