1. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Deriving Priority Intelligence Requirements for Synthetic Command Entities Jonathan Gratch, Stacy Marsella, Randall Hill, Jr. USC Information Sciences Institute LTC George Stone III JSIMS JPO

2. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Project Goals Develop autonomous command forces –Act autonomously for days at a time Reduce load on human operators –Behave in human-like manner Produce realistic training environment –Perform C 3 I functions Reduce the number of human operators Create realistic organizational interactions

3. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Command Force Requirements Intelligence –Identifying intelligence requirements –Focusing intelligence collection –Modeling intel constraints on planning Companion paper: –Continuous Planning and Collaboration for Command and Control in Joint Synthetic Battlespaces

4. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Motivation Good progress in simulating C 2 –e.g. DARPA’s CFOR and ASTT Programs Largely ignored intelligence issues e.g. STOW program did model Sensor platforms like JSTARS Information networks like CGS Intelligence system Did not model How information transformed into intelligence Collection management

5. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Intelligence critical for realistic C 2 Close interplay between intelligence and COA Development Intelligence guides COA development COA development drives intelligence needs Intelligence availability constrains actions –Some COA must be abandoned if one can’t gather adequate intelligence

6. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Intelligence critical for realistic C 2 Intelligence constrains pace of battle When can a satellite observe? How long to insert surveillance (LRSU)? How long before I must commit to COA?

7. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Intelligence critical for realistic C 2 Intelligence collection must be focused –Commanders must: Prioritize their intelligence needs Understand higher-level intelligence priorities Provide intelligence guidance to subordinates e.g. Simulation Information Filtering Tool [Stone et. al]

8. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Priority Intelligence Requirements Focus on specification and use of PIR Information that directly feeds the key decisions that will determine the success or failure of the mission –Key component of Army mission planning Specified in CCIR section of Operation Orders –Specifies what Cdr wants to know about OPFOR –Drives position of sensors and observation posts

9. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training PIR Examples When will OPFOR first echelon reach our defenses Where is OPFOR main attack Where is the location of air defense units

10. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Software Requirements Allow human operator to specify PIR –To focus/prioritize reporting –To drive sensor placement Allow C 2 agents to identify own PIR –To ensure valid COA development –To ensure realistic pace of battle –To generate requests for external sensing assets e.g., satellites

11. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Example: Deep Attack Mission* Aviation brigade plans attack Attack as TD leaves assembly area TD Forward Assembly Area Corps intent: attack 2 nd echelon tank division (TD) * From FM 1-112

12. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Brigade Planning (simplified) –Identify Engagement Area (EA Pad) Should canalize OPFOR and restrict movement –Identify launch time Require 2-hour notice EA Pad AA Lincoln

13. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training PL ECHO Brigade PIR –When will TD leave AA Lincoln? Verifies enemy intent –When will TD reach PL Echo? Satisfies the need for 2-hour notice Further verifies enemy intent Location of PL Echo driven by PIR EA Pad AA Lincoln 2hrs

14. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training EA Pad PL ECHO Intelligence Plan SLAR Monitor movement from assembly area LRSU Trigger attack: TD 2hrs from EA Pad Assembly Area

15. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Final Brigade Plan Execute Mission Arrive at EA Break Contact Decision Point H H+2 H+3H-8 H-10 Insert LRSULRSU monitor PL Echo Deep Attack SLAR monitor AA

16. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Implementation Build on Soar-CFOR –Developed under CFOR and ASTT programs –Command agent modeling architecture –Have modeled Battalion and Company aviation C 2 Current Status –Building prototype of PIR capabilities –Initial focus on Army attack helicopter battalion

17. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Soar-CFOR Planner Continuous and collaborative planning Represents task hierarchies Records task dependencies –e.g. Task preconditions: To engage OPFOR, we must be at EA Pad at same time Represents planning assumptions –OPFOR unexpected during ingress

18. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Automating PIR Identify PIR in my own plans –Find preconditions, assumptions, and triggering conditions that are dependent on OPFOR behavior Extract PIR from higher echelon orders –Specialize as appropriate for my areas of operation Derive tasks for satisfying PIR –Sensor placement Ensure consistency of augmented plans

19. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Identifying PIR Examine COA dependencies on OPFOR –e.g. Precondition of engaging: OPFOR will-be-at EA Pad at time H+2 Look for dependencies that: –Are not under my direct control –Are uncertain Implemented with PIR recognition schema: –Abstract rules that scan plans and assert PIR Some domain-independent, some domain-specific

20. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Interpreting Higher-level Guidance Need to convert into PIR at my echelon –e.g. Brigade’s PIR: When will lead regiment reach forward defense becomes Battalion PIR When will lead battalion of lead regiment reach fwd def Implemented by specialization rules –Encode doctrinal and terrain relationships

21. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Deriving Sensor Plans Implemented via tactical planning mechanism –PIR represented as “knowledge goals” –Domain theory augmented with sensing tasks Sensing tasks achieve knowledge goals Tasks encode maneuver / temporal dependencies –Planning process fills in details Sensing tasks added to achieve knowledge goals –e.g. Observe TD activity near PL_ECHO Other tasks added to satisfy maneuver dependencies –e.g. Use UH-60 to insert LRSU near PL_ECHO

22. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Ensuring Consistency Implemented via tactical planning mechanism –If PIR goals cannot be satisfied, COA is invalid or Use unsatisfied PIR to request external assets Sensing plans constrain timing of events –If temporal constraints inconsistent, COA is invalid

23. 8th CGF & BR Conference 11 - 13 May 1999 Copyright 1999 Institute for Simulation & Training Summary Goal: increase realism of training environment Approach: Model intelligence capabilities –Model interplay between intel and planning –Model intel constraints on pace of battle –Accept and obey intel priorities