Army Constructive Training Federation MultiResolution Modeling ACTFMRM

1
Army Constructive Training Federation
Multi-Resolution Modeling (ACTF-MRM)

• Anita Zabek, MITRE
• Dave Prochnow, MITRE
• Hugh Henry, MITRE
• Mike Wright, PEO STRI
• September 2004

2
Agenda

• ACTF-MRM Overview
• System Architecture
• Multi-Resolution Modeling
• Consistency of Platform Representations in C4I
  Systems
• Current State of ACTF-MRM
• Summary

3
What is ACTF-MRM?

• The Army Constructive Training Federation
  Multi-Resolution Modeling (ACTF-MRM) is a command
  post exercise driver designed for training land
  component commanders and their staffs
• It provides a simulated operational environment,
  in which computer generated forces stimulate and
  respond to the command and control processes of
  the training audience
• From this point on, ACTF-MRM is referred to as
  ACTF

4
Benefits of ACTF

• Multi-Resolution Modeling for training at both
  the operational and tactical levels
• Operational level represented in Corps Battle
  Simulation (CBS) and Combat Service Support
  Training Support System (CSSTSS), including
  combat operations and logistics
• Entity-level simulation capabilities, such as
  MOUT and MOOTW, through Joint Conflict and
  Tactical Simulation (JCATS)
• Consistent representation of army platforms
  throughout all peripheral systems
• Accomplished by using a single source for
  de-aggregation
• Run Time Manager (RTM) interfaces with C4I
  systems
• TACSIM models intelligence functions

5
ACTF v1 Simulation Logical Architecture
R T I
JCATS
JCATS Bridge
HLA
CSSTSS
ADAPTOR
CSSTSS Global Server
HLA
ALSP
CBS ALMA
ADAPTOR
FMT
CBS GEEP
HLA
HLA
MI
ALSP
FTP
RTM
SITH
HLA
HLA
TACSIM
6
ACTF Technical Challenges

• Heterogeneous simulation environment
• High Level Architecture (HLA)
• Aggregate Level Simulation Protocol (ALSP)
• Others
• De-aggregation of objects
• ACTF employs a single mechanism to ensure
  consistency of laydown
• Fair Fight issues when objects controlled by
  simulations of different resolutions interact
• Different algorithms, weapons data, and internal
  terrain representation

7
Object Transfer

• CBS always owns aggregate objects (e.g.
  Ground.Maneuver)
• CBS has full control of its objects in the
  aggregate zone
• When CBS objects enter the entity zone, CBS
  publishes templated entity-level data
• Control of CBS-templated entities can be
  transferred over to JCATS, at which point they
  become JCATS-simulated entities over HLA
• Consistent, detailed interactions occur between
  JCATS-simulated entities
• CBS continues to publish the simulated aggregates
  with updates based on activities of
  JCATS-simulated entities

8
CBS-JCATS Interoperability in ACTF v1
Ownership Transfer
Indirect Fire
Ground-to-Air
Air-to-Ground
9
UFL 02 Architecture Example of How Entity
Representations May Become Inconsistent in C4I
systems
ACTF solves inconsistency problem by employing a
common source for deaggregation
10
ACTF v1 C4I Architecture
CBS Templated Unit Data

Aggregate Zone
Army Battle Command System
C4ISR Msgs
Entity Zone
JCATS Entity Data
11
ACTF State at End of FY04 (1/2)

• ACTF v1 has resulted in a significant step for
  future Army training
• Operational and tactical levels integrated in
  same HLA federation.
• Object control transferred between low-resolution
  and high-resolution simulations
• Rudimentary interfaces between aggregate-level
  and entity-level simulated objects
• Consistent platform-level representation across
  all systems

12
ACTF State at End of FY04 (2/2)

• Only a subset of ACTF v1 is being fielded
• Improved stability is needed prior to fielding
  the entire system
• More load testing is also needed
• US Army is committed to further development of
  ACTF
• ACTF v2 in FY05
• Improved stability and performance
• New functionality
• Alignment with Joint MRM, Air Space
  Constructive Sim (ACE)
• Planned inclusion of WARSIM and Objective OneSAF
  in later years

13
Summary

• ACTF is an ambitious project with strong
  potential for improving Army training
• In particular, it enhances simulation-based
  training through
• Multi-Resolution Modeling
• Consistency of Platform Representations in C4I
  Systems