1. UNCLASSIFIED Coalition Battle Management Language EuroSIW 21 June 2006 Stockholm

2. UNCLASSIFIED Structure of the Presentation What is a Battle Management Language (BML) Why do we need a BML History of BML Scope of Coalition BML (C-BML) Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO) C-BML Standardization Activity NATO ET 016/MSG 048 Operational Benefits PLAN ET – Exploratory Team MSG – Modelling & Simulation Group

3. UNCLASSIFIED What is a BML BML - an unambiguous language to: –Command and control (C2) simulated and live forces conducting military operations, and –Provide for situational awareness and a shared, common operational picture. Shared Semantics between C2 and M&S via a Common Tasking Description

4. UNCLASSIFIED The Need for a Common BML M&S requires a standardized community approach to scenario initialization and scripting. No common BML solution exists today – There are only point-to-point solutions. Point to Point solutions have inherent disadvantages: –Cost of developing individual languages. –Cost of developing translations between individual languages. –Inhibits the ability of military users to use tools interchangeably. –Manual and error prone process – “Swivel Chair” effect. No common solution to enable automated C2 to simulation interoperability.

5. UNCLASSIFIED Current State of C2 to Simulation Interoperability Message Driven Approaches –Use C2 System Messages (ADatP-3, LINK) –C2 System don’t have to be changed –M&S Specific Data not part of the C2 Information Exchange Requirements High Level Architecture (HLA) Driven Approaches –Simulations use Methods of the HLA –HLA Compliant Solutions easy to use with Interfaces –But C2 Methods and Data are not aligned with HLA General Underlying Problems –C2 and Simulation data are not aligned semantically –IT Architectures are not aligned

6. UNCLASSIFIED History of BML Developed by the US Army –Early versions included Eagle BML –CCSIL (Command and Control Simulation Interface Language) Initial representation of Operations Order in BML –Enabled unambiguous “machine instructions” –Can be exploited to input C2 tasking to simulations –Used a 5W representation of a Operations Order Culminated in Proof of Principle Demonstration in 2003 –Demonstrated BML for a Brigade/Battalion 5 paragraph Operations Order –Shown to Army Senior Leadership –Complete BML schema in the US Joint Common Data Base (JCDB) –Used a prototype US Army C2 System – Combined Arms Planning and Execution System (CAPES) and a US Army Entity Level Simulation - OneSAF

7. UNCLASSIFIED BML Representation – 5Ws Division attacks on order in zone to seize OBJ SLAM. Division MissionDivision Concept of Operations C2 Plans & Orders (C2IEDM) As Graphics As Data Protect (Division Rear Area) DSAOn orderTactical Combat Force BLUE-MECH- TM1 Protect (Division left flank) Zone (PL AMBER to PL BLUE) On orderScreenBLUE-CAV-SQN1 Support (B-A- BDE1) ZoneOn orderFollow and Support (B-A- BDE1) BLUE-ARMOR- BN1 ReserveAA EAGLEOn orderOccupyBLUE-AVN-BDE Seize (OBJ SLAM) ZoneOn orderFollows & Assumes (B-M- BDE2) BLUE-ARMOR- BDE1 Penetrate (MRR2) ZoneOn orderAttacksBLUE-MECH- BDE2 Fix (MRR1)ZoneOn orderAttacksBLUE-MECH- BDE1 WhyWhereWhenWhatWho

8. UNCLASSIFIED Why 5W Representation? WHO: which unit is to accomplish the task. –Normally identified by a Unit_ID. –When Unit_ID is in doubt, could be identified by location. –Could be identified by ROLE (Main Effort, Security Force, etc.) WHAT: the task to be accomplished. –Could be either an operation or as in the US by designating an ARTEP task. –Selection maybe dependent on how much the higher commander wants to limit his subordinate. The more specific the task the less it conforms to “mission type”. WHEN: the timing of the task. –Control type (AT a certain time, NLT a certain time, EVENT_PLUS_T (D+1, H+2, etc.) –Parameters: (DTG, Event, Time, Unit_ID, etc..)

9. UNCLASSIFIED Why 5W Representation? (2) WHERE: the location for accomplishing the task. –Lat/Long, UTM, MGRS, etc. –Terrain_Feature_ID, Graphic_Control_Measure_ID WHY: the reason for accomplishing the task. –Purpose term. (Attrit, Defeat, Destroy, Contain, Clear, etc..) –Parameters: (dependent on the term but required for clarification: Destroy what? Enemy Force, Terrain Feature) HOW: In mission type orders, how to do a task is left up to the subordinate. The “general” ‘How’ for the order itself is found in the context of the Commander’s Intent and the Concept of Operations.

10. UNCLASSIFIED XBML Test-bed demonstrated at I/ITSEC 2004

11. UNCLASSIFIED BML OV1 Command and Control Systems Modeling and Simulation Systems C2 Domain Language(s) JC3IEDM Crisis Management Language Logistics BML Air BML geoBML Maritime BML Ground BML …

12. UNCLASSIFIED Why use CDIEDM/JC3IEDM? ACTION-TASK WHAT ACTION-TASK-id (FK) ACTION-TASK -minimum-duration ACTION-TASK -maximum-duration ACTION-TASK -estimated-duration ACTION-TASK -planned-start-date ACTION-TASK -planned-end-date ACTION-TASK -planned-start-time ACTION-TASK -planned-end-time WHEN LOCATION WHERE LOCATION-id LOCATION -category-code ACTION WHAT ACTION-id ACTION-category-code ACTION-name ACTION-OBJECTIVE WHY ACTION-id (FK) ACTION-OBJECTIVE-index ACTION-OBJECTIVE-category- code UNIT-TYPE UNIT-TYPE-id (FK) UNIT-TYPE -category-code UNIT-TYPE -mobility-code UNIT-TYPE -service-code UNIT-TYPE -size-code (echelo n) ACTION-category-code ACTION-TASK ACTION-EVENT ORGANISATION-TYPE ORGANISATION-TYPE-id ORGANISATION-TYPE -category-code ORGANISATION-TYPE- CATEGORY-CODE UNIT-TYPE POST-TYPE ORGANISATION-id (FK) ACTION-id (FK) ORGANISATION-ACTION-ASSOCIATION-index ORGANISATION-ACTION-ASSOCIATION -category-code ORGANISATION-ACTION-ASSOCIATION -effective-date ORGANISATION-ACTION-ASSOCIATION -effective-time ORGANISATION-ACTION-ASSOCIATION -intent-text ORGANISATION-ACTION-ASSOCIATION ORGANISATION WHO ORGANISATION -category-code ORGANISATION -nickname-name ORGANISATION -type-id (FK) ORGANISATION-id (FK) ORGANIZATION-POINT FACILITY-LOCATION FEATURE-LOCATION PERSON-POINT MATERIAL-POINT

13. UNCLASSIFIED Why Coalition BML? A number of countries were addressing C2 to simulation interoperability. Military operations unlikely to be conducted outside an existing alliance or as part of a coalition. Pooling of national efforts seen to be the best way of developing an internationally recognised standard. Why the abbreviated form “C-BML” and not “CBML” –The UK MoD have trademarked CBML or Corporate Business Modelling Language as it refers to but they should note it is also known as Comic Book Mark-up Language in another domain.

14. UNCLASSIFIED C-BML is an extension of current C2IEDM (JC3IEDM) C2 Systems Robotics Future Activities C-BML+ Robotics C2 Systems C2IEDM/ JC3IEDM MIP Activities C2 C2 Systems M&S Systems C-BML MSG-048 Activities M&S C-BML+ Scope of C-BML

15. UNCLASSIFIED Triangular View of C-BML XML Web Services Terms rooted in Military Doctrine, such as AAP-6 … C2IEDM/ JC3IEDM

16. UNCLASSIFIED Aim of C-BML Development C-BML will provide an ontology for describing military missions and tasks using the C2IEDM/JC3IEDM. –Ontology enables unambiguous “machine instructions” –Can be exploited to input C2 tasking to simulations C-BML will establish a C2 and Simulation independent interoperability capability: –Automated initialization of C2 systems and simulation environments –C2 to Simulation information exchange –Will enable rapid M&S-based course-of-action analysis capability

17. UNCLASSIFIED Development of C-BML as a Standard (1) SISO approved establishment of a C-BML Study Group (SG) in September, 2004. Its Terms of Reference were to –Conduct a survey comprising as many international contributions applicable to the C-BML effort as possible –Develop a plan of how these various efforts identified in task one can contribute to a common C-BML standard/standard framework –Formulate a set of recommendations for a C-BML Product Development Group (PDG) Liaise with Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL) SG (Group established after C-BML SG in April 2005) Participants represent a wide body of expertise, including: –Representatives from 11 different nations –Over 100 participants at SG meetings –Industry, Academia, Government

18. UNCLASSIFIED Development of C-BML as a Standard (2) Numerous SG meetings and workshops (outside of SIW meetings) SG report published September 2005 with following recommendations: –SISO accept the C-BML Product Nomination –SISO establish a C-BML PDG –A phased approach be taken for development of the standard –The C-BML PDG be separate from a proposed MSDL PDG C-BML focuses on C2/M&S data interchange MSDL focuses on simulation initialization –C-BML and MSDL PDGs collaborate on areas of common interest –Maintain engagement with C2 community to ensure joint ownership and development of the standard SISO Standards Activity Committee (SAC) recommended approval of C-BML and MSDL PN to Executive Committee (EXCOM) in February 2006

19. UNCLASSIFIED Phased Approach to a C-BML Standard Phase 1 - C2IEDM/JC3IEDM in the form of an XML schema embedded into a WSDL Phase 2 - Tasking grammar and vocabulary (based on C2IEDM/JC3IEDM) Phase 3 - Reporting grammar and vocabulary (based on C2IEDM/JC3IEDM) Phase 4 - Development of a common ontology to enable composability

20. UNCLASSIFIED NATO ET 016/MSG 048 (1) NATO NMSG established an Exploratory Team (ET 016) to examine C-BML –Lead by France and USA with participation from 6 other nations; Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom Demonstrated feasibility of C-BML at NMSG meeting in Warsaw October 2005

21. UNCLASSIFIED Limited Technical Demonstration Demonstrated the feasibility of a C-BML/C2IEDM based interface standards using Web Services between national C2IS (US and French systems) and M&S-type systems Build experience to help structure a research programme Demonstration Architecture

22. UNCLASSIFIED NATO ET 016/MSG 048 (2) NMSG approved MSG 048 to start a 3 year Technical Activity Programme (TAP) from May 2006

23. UNCLASSIFIED Envisaged End State for NATO MSG 048 TAP Plus Canada

24. UNCLASSIFIED Operational Benefits Reduce or eliminate the overhead on workstation controllers Shared C2 and M&S semantics improve preciseness, conciseness, and automated processing Reduced time and effort, information input once and used by many Facilitates automated processing of plans and orders by applications, simulations, software agents and services Reduce time and effort to develop and share Operational Orders Improved Interoperability based on emerging standards for improve Service, Joint, Combined, and Coalition C2

25. UNCLASSIFIED Relationship with MSDL and C-BML C-BML C-BML, MSDL MSDL TANK POS TIME Simulation X A Series of C-BML orders Infrastructure Software e.g. Middleware C4I Real C4I Model Unit Model Soldier Model Robotic Force Tank Real Evaluation Intention Situation Object Signal Initialization Execution

26. UNCLASSIFIED  Chair  Maj Kevin Galvin  Co-Chair  Andreas Tolk (When SAC approves, according to SISO rules)  Vice Chair  Per Gustavsson  Secretary  Charles Turnitsa

27. UNCLASSIFIED Drafting Group  Editors  Michael Hieb  Assistant Editor Phase 1: Bruce Carlton  Members (Volunteers)  Charles Turnitsa  Gary Farmer  Curtis Blais  William Sudnikovich  Per Gustavsson  Kevin Galvin  Andreas Tolk  Rob Wittman  Henrik Nord  QI Huang  …

28. UNCLASSIFIED Schedule from Product Nomination Spring – Fall 06Version I Development: Collaborative and aligning development with MSDL with respect to the following:  The 5 Ws concept with potential extensions to support ‘Which’ and ‘How’ attribution.  The naming conventions and types of units, activities, interactions, and relationships.  The initial rules and guidelines for structure, content, and format.  The initial context for structure, content, and format (NATO, Land, etc.).  Continued collaborative grammar development. Version I Development: Collaborative and aligning development with MSDL with respect to the following:

29. UNCLASSIFIED Schedule from Product Nomination cont’d Spring ‘06 Apr. 2-7 PDG face-to-face meeting – Spring SIW, Huntsville, AL Summer ‘06 Jun. 19-22 PDG face-to-face meeting – Euro SIW, Stockholm, Sweden Review, DG & PDG report Summer ‘0625-26 July George Mason University, Washington (Hieb host) Intermediate Meeting(s) Fall ‘06PDG face-to-face meeting – Fall SIW, Orlando, FL Spring ‘07Balloting, Version 1.0

30. UNCLASSIFIED Questions CBML-SAC-PDG reflector