Enabling Military Coalition Command and Control with Interoperating Simulations as a System of Systems

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 442)

Abstract

This paper reports on development of standardized methods for military coalitions to interoperate command and control (C2) systems with simulation systems (C2SIM). Such a system-of-systems results in improved functionality and timeliness for participants in national configurations, with even more benefit in coalitions. Command and control software systems enable commanders, staffs, and other participants to exchange tasking information (Orders) and status information for situational awareness (Reports). Simulations are useful as C2 system elements for analysis and to stimulate training and mission rehearsal. C2SIM enables plug-and-play interoperation of C2 and simulation systems. It has particular value in a coalition environment, where participants from each nation use their own C2 system and simulations. The paper focuses on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO) activities in C2SIM, describing the technical approach and software used to achieve interoperability, and provides examples of success.

Keywords

Military command and control Simulation Interoperability 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Ababneh, M., Pullen, J.: An open source graphical user interface surrogate C2 system for battle management language experimentation. In: International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium 2011, Québec Canada (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abbott, J., Pullen, J., Levine, S.: Answering the question: Why a BML standard has taken so long to be established? In: IEEE Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando FL, USA (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blais, C., Galvin, K., Hieb, M.: Coalition battle management language (C-BML) study group report. In: IEEE Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando FL, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carey, S., Kleiner, M., Hieb, M., Brown, R.: Standardizing battle management language—a vital move towards the army transformation, paper 01S-SIW-067. In: IEEE Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando FL, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heffner, K., Khimeche, L., Pullen, J.: MSG-048 technical activity experimentation to evaluate the applicability of a coalition battle management language in NATO. In: NATO Modeling and Symposium 2010. Utrecht, Netherlands (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heffner, K., Blais, C., Gupton, K.: Strategies for alignment and convergence of C-BML and MSDL. In: IEEE Fall 2012 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando FL, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hieb, M., Mackay, S., Powers, M., Kleiner, M., Pullen, J.: The environment in network centric operations: a framework for command and control. In: 12th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Newport, RI, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    IEEE Standards Association: IEEE Standard 1516, High Level Architecture for Modeling and Simulation (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    IEEE Standards Association: IEEE Standard 1278.1, Distributed Interactive Simulation (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khimeche, L., de Champs, P.: M&S in decision support for course of action analysis, APLET, Paper 04F-SIW-006. In: 2004 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Multilateral Interoperability Programme: The Joint C3 Information Exchange Data Model (JC3IEDM) Edition 3.1a. (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    NATO Collaboration Support Office: Final Report of MSG-085 Standardization for C2-Simulation Interoperability (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pullen J., Corner, D., Nicklas, L.: Supporting NATO C2-simulation experimentation with scripted web services. In: 16th International Command and Control Research and Technology 
Symposium, Québec Canada (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pullen, J., Corner, D., Gustavsson, P. and Grönkvist, M.: Incorporating C2—simulation interoperability services into an operational C2 system. In: International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium 2013, Alexandria, VA, USA (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pullen, J., Corner, D., Wittman, R., Brook, A., Gustavsson, P., Schade U., Remmersmann, T.: Multi-schema and multi-server advances for C2-simulation interoperability in MSG-085. In: NATO Modelling and Simulation Symposium 2013, Sydney, Australia (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pullen, J., Wittman, R., Khimeche, L., Burland, B., Ruth, J., Hyndøy, J.: Coalition C2-simulation history and status. In: NATO Modelling and Simulation Symposium 2014, Washington DC, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pullen, J., Khimeche, L.: Advances in systems and technologies toward interoperating operational military C2 and simulation systems. In: International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium 2014, Alexandria VA, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pullen, J., Khimeche, L., Cuneo, X., Schade, U., Remmersmann, T.: Linking C2-simulation interoperation servers to form distributed server systems. In: International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium 2015, Annapolis, MD, USA (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pullen, J.: Enabling military coalition command and control with interoperating simulations. In: 5th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications, Colmar, France (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Remmersmann, T., Schade, U., Khimeche, L., Gautreau, B.: Lessons recognized: how to combine BML and MSDL. In: IEEE Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando FL, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization: Standard for: Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL) (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization: Standard for: Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML) (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sudnikovich, W., Pullen, J., Kleiner, M., Carey, S.: Extensible Battle Management Language as a Transformation Enabler. Simulation 80, 669–680 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wittman, R.: OneSAF as an in-stride mission command asset. In: International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium 2014, Alexandria, VA, USA (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.C4I CenterGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations