Coalition Battle Management Language Study Group

1
Coalition Battle Management Language Study Group
04F-SIW-103
Major Kevin Galvin Ministry of Defence, Directorat
e of Equipment Capability
Dr. Andreas Tolk VMASC Old Dominion University
Lionel Khimeche Délégation Générale pour
lArmement

• Michael Hieb, Ph.D.
• Alion Science Technology

2
CBML Study GroupMeetingThursday
0800-1200Sanibel
3
Organization

• Motivation
• BML Concept
• Requirements for a BML
• National BML Efforts
• CBML Study Group

4
Motivation
5
A Standard Representation of Command and Control
is Needed

• Numerous simulation programs working on their own
  specific BML
• Technical challenge is to develop a standard
  methodology based on doctrine that is scalable
  across echelons and coalitions
• Much interest in the BML concept from various
  nations, industry and military users

6
BML Concept
7
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.

A Military-Specific Domain Ontology
8
BML Views
Doctrine
Protocols
BML
Representation
9
BML Scope
BML Order
C4I
C4I
Simulation
Robotic Forces
10
BML Concept
Data/Object Models
Messages
Doctrine
FM-1-02 Other FMs ARTEPs
XML/ Data Replication
C4I Data Model
BML
11
Army, Joint and NATODoctrine Hierarchies
12
BML Scalability
XML/ Data Replication
NATO Doctrine
Coalition Data Model
International
BML
XML/ Data Replication
Joint Doctrine
Joint Data Model
Joint
BML
XML/ Data Replication
Service Doctrine
Service
Service Data Model
BML
13
BML Uses 5 Ws
Graphics convert to BML
Tasks to Subordinates
14
BML as a Domain Ontology
Upper Level Ontology
BML as a Domain Ontology
C2IEDM as an Underlying Data Model
C2IEDM Command and Control Information Data
Exchange Data Model
15
BML Requirements
16
Characteristics of a good BML (1)

• Cost/Benefit
• The reduction or elimination of manpower needed
  to support training of commanders and their staff
  by reducing the swivel-chair interface.
• A reduction in time needed to train controllers
  in the use of a simulation.
• The expression of orders, requests and reports in
  a universal BML could potentially allow the
  development of some powerful reasoning
  applications that could then facilitate and speed
  a whole range of currently manual procedures.

From Major Kevin Galvins Master Thesis,
Cranfield University, 2004
17
Characteristics of a good BML (2)

• Usability/Acceptability
• It should not hinder a commander and his staff
  and must therefore be acceptable to the
  professional military user.
• Maintain the ability of a commander to express
  their intent that was acceptable to commanders.
• Should be able to express a wide range of mission
  types across the full spectrum of military
  conflict.
• Should not prevent the fog of war in a training
  environment being applied as a control measure.

From Major Kevin Galvins Master Thesis,
Cranfield University, 2004
18
Characteristics of a good BML (3)

• Interoperability
• Provide support for allied and coalition
  interoperability by using existing C4I data
  representation whenever possible.
• Provide the ability to facilitate battlefield
  situational awareness during training.
• Compatible dynamic updating of weapon systems,
  C4I and logistic systems.
• Be capable of being used in a distributed Live,
  Virtual and Constructive (LVC) environment to
  facilitate training with joint and multinational
  forces.

From Major Kevin Galvins Master Thesis,
Cranfield University, 2004
19
Characteristics of a good BML (4)

• Implementation
• Be comprehensible to humans so it can be used to
  express real orders and Courses of Action (CoA).
• Be capable of being interpreted by computerised
  simulations and also exported into Commercial
  off the Shelf (COTS) product e.g. Microsoft
  Word.
• Be unambiguous to both users and developers in
  what it is defining in terms of description and
  context.

From Major Kevin Galvins Master Thesis,
Cranfield University, 2004
20
Characteristics of a good BML (5)

• Fidelity
• Should reduce or eliminate input errors by
  controllers.
• Accurately represent doctrine.

From Major Kevin Galvins Master Thesis,
Cranfield University, 2004
21
National BML Initiatives
22
APLET Objectives

• Research Technology Program
• Analyze simulation means to deploy in order to
  facilitate and improve Course Of Action Analysis
  performed within a Brigade and Division Head
  Quarter fitted with French C4I called SICF
• Establish specifications for a future operational
  system prior the call for tender
• Goals
• Precise the simulation concept of use for Course
  Of Action Analysis
• Delimit the use and the capabilities given by the
  simulation in case of close integration with SICF
• Assess C4I and simulation interoperability
  limitations
• Define the suitable level of automation to
  compare Course of Actions
• Analyze possible technologies to automatically
  produce orders from a Course Of Action

23
APLET Planning
2003 - 2004
2005 - 2006
2002
Years
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Studies
MMI Mock-up
APLET V1 Implementation
APLET V1 Exper.
APLET V2 Implementation
APLET V2 Exper.
APLET - OneSAF HLA Federation
24
APLET Architecture
XML
25
UK Interoperability Studies

• From UK perspective what is needed is a truly
  flexible and extensible plug and play approach to
  achieving interoperability
• UK conducted study to identify emerging
  technologies, that could facilitate this type of
  approach to interoperability
• software agents, web services, expressive
  systems, ontologies, componentization, wrapping,
  etc
• UK developed the concept of Adaptive Middleware
• no longer focuses primarily on data exchange
• considers interoperability requirements across
  the complete life-cycle of a training exercise

26
UK Adaptive Middleware Concept

• A system in its own right
• explicitly visible and manageable
• not a set of independent point-to point system
  connections
• Primary function is to support the definition and
  management of relationships between other systems
• An extensible generic solution to a series of
  complex interoperability problems
• Using a novel combination of leading edge
  technologies in complementary ways

27
Where BML might fit in the UK Adaptive Middleware
Concept
NEC drives increasing need and complexity of
interoperability
Contribution of MW grows then reduces but remains
significant
Degree of Interoperability Required
Increased adoption of a BML radically reduces the
human processing requirement and contributes to
MW goals
Role of human in interpretation reduces but
remains critical in certain areas
Time
NEC - Network Enabled Capability MW - Middleware
28
US Army BML Proof of Principle
29
XBML Testbed Distributed Interfaces
30
Extending the BML Vocabulary to Air Operations

• Begin with Air C2DIF (Command and Control Data
  Interchange Format)
• Developed by Gestalt AF/ESC Sponsorship (1998)
• Vetted in over 120 Exercises/Events/Demonstrations
  /Tests
• Includes the Following Categories
• Air Battle Plan
• Air Tasking Order (ATO)
• Airspace Control Order (ACO)
• Special Instructions (SPINS)
• Mission Feedback
• Friendly Order of Battle (FRoB)
• Scenario Data (UOB)
• Mission Representation
• Includes More Detailed Mission Planning Aspects
  of ATO Directed Missions
• Supports the Decrease of the Controller
  Footprint Goal

31
CBML Study Group
32
CBML Study Group

• Co-Chair Kevin Galvin UK
• Mike Hieb US
• Secretary Andreas Tolk
• Deliverables
• Literature survey
• Recommendation for how to develop a CBML
  Specification

33
CBML Concept
XBML
34
CBML Implementation Concept Extend the C2IEDM
35
CBML Study GroupMeetingThursday
0800-1200Sanibel
36
CBML Study Group Meeting Agenda
0800-0830 Introduction of Study Group
Members 0830-0900 CBML Concept and
Scope 0900-1000 CBML Invited Presentations -
Industry and National Efforts 1000-1030
Break 1030-1100 Identification of Other CBML
Related Initiatives 1100-1130 Discussion on
SG Deliverables 1130-1200 Planning Discussion
37
Backup