Fast Modeling Techniques for C4ISR Problems

1. Fast ModelingTechniques forC4ISR Problems John Furman The MITRE Corporation McLean, Virginia, USA 3 September 2004

2. N The Challenge How do you calculate the impact of C4ISR* systems on Force Effectiveness? System Technical Performance Distributed Functional Processes & IM Performance IO High Dimensionality (Options & Factors) Cognition and Human Factors Relationship to OperationalEffectiveness *C4ISR: An older acronym for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance

3. The Taxonomy of C4ISR Analysis Mission Branch (Impact of Info Delivery) Decision Branch (Choice & Outcome) Force Operational Outcome Comparison of Avail Information & Decisions Taken MoFE MoFE Synthesis, Fusion, Human Cognition Tactical or Operational Task Performance Based on Info Delivery MoCE MoCE Access Quantity Communications Perception System Performance Timeliness Quality MoP MoP Persistence

4. Identify Fundamental Operational Issues “Drivers” --- most challenging aspects (hard problem) Critical Factors for operational execution What must I do to succeed? What is a “successful” outcome? Model to Support Analysis Based on comprehensive understanding of problem domain Rapid-response: idea to execution in days or weeks Focus on critical variables and processes (can’t do everything) Analyze to Examine the KEY Issues Task analysis Linkages among tasks Time dependencies Parametric representations of performance Quantitative measures for outcomes Influence diagrams as the primary technique Simple, understandable, parametric Basic Principles

5. Mission analysis based on functional decomposition of scenario (Strategy-to-Task) establishes success criteria Parametric analysis of capability yields the required Quantitative Threshold Assessment (QTA) Linking C4ISR Capability Approach: Strategy-to-Tasks • Define OPSITs for each conflict condition: Baseline + Excursions • Establish overall operational goals and effectiveness thresholds • Use / identify functional breakdown of operations process(single Joint source or hybridize from multiple sources as appropriate) • Establish functional performance thresholds • Establish (& quantify where possible) relationship between info and functional performance • Assess IS support to functions and tasks • Directly / inferred from established sources … orBy analysis and best professional judgment, validated by gov’t and military authorities • Identify gaps, opportunities and potential solution concepts

6. Mission area analysis based on functional decomposition and Quantitative Threshold Assessment Quantitative Threshold Analysis Operations Combat/War Objective Mission Areas Arms Control CONOPs Deploy Forces Combatting Targets Air and Missile Defense Halt Invasion Rollback Terrorism Interdiction Moving Armor In-depth Defeat Enemy Counterdrug Kill 1st Echelon Targets Weapons Production ….. Redeployment Operations SEAD National C2I ….. Nation Assistance Maritime/Air/Land Communications Noncombatant Superiority Ports ….. ….. Evacuation Operations ….. C4ISR Functions C4ISR Tasks Information Acquisition / - Detect Situation Monitoring - ID Information Assessment - TLE/AOI Decision Making - Report Performance Planning Execution Management Thresholds Domain Assessment (Force & Unit) High Communications Medium Command & Control ISR Low Info Technology None Exceeds Info Operations Assessment Meets Info Assurance Levels Does Not Meet (But Useful) Compromises

7. Parametric system dynamics modeling Implemented in easily available tools Analytica™, MatLab, Mathematica, Python, Smalltalk, SimPy Open-source when appropriate (cost, risk, or response time) Common Modeling Approach Mission analysis based on functional decomposition and quantitative threshold assessment

8. Example Model Concept Maritime Engagement Model - MEM Approach • Posit evolution of adversaries,forces and capabilities • Lay down adversary forcesinto defense zones • Time dynamic, 2-sided, parametriccalculation of expected damage • If E(damage) < tolerance threshold,then access to zone is obtainedon day N • Forecast force lethality vs. ground mobile targetsrelative to “complete access” Simple --- Aggregate --- Rapid

9. MEM Top-level Structure Modules contain a process (collection of nodes) Attrition of Threat Forces Threat Forces, Capabilities, Disposition & CONOPs Attrition of US Forces Access Achieved by US Forces US Maritime Forces, Disposition, Capabilities & CONOPs E( KPD) / Max( KPD) Defense Analysis Zones Case • Decision nodes • Chance nodes • Result nodes • Data Combat Power

10. ISR Modeling in MEM Probability of detection, classification (ID), and track used as appropriate in expected damage calculations throughout MEM Decision nodes: controlled set of decisions (tables) Allows individual sensor capabilities to detect/identify/track to be accounted for and influence the output The probability that each ISR system independently detects the target is calculated ISR performance can be degraded by a variety of factors including physical attack or use of countermeasures Chance nodes: events not controlled by the decision maker

11. ISR Systems Modeled Categorization ensures proper consideration of all systems Space - Commercial EO/IR Space - Adversary Ally EO/IR Space – EO/IR Space - Missile Launch Detect EO/IR Space - Scientific Radar Space - Adversary Ally Radar Space – Radar Space - Adversary Ally SIGINT Space – SIGINT Air - TACAIR RECCE EO/IR Air - MPA EO/IR Air - UAV EO/IR Air - TACAIR RECCE Radar Air - MPA Radar Air - UAV Radar Air - TACAIR ESM SIGINT Air - MPA SIGINT Air - UAV SIGINT Ground - Monitor Shore/Straits EO/IR Ground - Monitor Shore/Straits Radar Ground - OTH Radar Ground - Counter-Battery Radar Ground - IADS/ATC Radar Ground - SIGINT Ground - Offensive EW Sea - Fast Patrol Boat EO/IR Sea - Diesel Electric Sub EO/IR Sea - Modern Diesel Electric Sub EO/IR Sea - Merchantman Radar Sea - Patrol Craft Radar Sea - Patrol SIGINT Sea - Diesel Electric Sub SIGINT Sea - Modern Diesel Electric Sub SIGINT Sea - Sea Bed Acoustic Sea - Diesel Electric Sub Acoustic EO / IR Radar SIGINT Acoustic Other / Cyber Space Scientific Commercial Adversary Ally Adversary Ally Adversary Ally Gov’t Owned Gov’t Owned Missile Launch Det . TACAIR ESM TACAIR Recce TACAIR Recce Air MPA MPA MPA UAV UAV UAV Monitor shore / straits Ground Monitor shore / straits Counter-battery Radar Monitoring networks IADS / ATC Acoustic Merchantman Sea FPB Patrol D-E sub Patrol D-E sub D-E sub Systems can be categorized by time to expedite portfolio analysis

12. Assessing Operational Effectiveness • Quantitative Threshold Methodology (QTA) • Decompose Operational Mission into its basic functions • Develop rules for aggregating children into their parents • Assess capability at lowest level functions based ondefined quantitative capability thresholds • Lowest level assessments and therefore the overall assessmentmay change for each option considered If( (A & B) > GRN ) then Min (C, D) else Min (A, B) x ... Base case Option 1 Maritime Mission Option 2 Minimum Weighted Sum Maximum Average B D A C A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3

13. Automating the Assessment • Automated using Portfolio Analysis Machine (PALM) • Changes in “leaf” nodes are automatically reflected all the way to the top. • PALM identifies the critical failure path = functions for improvement • Calculates and displays the rate of increase of the overall mission value foreach unit of increase in node • Calculates cost and improvement in operational effectivenessfor all combinations of possible improvements Explores Solution Space Automatically

14. Investment Analysis PALM - Exhaustive Automated Analysis of Alternatives - PALM: Portfolio AnaLysis Machine

15. Mission analysis based on functional decomposition and quantitative threshold assessment – multiple missions Linked parametric system dynamics modeling Extensible Modeling Approaches Model Development • Rationalize and extend previously developed C4ISR models for conventional combat • Calculate bounds onMOPs --> conflict MOFEs in minutes • Evaluate military worth of … • Doctrine and CONOPs changes • C4ISR systems improvements • Changes to force structure andweapon systems

16. Measure C4ISR effectiveness Quantify performance: Comparative performance “System A performs 3 times as well as system B.” Absolute performance “System A is likely to meet 65 of 85 percent of capability needs.” Assess capability needs Evaluates options at the mission or operation level Recommends solutions that address Future risk tradeoffs, Force management, Warfighting capabilities, and Economic limitations Analytic Rigor