The Interoperability Of Military Simulation Systems In An AUSCANNZUKUS1 Context David Wilton Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation [email protected] Abstract. This paper discusses the interoperability of military simulation systems in an AUSCANNZUKUS context. It reviews the current state of simulation system interoperability efforts in international forums such as the CCEB and ABCA Armies, and in the US DoD. The generic requirements for simulation systems to interoperate with other simulations and C4I systems are discussed, and some “candidate” interoperability standards are reviewed. Simulation has recently been recognised as a cost- 1. INTRODUCTION effective means of training, both for individual The US DoD and NATO define interoperability as: warfighters and collectively for organisations such as “The ability of systems, units or forces to provide headquarters. It also has potential to aid command and services to and accept services from other systems, control decision-making. The US DoD now has an units or forces, and to use the services so exchanged extensive “battle lab” infrastructure which integrates to enable them to operate effectively together” different forms of simulation, and is able to meet a variety of requirements, including training, command An alternative US DoD definition is: and control decision support, and operational analysis “The condition achieved among communications- (to model the effects of new organisations or weapon electronics systems or items of communications- systems). electronics equipment when information and There is a recent initiative within the Combined services can be exchanged directly and satisfactorily Communications Electronics Board (CCEB) to extend between them and/or their users. The degree of these facilities to the other AUSCANNZUKUS interoperability should be defined when referring to members in a Combined Federated Battle Lab (CFBL) specific cases" [1] [2], to allow combined training and other types of trials Both these definitions are similar, in that they include and experimentation using modelling and simulation. If the systems aspects of interoperability. However, the these opportunities are to be realised, there will be a first definition is broader and higher level, in that it need for the simulation systems of the participating encapsulates the high-level “business” aspects of nations to be interoperable. To date, there has been interoperability. For example, there is little point in little visible effort within the AUSCANNZUKUS having interoperable communications systems if they forums to achieve this. This paper will review the semantic meaning of the information passed is different current state of work within the AUSCANNZUKUS to for the forces at either end of a link. One benefit of the achieve interoperability, with particular emphasis on latter definition, however, is the implication of the case- simulation, and examine the generic requirements for by-case nature of interoperability requirements. simulation systems to interoperate. The need for interoperability between command, control, communications and intelligence (C3I) systems 2. AIM of Allies participating in military operations has long The aim of this paper is to review the current state of been recognised. The first AUSCANNZUKUS forum interoperability of military simulation systems of the to promote interoperability was the US-UK Combined AUSCANNZUKUS allies, and to discuss the Communications Board (CCB), which was formed requirements for simulation systems to interoperate. during World War 2, to promote interoperability Some “candidate” interoperability standards are also between the telecommunications systems of those two reviewed. Allies. Since that time, many forums have arisen, to promote both single Service and Joint interoperability. 3. INTEROPERABILITY FORUMS, Despite rapid advances in information technology, C3I INITIATIVES AND CURRENT SITUATION interoperability is reasonably well catered for. This section of the paper will discuss the However, there has been little or no effort to promote interoperability efforts of some of the interoperability between simulation systems of Allies. AUSCANNZUKUS forums and the US DoD, with regard to interoperability of simulation systems. 1 The combined military forces of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States 3.1 CCEB Armies developed an Interoperability Technical The CCEB evolved from the original World War 2 Architecture (ITA) during the period 1995-98. CCB. Its mission is to coordinate all C3I issues referred However, this effort has been discontinued, as it was to it by member nations. The CCEB also has the considered that it had been superseded by the CITA. following sub-goals: Like the CITA, the ITA did not contain any standards for simulation. • Conducting liaison with AUSCANNZUKUS single service forums, namely the AUSCANNZUKUS However, simulation system interoperability is Navies C3 Board, the ABCA Armies Program, the addressed elsewhere within the ABCA program. The Air Standards Co-ordination Committee (ASCC) program contains a Quadripartite Working Group and The Technical Co-operation Program (TTCP – (QWG) Armies Operational Research (AOR), which is the AUSCANNZUKUS Defence Science co- charged with ensuring that the simulation systems of the operation program) and member Armies are able to interoperate. The approach taken has been to standardise on a particular simulation • Conducting liaison with regional defence system – JANUS – for ABCA training and operational organisations, such as NATO, to promote wider analysis (OA) use. There are two Quadripartite Allied interoperability; recently with particular Standardisation Agreements (QSTAGs) which deal with emphasis on coalition operations. simulation system interoperability: A key CCEB interoperability initiative of the last five • QSTAG 1139 Common Version of the JANUS years has been the Combined Interoperability Technical Wargame within ABCA Armies. The master list of Architecture (CITA), ACP 140, and its accompanying QSTAGs [4] has a note to the effect: “To be CITA Rationale and Development Framework (CRDF) cancelled … with effect from Feb 99. The latest [3]. The purpose and scope of the CRDF are described version of JANUS is available and US have as follows: committed to provide update.” “The purpose of the document is to explain in a • QSTAG 1144 Representative Terrain Database for logical, step-by-step manner, the process used to Common Use in Combat Models by ABCA Armies develop a technical architecture that will meet the with Particular Emphasis on JANUS. interoperability needs of the CCEB nations. … There are many IT services that could contribute to The cancellation of QSTAG 1139 does not imply that interoperability among CCEB nation CIS; each is a JANUS has been discontinued as the ABCA standard, candidate for inclusion within the CITA (i.e. for but rather that a common version will be adopted. CCEB-wide standardisation). A set of scoping There are two recent versions of JANUS available from principles has been agreed to govern which of these the US – Version 7.0 developed for use by the regular candidate services should in fact be included within Army, and the SIMITAR version for use by the the CITA at this stage. These principles take into National Guard. [5] It is not clear which version has account the scale of the requirement for the service, been adopted by the ABCA. the availability of suitable standards, the feasibility of employing a standard CCEB-wide, and the costs 3.3 US DoD Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) and risks of CCEB-wide standardisation in The JTA [6] is a US DoD IT technical architecture comparison to more local arrangements for meeting which specifies IT standards in much more detail than the same interoperability requirement.” [3, pp. vi-v] the CITA, because one of its objectives is to ensure cost 2 That is, the approach taken is to specify standards only effectiveness of national development programs . The for those categories where it is necessary to achieve JTA does have a Modelling and Simulation Domain international interoperability. Areas such as desktop Annex, which deals with simulation system standards. operating systems and human-computer interface are The Annex refers to the US DoD Modelling and not specified as combined standards, as that would Simulation (M&S) Master Plan (1992 version, now unnecessarily constraint nations’ developers, for little or superseded by [7]), which includes the following as one no combined interoperability benefit. of its objectives, and corresponding sub-objectives: It is noted that the CITA does not contain any standards • OBJECTIVE 1. Provide a common technical for simulation systems – presumably because the framework for M&S. operational requirement for simulation systems to • Sub-Objective 1-1. Establish a common high- interoperate has yet to be recognised. level simulation architecture to facilitate the interoperability of all types of simulations among 3.2 ABCA Armies themselves and with C4I systems, as well as to The American (US), British, Canadian and Australian facilitate the reuse of M&S components. Armies Program is a single Service AUSCANNZUKUS forum, of which NZ is only an associate member. 2 Details of the forum can be found at [4]. The ABCA For example, if DoD-wide HCI standards are adopted, there is a potential saving in development and user training costs • Sub-Objective 1-2. Develop conceptual models operate on local, rather than global, data.
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages7 Page
-
File Size-