A Mixed Architecture for Joint Testing

1
A Mixed Architecture for Joint Testing
Michael J. O'Connor ITT Industries 6767 Old
Madison Pike, Suite 160 Huntsville, AL
35806 256.964.1470 michael.oconnor_at_itt.com J.
Corde Lane, Ph.D. U.S. Army Aberdeen Test
Center 400 Colleran Road, APG, MD
21005-5090 410-278-2026 corde.lane_at_atc.army.mil J
oe Sorroche ASRC Communications, Ltd. USAF
Distributed Mission Operations Center 4500
Aberdeen Dr., SE, Building 942, Kirtland Air
Force Base, NM 87117 505-853-0372, DSN
263-0372 joe.sorroche_at_kirtland.af.mil
Drew Lewis Science Applications International
Corp. 5971 Kingstowne Village Parkway, Suite
410, Kingstowne, VA 22315-5891 (703)
253-1938 David.andrew.lewis_at_saic.com Ryan
Norman CSTE-DTC-RT-T-IM, BLDG. 7884, Redstone
Arsenal, AL 35898-8052 [phone] ryan.t.norma
n_at_us.army.mil John DiCola Air Combat Environment
Test and Evaluation Facility (ACETEF) Naval Air
Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWC AD)
Bldg 2109 Patuxent River, MD 20670 [phone] j
ohn.dicola_at_navy.mil
2
Introduction

• Distributed Test Event 5 DTE 5
• Multi-Service Distributed Event MSDE
• US Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC)
• US Army Research, Development, and Engineering
  Command (RDECOM)
• US Air Force
• US Navy
• Cross Command Collaborative Event - 3CE
• US Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC)
• US Army Research, Development, and Engineering
  Command (RDECOM)
• US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)
• Emulate the Future Combat System (FCS) Experiment
  1.1
• DTE 5 is the fifth test event in a series

3
Whats New
4
Federate Driven Architecture

• The simulation architecture for DTE 5 was driven
  by the federates selected to participate, rather
  than the architecture driving the federates
  selected
• The scenario team defined the requirements for
  the DTE 5 test
• The MS components used in DTE 5 were selected in
  a three-step process
• all participating sites were asked to identify
  candidate federates based on the general
  objectives of the test event.
• the event scenario was reviewed to determine the
  required simulation elements
• the list of required simulation elements was
  checked against the list of candidate federates

5
Possible Outcomes

• 1. One Federate to One Required Element match In
  the case only one federate was available to play
  a required element, that federate was selected.
• 2. N Federates to One Required Element match
  Multiple federates were available to play a
  required element, the best federate was chosen.
  Selection was determined relative to the test
  objectives, not the overall goodness of the
  federate. Interactions between federates within
  the thread were also considered. If two
  candidate federates satisfied a required element,
  and one federate had previously interfaced with
  the other federates in the thread, then this
  federate was selected.
• 3. Zero Federates to One Required Element match
  In the case no listed federate could support the
  required element, either the element was dropped
  or in some cases a new federate was developed or
  capabilities were added to an existing federate.

6
Other Considerations

• Use Defense Research and Engineering Network
  (DREN)
• Did not use SDREN
• IP based network
• Classified Event
• TACLANE encryptors
• No multicast without tunneling
• Result of TACLANE encryptors

7
Architecture Selection

• Selected federates used multiple different
  protocols
• Options
• Convert all federates to a single protocol
• Used a mixed-protocol architecture
• Mixed protocol architecture selected

8
MSDE/3CE Simulation Architecture
2006 Spring SIW

• The following slide is a representation of the
  simulation architecture
• It is NOT a representation of the network
  architecture
• Only significant sources of simulation data are
  shown
• Data loggers, collectors, PVDs, Stealths, other
  support tools are not shown.
• Sites that only Listen to simulation traffic
  are not shown
• Site borders indicate if the site is
• MSDE 3CE
• MSDE only
• 3CE only
• The sites are colored by service
• Air Force, Army, Navy
• The following key shows the simulation
  connections by type

9
SIMAF
WSMR
F-16
AF DIS WAN
EPGFL
TEC
ASTi
ASTi
F-16
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
F-16
Red AD
DAS
WSMR Live I/F
F-16
NCBR
ASTi
Boeing
RPWS Server
HLABCT
RPWS
F-15
46th Test
UAMBL
ASTi
OF OTB Gateway
ATC
DIS/RPR Gateway
MC2
Live
TENA/DIS Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
ACRT
OFOTB
Bradley
RPWS
RPWS
ACRT
Abrams
VDMS
DMOC
RPWS
RPWS
Stryker
Unreal
ASTi
SA Server
HMMWV
OT-TES
Effects Server
AWACS
Simple J to SISO J
MC2
VSTARS
SIMPLE J
DIS/RPR Gateway
MATREX Federation WAN
TOPCOP
DTE Federation WAN
RTTC
EPGFH
PAX E-2C
Dahlgren
CMS2
Fed-to-Fed Bridge
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
OTB CAB 2
EOSFEL UAV
ASTi
ASTi
ORION EMU
OTB CAB 3
EOSFEL Hellfire
RPWS
OTB CAB 2 Live
E-2C
NFCS
DIS/RPR Gateway
OTB Threat
GTE
Virtual Helicopter
CAT
GTE
IR Scene 1
HDS
RPWS 1
PAX F-18
China Lake F-18
IR Scene 2
AMRDEC
OTUS Publisher
RPWS 2
CAT 1
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
BASSETT Publisher
IR Scene 3
IDEEAS/EAPS
CAT 2
RPWS 3
SuperCIP
ASTi
F-18
ASTi
CETS
ASTi 3
EAPS Fire Control
RPWS 4
Zigbee Tag Server
Weapon Server
F-18
ASTi 1
ASTi 4
Intelligent Ex Monitor
Laser Tracker Contr
RPWS 5
TENA/DIS
ASTi 2
A2C2 Monitor
Track Mount Contr
GTE
GTE
10
SIMAF
WSMR
F-16
AF DIS WAN
EPGFL
TEC
ASTi
ASTi
F-16
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
F-16
Red AD
DAS
WSMR Live I/F
F-16
NCBR
ASTi
Boeing
RPWS Server
HLABCT
RPWS
F-15
46th Test
UAMBL
ASTi
OF OTB Gateway
ATC
DIS/RPR Gateway
MC2
Live
TENA/DIS Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
ACRT
OFOTB
Bradley
RPWS
RPWS
ACRT
Abrams
Bridging HLA Federations
VDMS
DMOC
RPWS
RPWS
Stryker
Unreal
ASTi
SA Server
HMMWV
OT-TES
Effects Server
AWACS
Simple J to SISO J
MC2
VSTARS
SIMPLE J
DIS/RPR Gateway
MATREX Federation WAN
TOPCOP
DTE Federation WAN
RTTC
EPGFH
PAX E-2C
Dahlgren
CMS2
Fed-to-Fed Bridge
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
OTB CAB 2
EOSFEL UAV
ASTi
ASTi
ORION EMU
OTB CAB 3
EOSFEL Hellfire
RPWS
OTB CAB 2 Live
E-2C
NFCS
DIS/RPR Gateway
OTB Threat
GTE
Virtual Helicopter
CAT
GTE
IR Scene 1
HDS
RPWS 1
PAX F-18
China Lake F-18
IR Scene 2
AMRDEC
OTUS Publisher
RPWS 2
CAT 1
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
BASSETT Publisher
IR Scene 3
IDEEAS/EAPS
CAT 2
RPWS 3
SuperCIP
ASTi
F-18
ASTi
CETS
ASTi 3
EAPS Fire Control
RPWS 4
Zigbee Tag Server
Weapon Server
F-18
ASTi 1
ASTi 4
Intelligent Ex Monitor
Laser Tracker Contr
RPWS 5
TENA/DIS
ASTi 2
A2C2 Monitor
Track Mount Contr
GTE
GTE
11
Two Federations

• Two bridges where used between the DTE Federation
  and MATREX Federation
• Federation-to-Federation Bridge
• Ground Truth Data
• Prototype COTS product
• HLA Battle Command Translator
• Tactical Data
• Custom developed tool

12
No Multicast on WAN

• Both RTIs had mechanism for to over come the
  limitation of no multicast on the WAN

• MAK RTI
• LAN data is sent using multicast
• Each site ran a udpForwarder
• The RID files contained the IP address of the
  udpForwarder for all far sites
• The RID file for each site was unique
• FOM data is sent across the WAN once for each site

• MATREX RTI
• Best Effort transport set to reliable (TCP) in
  the RID file.
• Hierarchical Interconnect used.
• RID file specified location of distributor nodes.
  
• Each site ran a distributor
• Single RID file for all federates.
• Only distributors make connections across the
  WAN.
• FOM data is sent across the WAN once for each site

13
SIMAF
WSMR
F-16
AF DIS WAN
EPGFL
TEC
ASTi
ASTi
F-16
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
F-16
Red AD
DAS
WSMR Live I/F
F-16
NCBR
ASTi
Boeing
RPWS Server
HLABCT
RPWS
F-15
46th Test
UAMBL
ASTi
OF OTB Gateway
ATC
DIS/RPR Gateway
MC2
Live
TENA/DIS Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
ACRT
OFOTB
Bradley
RPWS
RPWS
ACRT
Abrams
DIS to HLA
VDMS
DMOC
RPWS
RPWS
Stryker
Unreal
ASTi
SA Server
HMMWV
OT-TES
Effects Server
AWACS
Simple J to SISO J
MC2
VSTARS
SIMPLE J
DIS/RPR Gateway
MATREX Federation WAN
TOPCOP
DTE Federation WAN
RTTC
EPGFH
PAX E-2C
Dahlgren
CMS2
Fed-to-Fed Bridge
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
OTB CAB 2
EOSFEL UAV
ASTi
ASTi
ORION EMU
OTB CAB 3
EOSFEL Hellfire
RPWS
OTB CAB 2 Live
E-2C
NFCS
DIS/RPR Gateway
OTB Threat
GTE
Virtual Helicopter
CAT
GTE
IR Scene 1
HDS
RPWS 1
PAX F-18
China Lake F-18
IR Scene 2
AMRDEC
OTUS Publisher
RPWS 2
CAT 1
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
BASSETT Publisher
IR Scene 3
IDEEAS/EAPS
CAT 2
RPWS 3
SuperCIP
ASTi
F-18
ASTi
CETS
ASTi 3
EAPS Fire Control
RPWS 4
Zigbee Tag Server
Weapon Server
F-18
ASTi 1
ASTi 4
Intelligent Ex Monitor
Laser Tracker Contr
RPWS 5
TENA/DIS
ASTi 2
A2C2 Monitor
Track Mount Contr
GTE
GTE
14
DIS to HLA

• COTS DIS/HLA Gateway used
• No DIS traffic in WAN
• Exception internal Air Force sites
• Used DMOC developed TSR
• Gateway at every site the used DIS

15
SIMAF
WSMR
F-16
AF DIS WAN
EPGFL
TEC
ASTi
ASTi
F-16
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
F-16
Red AD
DAS
WSMR Live I/F
F-16
NCBR
ASTi
Boeing
RPWS Server
HLABCT
RPWS
F-15
46th Test
UAMBL
ASTi
OF OTB Gateway
ATC
DIS/RPR Gateway
MC2
Live
TENA/DIS Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
ACRT
OFOTB
Bradley
RPWS
RPWS
ACRT
Abrams
VDMS
DMOC
RPWS
RPWS
Stryker
Unreal
ASTi
SA Server
HMMWV
OT-TES
Effects Server
AWACS
Simple J to SISO J
MC2
VSTARS
SIMPLE J
DIS/RPR Gateway
MATREX Federation WAN
TENA to DIS
TOPCOP
DTE Federation WAN
RTTC
EPGFH
PAX E-2C
Dahlgren
CMS2
Fed-to-Fed Bridge
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
OTB CAB 2
EOSFEL UAV
ASTi
ASTi
ORION EMU
OTB CAB 3
EOSFEL Hellfire
RPWS
OTB CAB 2 Live
E-2C
NFCS
DIS/RPR Gateway
OTB Threat
GTE
Virtual Helicopter
CAT
GTE
IR Scene 1
HDS
RPWS 1
PAX F-18
China Lake F-18
IR Scene 2
AMRDEC
OTUS Publisher
RPWS 2
CAT 1
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
BASSETT Publisher
IR Scene 3
IDEEAS/EAPS
CAT 2
RPWS 3
SuperCIP
ASTi
F-18
ASTi
CETS
ASTi 3
EAPS Fire Control
RPWS 4
Zigbee Tag Server
Weapon Server
F-18
ASTi 1
ASTi 4
Intelligent Ex Monitor
Laser Tracker Contr
RPWS 5
TENA/DIS
ASTi 2
A2C2 Monitor
Track Mount Contr
GTE
GTE
16
TENA to DIS

• TENA at ATC
• Custom Interface
• Vehicle instrumentation provided automotive
  performance telemetry within TENA
• A gateway process copied the vehicle's GPS
  position, acceleration, velocity, and orientation
  into a DIS entity PDU
• Entity Type, ID and remaining DIS fields were
  filled with metadata values from a configuration
  file from the vehicle instrumentation
• TENA at RTTC
• Custom interface
• Real-time data collection for several live assets
  was achieved through the integration of a
  wireless network at the MOUT site using TENA
• Managed the state of all MOUT live assets by
  injecting live asset test data into the
  simulation environment and vice versa

17
SIMAF
WSMR
F-16
AF DIS WAN
EPGFL
TEC
ASTi
ASTi
F-16
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
F-16
Red AD
DAS
WSMR Live I/F
F-16
NCBR
ASTi
Boeing
RPWS Server
HLABCT
RPWS
F-15
46th Test
UAMBL
ASTi
OF OTB Gateway
ATC
DIS/RPR Gateway
MC2
Live
TENA/DIS Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
ACRT
OFOTB
Bradley
RPWS
RPWS
ACRT
Abrams
VDMS
DMOC
RPWS
RPWS
Stryker
Unreal
ASTi
SA Server
HMMWV
OT-TES
Effects Server
AWACS
SIMPLEJ to SISO J
Simple J to SISO J
MC2
VSTARS
SIMPLE J
DIS/RPR Gateway
MATREX Federation WAN
TOPCOP
DTE Federation WAN
RTTC
EPGFH
PAX E-2C
Dahlgren
CMS2
Fed-to-Fed Bridge
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
OTB CAB 2
EOSFEL UAV
ASTi
ASTi
ORION EMU
OTB CAB 3
EOSFEL Hellfire
RPWS
OTB CAB 2 Live
E-2C
NFCS
DIS/RPR Gateway
OTB Threat
GTE
Virtual Helicopter
CAT
GTE
IR Scene 1
HDS
RPWS 1
PAX F-18
China Lake F-18
IR Scene 2
AMRDEC
OTUS Publisher
RPWS 2
CAT 1
DIS/RPR Gateway
DIS/RPR Gateway
BASSETT Publisher
IR Scene 3
IDEEAS/EAPS
CAT 2
RPWS 3
SuperCIP
ASTi
F-18
ASTi
CETS
ASTi 3
EAPS Fire Control
RPWS 4
Zigbee Tag Server
Weapon Server
F-18
ASTi 1
ASTi 4
Intelligent Ex Monitor
Laser Tracker Contr
RPWS 5
TENA/DIS
ASTi 2
A2C2 Monitor
Track Mount Contr
GTE
GTE
18
SIMPLE J to SISO J

• Navy sites used existing simulation for Link-16
  communications
• Air Force sites had modified simulations to use
  SISO J (SISO-STD-002-2006)
• Used Air Force protocol converter

19
Benefits

• Large number of federates available for an event
• DTE 5 had approximately 100 unique federates
• Rapid integration
• Integration began in May of 2005 to support an
  event in August of 2005
• Reduced the overall cost
• Majority of these federates were used with little
  or no modification
• Best protocol for each requirement

20
Challenges

• Interfaces between protocols
• Configuring the gateways bridges is a critical
  activity
• Protocol differences
• Differences between DIS Signal PDUs and RPR FOM
  RadioSignal.RawBinaryRadioSignal interactions
• Management of enumerations
• Multidimensional problem

21
Summary

• DTE 5 demonstrated that a mixed-protocol
  architecture can support joint distributed
  testing
• A mixed-protocol architecture is particularly
  important for joint activities
• While the mixed-protocol architecture was complex
• It was much easier to implement than converting
  all of the federates to a single protocol
• A mixed-protocol architecture allows a test to
  use the best federates and the best protocols to
  meet their requirements

22

• Michael J. O'Connor
• ITT Industries
• michael.oconnor_at_itt.com
• J. Corde Lane, Ph.D.
• U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center
• corde.lane_at_atc.army.mil
• Joe Sorroche
• ASRC Communications, Ltd.
• joe.sorroche_at_kirtland.af.mil
• Drew Lewis
• Science Applications International Corp.
• David.andrew.lewis_at_saic.com
• Ryan Norman
• Redstone Technical Test Center
• ryan.t.norman_at_us.army.mil

A Mixed Architecture for Joint Testing