The Naval Training MetaFOM NTMF a High Level Brief

1
The Naval Training MetaFOM (NTMF) a High Level
Brief

• Doug Clark
• Analysis and Technology
• Simulation Interoperability Workshop
• September 2000

2
The Naval Training Meta FOM (NTMF)
Doug Clark (AT) Lead NTMF Working
Group
NTMF Study Group
3
Need to Support Trainers for these Vehicles and
others
4
Agenda

• A Few Definitions
• Introduction to the Naval Training MetaFOM(NTMF)
• The Question
• Our Development Process
• Use Cases
• Some Examples to Consider and our Envisioned
  Solution
• Current Status
• The Study Group
• Fleeting to the Future

5
A Few Definitions
6
Simulation-Stimulation
Simulation- A method for implementing a model
over time. Stimulation- Stimulation is the use
of simulation(or emulation) to provide an
external stimulus to a system or
subsystem. Stimulator- A hardware device that
injects or radiates signals into the sensor
system(s) of operational equipment to imitate the
effects of .. That are not physically present.
7
Interoperability One Definition
Model interoperability requires agreement in the
following aspects Interface structure.
Structure here refers to number of ports, use of
generics, etc. Interface data format. Data
primarily refers to data type. Interface timing.
How is timing represented? With a separate file
or embedded within the port/generic description?
Timing here refers to various delays associated
with signals.
8
Interoperability One Definition (Cont)
Interface protocol (i.e. how do the models
communicate). An example of this would be how
tokens are passed from one component to the next
in token-based performance modeling. The
information content/semantics of exchanged
signals. This is potentially complex. Ideally
this would be a formal information model of some
sort but this is not absolutely necessary. A well
written English description should be
sufficient.
From RASSP
VHDL Token-Based Performance Modeling
Interoperability Guidelines
9
Introduction to the Naval Training MetaFOM(NTMF)
10
NTMF Vision

• The goal of the Naval Training Meta FOM is to
  facilitate the meaningful interoperability of
  Naval simulations/stimulations and training
  systems in a consistent manner supporting stated
  training needs and objectives.

11
NTMF Philosophy

• Ideally the NTMF will be a persistent,
  evolutionary, easily adaptable FOM.
• By design the NTMF must be an Objective FOM
  since it contains all the data that might be
  exchanged at runtime within a Federation.
• Federations that use the Objective FOM or a
  subset and discover objects and attributes not
  included in the FOM will add those objects and
  attributes as the Objective FOM evolves and
  adapts.
• The NTMF Objective FOM will be agile, allowing
  individual federate SOMs to be mapped to the
  NTMF.

12
NTMF Philosophy

• Ideally the NTMF will be a persistent,
  evolutionary, easily adaptable FOM.
• By design the NTMF must be an Objective FOM
  since it contains all the data that might be
  exchanged at runtime within a Federation.
• Federations that use the Objective FOM or a
  subset and discover objects and attributes not
  included in the FOM will add those objects and
  attributes as the Objective FOM evolves and
  adapts.
• The NTMF Objective FOM will be agile, allowing
  individual federate SOMs to be mapped to the
  NTMF.

13
NTMF Goals

• Address three needs within Naval simulation
  training systems
• The need for the force to be able to train as
  they will fight.
• The need for a common synthetic battlespace that
  can lead to the establishment of a standard.
• The need for the simulation training systems to
  evolve as the force, weapons systems, and threat
  evolves.

14
NTMF Objectives

• The NTMF Working Group is to explore the utility,
  viability, and development of a Naval Training
  Meta-FOM to capture the nature of the common,
  shared battlespace as the first step to
• facilitating broad interoperability of new and
  legacy synthetic training systems,
• enabling new training systems
• explore issues related to data consistency and
  interoperability, particularly with embedded
  systems.

15
From CINC letter, MS Requirements for Training
Systems

• Ease of Use- plug and play
• System fidelity- based on the level and type of
  training (context).
• Connectivity- link simulator and simulation to
  enhance team training.
• Interoperability- ability to create through
  simulation, either at sea or ashore both joint
  and coalition operational environments
  paralleling those anticipated in forward deployed
  situations.
• Training database- The ability to provide a
  common database of models and entities that
  interoperate with ship, submarine, and aircraft
  simulators and must interoperate with other
  services/Joint simulation systems.
• Flexibility- Rapid response to new training
  requirements and supporting the just in time
  training vision.

16
Rationale for a Naval Training Meta-FOM

• Provides a venue for standardizing the
  representation of the mission space-Fair Fight
• Necessary to eliminate duplication of effort for
  recreating mission space elements (synthetic
  natural environment and battle space entities)
  Build once and reuse often acquisition philosophy
• Bounds the levels of resolution of simulations,
  object models, data, and attribute algorithms
  needed for training
• Leads to higher interoperability (inter and
  intra) through the creation of a standard
  lexicon, semantics, data dictionary, taxonomy,
• Eliminates multiple interfaces to federations and
  federates (point to point solutions)

17
Rationale for a Naval Training Meta-FOMContinued

• Facilitates
• Lower system upgrading, development and life
  cycle cost
• Configuration management of simulations, models,
  and data
• providing a framework of understanding for
  training commands of their synthetic training
  system capabilities to allow them to create
  training federations to supports training needs
  and objectives
• The future evolution to facilitate Joint training
• Accomplishes a sub set of the CINC requirements

18
The Question
19
Today the Naval Training Landscape Simulation
based training for Naval Forces
the existing traininglandscape is less than
optimum. Training assets are connected only on a
case-by-case basis to serve established training
needs
ARG Littorals Training
BFTT
Aircraft Trainers
LAMPS III Trainers
ASW Trainers GASS/AN/SQQ-89/IUSS
Sub Trainers
20
Do We Want This?
And the Question is
Or Do We Want This?
MC MAGTF Trainer
ASW Trainers
Fixed Wing Trainer FOM
BFTT FOM
MAGTF FOM
Fixed Wing Trainers
Specific Interface/ Translator
BFTT
Helo Trainers
XSAF
ASW Trainer FOM
Helo Trainer FOM
Multiple Naval Training FOMs with Multiple
Interfaces
One Naval Training Meta-FOM
21
Our Development Process
22
NTMF From Concept to Capability
Adapted from J6
23
Distributed Simulation and theConceptional
Reference Model
RTI/Network
From Birkel JMASS-2000
24
Determining Requirements

• 20 legacy systems identified as candidates and
  POC identified
• Detailed questionnaire developed
• Basic system information
• Interoperability aspects
• Synthetic mission space description
• Questionnaire submitted to system POCs

25
Questionnaire Examples

• General Description of the Model/Simulations
  Purpose
• Indicate the Functional Usage of the
  Model/Simulation
• What other simulation systems do you have a
  requirement to interoperate with?
• Which time models does the simulation support?
• What sensors does the simulation support?
• What portion of the acoustic spectrum does the
  simulation use in its model?

26
BOPC 3
SLQ-32 A(V)
WSN-x 1/2/5/7
BOPC 2
SLQ-32 OBT
P S
BOPC 1
COMM
CLIENT/ SERVER LAN
SQQ-89
SQQ-89 OBT
BEWT
EW LAU
NAV SIM
VME 12
INES
Q-89 LAU
TWCS LAU
GFCP
HARPOON
HET LAU
TWCS ATWCS
CEC
DCM
CTA LAU
Synthetic Theater Of War (STOW)
ACDS BLK 1
CDS
SSDS MK 1
TRNG LAU
TACDEW LAU
RESS LAU
RESS
AEGIS
ACTS MK 50
NAVSSI BLK 3
STIM/SIM
TACDEW
Next Slide
BFTT (Present)
BFTT (Future)
Combat System
27
Making it Happen- The NTMF Process
Phase 2
Questionnaire
Legacy/New Trainer List
Phase 1
Meta-FOM Concept Paper
Responses
Analysis Paper
Terms of Reference Paper
Phase 3
Synthetic Training Requirements
Comparative FOM Study
Utilization Plan
Propose Common Battle Space Representation
Sponsorship
Action Plan
Meta-FOM Description
Standardization
28
HLA compliance is a partial solution
29
FOM Comparisons The Current NTMF Approach
The NTMF process looks for simulation commonality
to map into a FOM

• NTMF process
• FOM comparisons
• based on RPR FOM
• Environment representation analysis
• syntax, semantics,lexicon, taxonomy
• entities, attributes, interactions
• mapped across category 12
• simulations/stims

Platform Modeling
Object Modeling

• FOM comparisons - rotary wing ASW A/C
• helo characteristics
• sensor models
• acoustic environment models
• representation needs for ASW A/C

Environment Modeling

OPFOR/Intell Modeling
The NTMF process 1st compares data across
participating Category 12 simulation programs
to assess the potential for commonality
30
Use Cases
31
Synthetic Battlespace Representation The Current
NTMF Approach
and then looks for achievable commonality in a
synthetic battlespace within that FOM
Use Case 1
Use Case 2
Use Case 3
RTI
HLA Interface Spec
HS-60
BFTT
F-18
MAGTF
SMMTT
Legacy Interface
Legacy Interface
Legacy Interface
Legacy Interface
Legacy Interface
BFTT Federate
F-18 Federate
SMMTT Federate
HS-60 Federate
MAGTF Federate
common battlespace representation of the
environment ...
Result achievable commonality in environmental
representation is mapped to the metaFOM
32
Use Case 1 Strike

• Surface ship launched cruise missiles
• Submarine launched cruise missiles

• Opposing forces entrenched(air defense,
  tanks,artillery)
• Landing precluded by mines or the political
  situation
• Limited objectives
• Precision guidance required

33
Use Case 2 Littoral Warfare

• Opposed landing
• Troops
• Naval forces
• Aircraft
• Mines
• Task force support
• Ships
• Aircraft
• Shore bombardment

• Littoral ASW
• Submarines
• Aircraft
• Surface ships

34
Use Case 3 Coordinated ASW

• Choke-point ASW clearance (deep water)
• Combined ASW force
• Surface ships
• Submarines
• ASW helicopters
• Fixed wing aircraft
• Data links
• Satellite coordination

• Multiple submarine opposing forces

35
Database commonality The Current NTMF Approach
From the FOM comparisons, and model database
analysis, an initial metaFOM is designed
Strike Warfare Use Case
RTI
HLA Interface Spec
BFTT
F-18
SMMTT
SH-60
MAGTF
BFTT Federate
F-18 Federate
SMMTT Federate
SH-60 Federate
MAGTF Federate

NTMF Version A
Result a metaFOM providing functional
interoperability as determined by Use Case
36
Some Examples to Consider and our Envisioned
Solution
37
Taxing the little gray cells

• Model differences( ray, normal mode, beam, PE)
• Approximations(wide angle, narrow angle, coupled,
  non coupled)
• Implementations(DIS, HLA, hardware, software,
  processing loops)

38
More Taxing the little gray cells

• Data base differences(old, new, OAML, NIMA, GIS,
  made up)
• Commonality of understanding( what does track
  mean? X, y, z,)
• Access to variables( didnt think it would be
  needed, cant get to)
• Documentation(non existent)
• Level of fidelity, accuracy and resolution
• And it goes on

39
An Example- Propagation Models
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Depth
Mode Strength
Ray Models
Beam Models
Parabolic Equation
40
Use Case Based FOM ProcessSean Reilly
41
NTMF Envisioned Solution

• The Meta-FOM will encompass
• A reference Federation Object Model from which
  individual Naval training federations, category 1
  2, can be developed to serve ongoing Fleet
  training requirements.
• Standards for both data and models (platforms,
  weapons, and sensors) to be used by simulation
  developers and Fleet training commands to obtain
  consistency and fair fight among Category 1 2
  Naval training simulations/stimulators.
• Standards for both data and models
  (environmental representations of sea, air,
  land characteristics) to be used by simulation
  developers and Fleet training commands to obtain
  consistent common representation of the
  battlespace environment in which Naval training
  simulations simulators operate (fair fight,
  meaningful interoperability).
• Best practice guidelines for developing specific
  Category 1 2 training FOMs from the standard
  meta-FOM.
• Pre planned improvement of legacy systems.

42
Current Status
43
Where we are Today

• NTMF Charter and Terms of Reference published
• FOM Questionnaire
• Use Case and FOM comparison started
• Members of the Working Group include
• Navy Laboratories
• Chief Of Naval Operations Organizations
• Navy Systems Commands
• Marine Corp
• Academia
• Trainer developers and Implementers
• SISO Study Group Chartered

44
Training Systems of Interest

• Focus on Naval Tier 1 and Tier 2 systems
• Near term systems of interest
• BFTT
• GASS
• SMMTT
• SH-60B/R Upgrade
• JTCTS
• MAGTF, Marine System

45
Next Steps in the NTMF Development

• Beta version of NTMF in late CY01
• Follow FEDEP Steps 56 during CY01,CY02 for near
  term systems of interest
• Test objectives of federation testing
• Verify specific aspects of interoperability for
  each federation
• Begin to identify and attempt to quantify the
  effects of inconsistencies
• Convene and energize the Study Group

46
Why consider a baseline standard?

• A standard provides a rapidly available
  starting point for the NTMF to keep pace with the
  evolving mission space.
• A standard will provide a synthetic natural
  environment that has been accepted by the
  training community.
• A standard that includes a mission space
  representation, including common models and data
  as well as syntax and semantics will promote
  meaningful reuse and interoperability.
• A standard will reduce acquisition and pre
  planned product improvement costs.

47
The Study Group
48
From the NTMF Study Group Terms of Reference

• Sponsored by PMS430 and N6M a diverse group of
  government, Industry and academics have met to
  explore the value and issues associated with
  interoperation of Naval training systems.
• Focus of the meetings has been
• Trainer content (simulation, stimulation, models,
  data..),
• Resolution (context of the training, level of
  detail..)
• Connectivity (HLA, DIS, internal
  infrastructure..)
• Consistency between training systems
• Questionnaire developed to answer the above
• These discussions lead to a set of objectives and
  goals
• The group became know as the Naval Training Meta
  FOM (NTMF) working group

49
The NTMF Study Group

• We need your assistance to address a number of
  issues
• Are we proceeding using a creditable methodology
  to develop the MetaFOM? Is there a better process
  we should be applying? We need to evaluate and
  document.
• What are appropriate DMSO, SISO, and other
  products that are currently available to help the
  NTMF effort meet its goals? How do we assess and
  use them?
• Is the MetaFOM and MetaFOM process applicable to
  all services? Can Joint meaningful
  interoperability be accomplished? We need to
  evaluate and document.
• Using existing material, and adding as necessary,
  we need to put together and publish the MetaFOM
  terminology and taxonomy.
• Assistance with Use Cases and FOM

50
Relationship to other Efforts
Other
SEDRIS
Tasmanian Devil
RPR FOM
C4I
Navy TrainingMeta FOM
Collect, Coordinate, Apply
51
NTMF Study Group Products

• Time Frame September 2000- September 2001
• Progress report due Spring 2001
• Final Report Fall 2001
• Methodology report
• Other product investigation report
• Other service analysis report
• Terminology and taxonomy document and
• Recommendations for a next step if appropriate

52
How shall we conduct business

• Face to face meetings- how many?
• Teleconference once a month?
• Combined viedo and tele conference?
• Always email and one on one via phone.

53
Volunteers
We Want You! Contact doug clark at 703
418 8667 or email dclark_at_atinc.com
54
Sign Up

• Methodology
• Existing Products
• Services applicability
• Terminology and taxonomy
• Use Case and FOM assistance

55
To Contact the NTMF Team
doug Clark-Lead NTMF Working and Planning
Groups Telephone [phone] email
dclark_at_atinc.com Peter Kassal PMS430 Technical
Director. Chair NTMF Working Group Telephone 703
602 1782 ext 643 email kassalpj_at_navsea.navy.mil