Interoperating Heterogenous C4I Systems (with emphasis on C2 and simulation systems)

1. Interoperating Heterogenous C4I Systems(with emphasis on C2 and simulation systems) J. Mark Pullen George Mason University C4I Center Fairfax, Virginia, USA mpullen@c4i.gmu.edu KSU C4I and Cyber Security

2. Concerns and Prospects of Integrating Heterogeneous C4I Systems • Need for integration of heterogeneous systems • Challenges and concerns of interoperability • Architecture frameworks • Communication challenges • Prospects of Cloud Services in C4I System • Case study: C2-Simulation Interoperation Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

3. Need for Integration • Various C4I systems are far more powerful when integrated • They can share information synergistically • And unify information in a single display to ease cognitive burden on humans Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

4. Challenges and Concerns of Interoperation • Interfacing systems effectively • Differences in system semantics • Time resolution issues • Stressing supporting communications • Ability to modify existing systems • Resulting "system of systems" can be hard to analyze and manage KSU C4I and Cyber Security

5. Architecture Frameworks • Examples: DoDAF, MoDAF, NAF • Motivation: shared understanding of what the system is supposed to do • Issue: Accuracy vs Understandability • Powerful tool: Abstraction KSU C4I and Cyber Security

6. Communication Challenges • Shared protocols • Shared message paradigm • Shared semantics • Adequacy of network capacity • Impact of latency • Impact of Quality of Service KSU C4I and Cyber Security

7. Cloud Computing Prospects • Emphasis of commercial cloud computing is on cost savings • And to lesser extent on performance/reliability • Requires large fixed facilities and networks • Military C4I systems generally can't be tethered to a fixed facility • And may need to be separate from commercial clouds to meet security concerns KSU C4I and Cyber Security

8. Case Study: Command and Control-Simulation Interoperation (C2SIM) Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

9. Vision • We are working toward a day when the members of a coalition interconnect their networks, command and control (C2) systems, and simulations simply by turning everything on and authenticating, in a standards-based environment. Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

10. C2SIM Purpose and Operation • Exchange of Orders and reports in standard format • Current architecture uses a repository service to hold state submitted by client C2 and Simulation systems • Web service with XML input – Network Centric • Real-time database enables schema translation • Mechanism for shared initialization of all systems required Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

11. EvolvingC2SIM Architecture Simulation Systems Command and Control Systems BML Messages (Orders, Reports, etc.) BML Web Services + Initialization and Synchronization real-time database Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

12. C2SIM in NATO Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

13. Roots of C2SIM • “Train as you fight” requires using operational C2 systems as interface to simulations • Implemented with human “puckster” or “stove pipe” computer interface • US Army SIMCI conducted a successful experiment "Battle Management Language" (BML) to remove ambiguity at the C2SIM interface by replacing the free text of military orders and reports with a standardized vocabulary • US Defense M&S Office supported a broad effort in Web technologies for interoperation • France DGA developed separate C2SIM capability Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

14. SIMCI Experimental BML Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

15. NATO MSG-048 • US-France BML prototype stimulated a multinational effort to show technical feasibility of Coalition BML (C-BML) • Ten nations participated • Goal: establish coherence between C2 and M&S • New open, system-independent, community standards and protocols. • Work areas: • Establish requirements for the C-BML standard • Assess usefulness and applicability of C-BML in support of coalition • Educate and inform the C-BML stakeholders Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

16. MSG-048 2009 Architecture

17. MSG-048 Example: French COA Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

18. NATO MSG-085 • Follow-on to support standardization and show operational relevance • Added two new nations and operational military expertise • Recognized need to add Military Scenario Definition Language for systems initialization • Which in turn showed MSDL/C-BML incompatibility • Concluded with major demonstration at Fort Leavenworth Kansas • Established military utility of C2SIM • Focused on distributed/collaborative mission planning Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

19. MSG-085 Final Demonstration Architecture Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

20. C2SIM Standards Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

21. Simulation Standards Interoperability Organization(SISO) • Open Standards DevelopmentOrganization established 1996 • Developed IEEE military simulation standards • Distributed interactive Simulation (DIS) • High Level Architecture for M&S • Non-IEEE standards for C2SIM • MSDL approved 2009 • C-BML approved 2014 • Having two versions of C-BML schema problematic Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

22. Second Generation SISO C2SIM • MSG-085 showed that MSDL and C-BML could work together effectively, but with some difficulty • They should be converged/harmonized • Experience with C-BML “Full” schema indicates it is cumbersome to use • Yet it only covers maneuver warfare – not all operations • MSG-085 technical work indicated that the approach taken by Multilateral Interoperability Programme (MIP) is more useful • Define data to be exchanged as data model, expressed as UML (not XML schema) • Extend data model to new domains as needed Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

23. C2SIM SystemsClients, Servers, Schemata Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

24. MSG-085 Coalition C2SIM Threat Simulation Mobile Web Client Overall C2 Coalition C2-Simulation Web Services* Startup Synchronization Initialization Aggregation Orders & Reports Repository National Simulation National Simulation National Simulations (including OneSAF) National C2 National C2 National Ground C2 *one or more servers Air & Maritime Simulations Air & Maritime C2 Systems Simulation systems possibly federated using HLA or DIS C2 Systems possibly linked using JC3IEDM Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

25. Data interchange uses XML C2SIM message must go to all interested systems Standard approach (polling by clients) inefficient Streaming Text Oriented Messaging Protocol (STOMP) adopted for distribution Systems subscribe for Topics of interest STOMP server copies each message to subscribing systems Publish/Subscribe for Web Services Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

26. XML ExampleReport <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <BMLReport xmlns:jc3iedm="urn:int:nato:standard:mip:jc3iedm:3.1a:oo:2.0" xmlns:bml="http://netlab.gmu.edu/IBML" xmlns:msdl="http://netlab.gmu.edu/JBML/MSDL"> <Report> <CategoryOfReport>StatusReport</CategoryOfReport> <TypeOfReport>GeneralStatusReport</TypeOfReport> <StatusReport> <GeneralStatusReport> <ReporterWho> <bml:UnitID>1-22</bml:UnitID> </ReporterWho> <Hostility>FR</Hostility> <Executer> <bml:Taskee> <bml:UnitID>1-22</bml:UnitID> </bml:Taskee> </Executer> Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

27. <OpStatus>MOPS</OpStatus> <WhereLocation> <bml:GDC> <bml:Latitude>33.424079</bml:Latitude> <bml:Longitude>44.682716</bml:Longitude> <bml:ElevationAGL>2.054</bml:ElevationAGL> </bml:GDC> </WhereLocation> <When>20070101000000.000</When> <ReportID>506</ReportID> <Credibility> <bml:Source>HUMINT</bml:Source> <bml:Reliability>A</bml:Reliability> <bml:Certainty>RPTFCT</bml:Certainty> </Credibility> </GeneralStatusReport> </StatusReport> </Report> </BMLReport> XML ExampleReportconclusion Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

28. Interfacing C2 Systems • C2 systems produce Orders, consume Reports • To enable C2SIM, add an interface module that follows the agreed schema so the C2 system can: • Send the server an XML document for each Order • Subscribe to Reports distributed by the server and present them as situational awareness • Clearly identify when running in simulated mode • Support start/stop of simulated operation Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

29. Interfacing Simulation Systems • Simulation systems accept Orders, produce Reports • To enable C2SIM, add an interface module that follows the agreed schema so the simulation system can: • Send the server an XML document for each status change that requires a Report • Subscribe to Orders distributed by the server and follow the directions they contain • Start/pause/stop simulation operation under coalition control 29 Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

30. Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) • During development it is very useful to have a generic way to generate and inspect BML documents • Create an Order, Report, Request etc. and introduce it to server • Accept and display Order, Report, etc. from client system or server • Edit either of the above • The GUI can serve as a limited/surrogate C2 system for experimentation Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

31. BML GUI Functions • Editing a C-BML or MSDL document • Merging MSDL documents • Serialization of document • Grammar validation of document • Schema validation of XML document • Auto-configuration to schema • Pulling a document • Pushing a document • Subscription to server Topics • Retrieving latest reports • C2 capability • Displaying maps with overlays • Geolocation entry from maps Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

32. BML C2 GUI Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

33. Server Functions • Accept Push/Post of XML documents and store • C-BML Orders and Reports; MSDL scenario files • Accept Subscriptions by Topic • e.g. all General Status Reports • Publish documents to subscribers as they arrive • And respond to Get/Pull for them • Message logging/Replay • Schema translation Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

34. MSG-085 Linked Server Architecture Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security

35. Conclusions • Interoperating C4I systems as system-of-systems offers both major advantages and challenges • For example NATO and SISO have continued progress toward the day when military coalitions will be able to “plug in” their C2 and simulation systems to interoperate • Required overcoming many challenges • And much remains to be accomplished: • Engage the operational military community as users • Expand the compatibility and scope of MSDL and C-BML in second generation SISO C2SIM Pullen - KSU C4I and Cyber Security