1. Merging National Battle Management Language Initiatives for NATO Projects
Dr. Andreas Tolk
VMASC, Old Dominion University, United States
Dr. Michael R. Hieb
Alion Science & Technology, United States
Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen!
The following presentation is a real international NATO presentation, as we have collaborators from four nations. I would like to thank my co-authors: Mike Hieb from the US, Kevin Galvin from the UK, and Lionel Khimeche from France. Although I am working in the US for three years now, I am from Germany, so you can count that 3 ½ NATO nations worked on this idea.
However, I have to warn you: I intend to raise much more interest in this topic and want to show you that the work done so far should be brought to the broader NATO community to generate feedback to us. We want more nations to actively participate, and we already established some frameworks to do so.
Furthermore, this work is based on recommendations of the previous NMSG Conference in Antalya, Turkey. Therefore, be careful what you wish for, we may take you serious and come back with derived proposals like the following one.
Major Kevin Galvin
Ministry of Defence, United Kingdom
Lionel Khimeche
Délégation Générale pour l’Armement France
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

2. Critical Importance of Data What is a Battle Management Language
Presentation Outline
Critical Importance of Data
What is a Battle Management Language
Existing National Efforts
United States
United Kingdom
France
International Activities and Candidates
Coalition Battle Management Language
NATO Pathfinder Activities
Recommendations
We structured our presentation as follows
To set the operational framework – and we see M&S as a tool to support the soldiers of NATO, not as a value per se – I want to talk about the importance of data, current shortcomings, and how we want to close the gap.
Then, I will give you on overview on the ideas underlying the Battle Management Language concept: What is it, what is it for, what can you do, etc?
To show you that this is more than just another nice academically valuable paper, I want to point you to some works already done within NATO nations, and as we know by now, this is just a fraction of related work going on in other nations as well.
Finally, I want to show you the international collaboration frames currently in use to facilitate collaboration and I will give some recommendations on how to use this potential to fulfill NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

3. The Critical Importance of Data
Introduction
So let us start with the first topic:
Why is data so critically important?
During the last workshop in Antalya, Turkey, at least a third of the presentations dealt with data exchange between the systems. We still have the problem that we have “stove piped” solutions support the NATO requirements for
Command and Control
Training
Functional support of operations
And the other application domains as mentioned in the NATO M&S Master Plan.
Our vision, however, points away from the system centric approaches characterized by systems, interfaces, and federations. We are targeting an information centric environment.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

4. NATO moves towards NET CENTRIC OPERTIONS & WARFARE (NCOW)
New Requirements
NATO moves towards NET CENTRIC OPERTIONS & WARFARE (NCOW)
Text formats (ADatP-3) and binary formats (TADIL) reached the limit of their potential
Heterogeneous service-oriented architectures
Web-enabled applications for easier collaboration
NCOW is about networks
Networking people and organizations
IT infrastructure is enabler, not driver
“Power to the Edge”
And NATO does this as well.
The idea is to move towards NET CENTRIC OPERATIONS AND WARFARE.
Many people think that this means to web-enable our systems and to bring them into a common infrastructure. But Net-Centricity is not a technique, it is a new philosophy, a real paradigm shift for Command and Control.
However, technology is clearly a necessary enabler. If we want to reach the warfighter and support him
- wherever he is
whatever he does, and
whatever system he uses
We have to exchange what we know.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

5. Net Centric Value Chain
Awareness
Quality
Knowledge
Quality
Information
Quality
Data
Quality
This slide shows the value chain of net centricity
Everything starts with data. If our data is inconsistent and incomplete, we will have worse decisions.
If we put data into context, for example by using a common shared reference model or a common information exchange data model, we reach the next level of quality: information
knowing how to apply the information, adding dynamics and agile behavior, we reach the first cognitive level: knowledge about what is going on.
the highest level, however, is the level of awareness. The leader understands his options as well as the options of the enemy, and he is able to communicate this perception with his staff and allies to create a common situational awareness
Until recently, with text based messages and unique data models, we remained on the data level. New concepts like common operational pictures and common information exchange data models lifted us up to the information level.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

6. Implications
Data describing the planed, conducted and supported operations are of critical importance
National Battle Management Language (BML) efforts migrate C2 into the information age
Digitised tasks, missions, and Operation Plans
Digitised Commander’s Intent
Related Challenge: C3I and M&S Systems Interoperability (NATO MSG 2003)
Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO)
Multilateral Interoperability Program (MIP) / Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model (C2IEDM)
Among the most important data domains in this context is the data domain describing the military operations.
Nothing is as important to the success of an operation than the description of the forces, their capabilities, and the intend of the commander how to use them.
What BML does is targeting this area. We are directly using two recommendations derived from last years conference: A closer relationship between SISO and NMSG for international collaboration and the use of the Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model, a NATO standard for information exchange between C2 systems, for M&S purposes.
We will deal with this later in more detail.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

7. What is BML Definitions
We now know what BML should do, but what is BML.
Let us have a look at the definitions:
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

8. Currently, the Commander’s Intent is Prose, not Data!
Current Situation
Operations Orders are developed and distributed as textual documents without underlying data elements
Operational Graphics are also not supported by underlying data elements
Our current approach is a loosely knit “language” tailored to interpersonal communication.
Its vocabulary is found in Doctrinal Manuals, but it lacks clearly delineated rules governing its use (semantics and syntax).
It is riddled with ambiguity and overlapping definitions.
As already pointed out, the current situation concerning data describing Command and Control on the battlefield is driven by human-to-human communication needs.
Operational orders and graphics are not supported by underlying standardized data structures.
The definition of terms is suitable for humans, but not rigid enough for machines, and often not even readable – and even less understandable – by machines.
In summary, the commanders intend is characterized by prose instead of unambiguous data.
Currently, the Commander’s Intent is Prose, not Data!
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

9. What is BML BML = Battle Management Language Command and Control
State of the Art
Human-to-human language
Essence of Orders and Operation Plans often in the FREETEXT section
Lack of data standards coping with new requirements
Where do we want to go
Digitised system
Automated systems consuming information (not simply data)
Data/Information oriented communication
BML belongs into the domain of Command and Control. It does not want to cover all aspects of interoperability or data exchange between humans and systems supporting operations, but it should migrate the current state of the art towards
Digitized systems
Applicability to systems without humans-in-the-loop, and
Setting data into context – resulting in information – by using a common information exchange data model
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

10. BML Scope & Requirements
BML must be unambiguous
BML must not constrain the full expression of the commanders intent
BML must exchange relevant information with all components in the (virtual) battle space
C2IS
C2IS
Simulation
Systems
This results in the following requirements and the BML scope:
- BML must be unambiguous
- BML must not constrain the full expression of the commanders intent
- BML must exchange relevant information with all components in the battle space
As such, BML is not only facilitating Information Exchange between C2 systems, the same sort of information needed to command and control real forces can be applied to simulation systems and – in future scenarios – robotic forces.
Robotic
Forces
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

11. Doctrine Protocols Representation BML Views BML Terms rooted in XML
Military Doctrine,
such as
AAP-6 …
XML
Web Services/
Grid Services
Doctrine
Protocols
BML
How is this reached?
We decided to divide and conquer:
BML is described in three views:
every term is rooted in doctrine. There is not a single term which is not well defined at least in a military manual, a concepts, etc. NATO AAP-6 or the JP1.01 are good starting points
The representation of the command elements and their relations is done using the NATO standard C2IEDM. We are currently evaluating another ontological layer above C2IEDM, but the information exchange is based on C2IEDM
Finally, the executable tasks must reach the user. To this end, web and grid services based on open web-based standards are used for the protocol view of BML.
Representation
Command & Control
Information Exchange
Data Model (C2IEDM)
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

12. Existing National Efforts
United States
United Kingdom
France
The slides shown so far were mostly produced by the US BML group, however, when we started to present these ideas in SISO workshops – starting 2001 – more and more international partners came to make us aware of there work. There are even some prototypes out there.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

13. Multi-Source Database BML acts as the common denominator
United States (1/2)
BML GUI
Combined
Arms
Planning &
Execution
System
OneSAF
Test
Bed
XML – BML
Parser
C4ISI
Multi-Source Database
Augmented with BML
This slide shows the US Army Prototype (proof of feasibility).
We used the US C4I Planning System CAPES – Combined Arms Planning & Execution Systems – to generate an operations plan.
Via an XML interface, these data were brought into a data base (structured based on the Joint Common Database – JCDB) and manipulated via a BML Graphical User Interface.
The result was brought into the simulation system OneSAF Testbed and executed.
CAPES
OTB
BML acts as the common denominator
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

14. United States (2/2) SOAP S U O D A P P BML GUI JDBC Interface CAPES
MSDB
Data
Updates S O A P
Data for
OTB
XML
document
MSDB
XML
Parser
C4ISI
JDBC Interface
ODBC
In the next phase, we took this prototype and chopped the parts apart, connecting them with web-services. Also, we replace currently the JCDB data with C2IEDM data.
This simple steps allowed us to move from local net solutions to the Internet and global applications. During I/ITSEC 2003, we had the components distributed between Florida and Virginia, and we were able to support collaborative planning without having to touch the components.
Currently, we are bringing new systems in on both sides, the US Air Force Planning System and the Joint Semi-Automated Forces (JSAF) simulation system.
OTB U D P
C2IEDM
CAPES
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

15. UK R&D community recognized
United Kingdom (1/2)
UK R&D community recognized
C2 and M&S interoperability needed (in particular for training)
Network Enabled Capability (NEC) increases the burden of manual translations
Need of a common language across the functions
Human and machine interpretation needed
Future applications, such as Course of Action Analysis using simulation within C2
Strong alignment with the US processes
Evaluation of the US BML approach
Instead of implementing its own prototype, UK decided to evaluate the US prototype.
Even before this evaluation, the experiences in former exercises and studies already showed the urgent need for reducing manual translation between components, if the UK is serious about Network Enabled Capability, which is the UK counterpart to the US Net Centric Warfare.
The use of the US BML approach fits into this analysis, although the requirement analysis showed some areas of necessary improvements, which will be evaluated in a common study under the umbrella of SISO.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

16. United Kingdom (2/2) Conceptual approach
Evaluation of Command & Control Simulation Interface Language (CCSIL/STOW97)
Software Agents as Facilitators of Interoperability in Collective Training (SAFICT)
Traditional approach: data translation and exchange via interfaces
Proposed approach: Adaptive Middleware Concept (definition and management of participating systems)
National (UK) Solution must be adaptable to US Net Centric Operations and Warfare
The conceptual approach of the UK targets the operational needs, not the technical constraints or limitations:
The of Command & Control Simulation Interface Language (CCSIL), as used in exercises like the Synthetic Theatre of War (STOW), was a step into the right direction, but CCSIL was to academic and machine friendly.
A new approach, based on software agents enabling mediation between various components, must result in a soldier-friendly adaptive middleware
This solution must be adaptable to the US approach
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

17. France (1/2) APLET = Aide à la Planification d’Engagement Tactique
Objectives
Support Military Decision Making Process (Course of Action Analyses)
Evaluate simulation based capabilities for operational systems
Explore C3I and M&S Interoperability issues
Studies
APLET V1
APLET V2
2002
APLET Planning
France is in the process of joining the BML activities coming from a different direction. Starting late 2001, the conducted a study the possibility to set up a planning support tool on tactical level, called APLET. You heard about it already in Presentation number 3 of this workshop.
The objectives were to
Support the military decision making process
Evaluate simulation based capabilities, and
The explore C3I and M&S issues
The studies were followed by prototypical experiments.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

18. France (2/2) SICF APLET Architecture C2IEDM APLET Data Model OperatorWS
SICF
Simulation
XML (SICF)
HLA
Initialisation
data
APLET system
XML
This slide shows a very high-level view of the APLET architecture. Core idea is to use a common APLET database to facilitate the communication between the real-world C3I system SICF and a simulation component.
Connectivity between the components is established via XML based message exchange.
Currently, the APLET data model is aligned with the C2IEDM.
Based on the high degree of similarity, participating experts from France, US, and UK decided to proposed a common experiment merging the ideas into a net centric system comprising components from all participating nations, based on common formats and open standards.
APLET
Architecture
C2IEDM
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

19. International Activities and Candidates
Coalition BML
NATO Pathfinder
MIP
What I want to talk about in this last section is how we currently try to bring these ideas together and what other organizational constraints should be taken into account.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

20. SISO Coalition BML Recommendation NMSG Conference 2003
Finally, a closer relationship between the NATO M&S Group and the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO), in particular the observation, and where appropriate, active participation in Study Groups and Product Development Groups, is likely to support the process of gaining C3I and M&S interoperability effectively.
SISO Study Group on “Coalition Battle Management Language” was started in September 2003
SISO Reflector
Join Group SIW-SG-CBML
                           
                           
As already stated earlier, last years conference let to the recommendation to work closely together with the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO).
We would like to invite the NATO M&S community in general, and in particular the NATO M&S Group, to follow this recommendation and join the SISO Study Group on standards for a Coalition Battle Management Language.
Please see me for details in the break, but I just want to make you aware that – if you are interested to run your system in this environment – SISO is the place to be to standardize a solution. Study Groups are the place to actively influence future standards as well as the development of current standards.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

21. Multilateral Interoperability Programme
Recommendation NMSG Conference 2003
The Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model (C2IEDM), … is … the data model of choice for the Multinational Interoperability Programme (MIP) connecting NATO’s Command and Control systems and the basis for various national C3I systems …; the extension to M&S systems is perceived as a valuable option.
C2IEDM for representation of the information exchange layer
Additional work required in the domain of military and C2 ontologies
Complete definition at
Another recommendation of last year was the use of C2IEDM for M&S purposes. If you know nothing about the C2IEDM, please visit the MIP website. It comprises – among more valuable information – a complete documentation set of the C2IEDM.
Within all BML projects so far, we identified possible improvements and nation and/or M&S specific extensions and enhancements. We, as the NMSG community, must bring this information back to the MIP managers as valuable feedback.
VMASC just finished its work on a C2IEDM based storage web service. In case of interest, let me know.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

22. NATO MSG activity MSG-027 “Pathfinder”
NATO Pathfinder
NATO MSG activity MSG-027 “Pathfinder”
Initiated by the NATO M&S Master Plan
Enable different purpose federations composed of
Simulations and tools of NATO agencies
Simulations and tools of nations
Command and Control
Common Integration Framework
BML is directly applicable to MSG-027
Last but not least, we see a lot of potential to support the NMSG Pathfinder activity using BML. You will find some examples in the proceedings, but its applicability for integration of command and control is obvious.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

23. Recommendations Summary
Let us summaries the main points of the briefing.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

24. Set up a NATO BML expert group
Summary
Set up a NATO BML expert group
Evaluate national BML efforts
Participate in Coalition BML
Align BML with Multilateral Interoperability Programme (MIP)
Information exchange based on C2IEDM
Extensions and enhancements in alignment with MIP Data Management Group
BML is not another paper tiger. It is getting speed and many international candidates expressed their interest, among them Sweden, Australia, Israel, and more.
To evaluate national BML efforts (which may require to identify them first, as they can come with very different names) and to participate in the international standardization efforts, NATO should set up an expert group, which does not exclude some experimentation.
Finally, the alignment of such activities with the MIP group is highly recommended. If we take the recommendations of last year serious, this can path the way to real and meaningful interoperability of C3I and M&S and will enable operational use of M&S functionality in real war fighting systems.
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004

25. Questions? Dr. Andreas Tolk Dr. Michael R. Hieb Major Kevin Galvin
Virginia Modeling Analysis & Simulation Center (VMASC)
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 23529, United States
Dr. Michael R. Hieb
Alion Science &Technology
1901 N. Beauregard St.
Alexandria, VA , United States
Major Kevin Galvin
Ministry of Defence,
Directorate of Equipment Capability (Ground Manoeuvre), Darenth House, 84 Main Road
Sundridge, Nr Sevenoaks
Kent, TN 14 6ER, United Kingdom
Lionel Khimeche
Délégation Générale pour l’Armement (DGA); DSA/SPOTI
18, rue du Docteur Zamenhof
Fort d’Issy les Moulineaux
92131 Issy les Moulineaux cedex, France
I would like to say thank you
to my co-authors,
to DMSO, AMSO, Joint Forces Command and General Dynamics for the funding received to make this possible, and
To all of you for listening to this presentation.
We have a lot of publications out there, so please check the references in the paper as soon as you have the proceedings.
Also, feel free to contact me in case of need.
Are there any questions?
NATO MSG Conference “M&S to address NATO’s new and existing Military Requirements”, Koblenz, Germany, 7./8. October 2004