Distributed Mission Operations DMO and High Level Architecture HLA

1
Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) and High
Level Architecture (HLA)

• Major T.A. Rags Ragsdale
• DMOCBattlespace Engineer
• 5 Apr 2005

2
Purpose / Scope

• Combined Air Forces Distributed Mission
  Operations (CAF-DMO)
• Virtual Flag
• Distributed Mission Operations Center (DMOC)
• Exercise network
• Players
• Challenges

3
Chain of Command
Air Combat Command
Lt Gen Wright
Air Warfare Center
Maj Gen Goldfein
505 CCW
Col McGuirk
505 DWG
Col (S) Wiegand
4
Current DMO Architecture
Theater Level
SOF DMO
CAOC-N
AFRL
DMOC Battle Mgt Sim Ctr Exercise Support TE and
Dev
505 ECS, C2WS Battlestaff Trng/Exer
Large Force
CAF DMO
Navy
Space DMO
Army
3 AWACS MTCs
DMO--VF
Inter- Team
DMO Network (DMON)
3 F-15C MTCs
Team
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Annual
5
DMO GameplanFuture Architecture
Space DMO
Theater Level
SOF DMO
JSB
NAFs
AFRL
JWFC
DMOC Btl Mgt Sim Ctr Exer Support TE and Dev
Large Force
Battlestaff Trng/Exer AOC FTU
TACP
Mobility DMO
TACP
DMON
TACP
CAOC-N
CAF DMO
Inter- Team
TACP
AOC
TACP
AOC
Army
TACP
AOC
CRC
CRC
Navy
CRC
CRC
CRC
CRC
Team
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Annual
6
CAF DMO Beddown
F-16
B-52
AWACS
A-10
F-16
F-16
F-15E
F-15
B-1
A-10
A-10
F-15E
F-16
F-16
F-15
A-10
RJ
F-15E
A-10
F-16
F-16
RQ-1
B-2
F/A-22
A-10
F-15
F-16
HH-60
A-10
A-10
F-16
F-16
F-16
A-10
F-16
F-15E
HC-130
F-16
F-16
F-16
AWACS
F-16
F-16
HH-60
A-10
HC-130
F-16
B-52
F-117
JSTARS
F-16
B-1
A-10
F-15
F-16
A-10
AWACS
F-15
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
7
Virtual Flags

• Distributed Mission Operations Center (DMOC)
• Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, NM
• Quarterly, theater-level exercises
• Sensor-to-shooter kill chain simulation
• Robust Live-Virtual-Constructive environment
• Heterogeneous Network
• Joint Training and Experimentation Network (JTEN)
• DMON
• T-1s

8
VFSYNTHETIC BATTLESPACE
MDST
Joint STARS
E-P3
COBRA BALL
UAV
PATRIOT FU
PATRIOT ADA BDE ICC
CGS
CORPS/DIV TOC
CRC
NELLIS CAOC/BCD
TCT/TST
MTS
CRC
CSAR ASSETS
CRC
TG 154.2 9th MEF
Rivet Joint
E-3C
E-3D
9
DMOC Federates

• Federates 20
• Entities 10,000
• Heartbeat 5 sec 55 sec
• Peak Bandwidth 10.3 mbps
• Typical Bandwidth 6 mbps
• Varying latency and fidelity requirements

10
(No Transcript)
11
Notional Network Design
12
External Federates
13
Exercise Planning Wide Area Network Design
Elmendorf
Battle Creek
Des Moines
Bradley
Offutt AFB
Schriever AFB
Whiteman AFB
St Louis
Nellis AFB
Ft Sill
Kirtland AFB
Mesa
El Segundo
Tinker AFB
Charleston AFB
Luke AFB
Robins
Ft Huachuca
Ft Bliss
1500 kbps
Lackland AFB
Eglin
3000 - 45000 kbps
Orlando
Live and Virtual Simulators
Constructive Simulations and Support
14
DMOC Networks
Seattle(Boeing)
Battle Creek
Hanscom AFB (CEIF)
Bradley, CT
Ft. Dodge
Offutt AFB (RJMT)
DTOC
WPAFB
Fallon
Pentagon (CVC)
JNTF JNIC (SWC)
Hill AFB
Damneck
St. Louis (CIDS/VWC)
Langley AFB
JFCOM (JTASC)
Nellis (CAOC-N)
Charleston AFB
Tinker AFB
CWIC
DMOC
NTC
29th Palms
Ft Sill
Luke
TTGP
58SOW
AFRL Mesa
Robins AFB
Ft Benning
Ft. Huachuca
19 SOS
Greenville
505 CCW
Ft Bliss
Tyndall AFB
Ft Hood
Eglin AFB
IWC
DMON NOC Orlando, FL
Not all cloud nodes shown!
As of 14 Jun 04
15
HLA Challenges

• Federation development process creates monolithic
  federations resistant to change and growth
• Adding new federates is a cumbersome process
• Common RTIs (vendors and versions)
• Common FOM
• DMOC connects with up to 20 sites at a time
• NOT a static (stable) would-be federation
• No FOM (.fed) flexibility
• FED file distribution is a logistical challenge
• A new federate with a unique SOM requires all
  federates to update their .fed files

16
Adding Federates
Federate A
Federate B
RPR-based object XX SOM
RPR-based object XX SOM
Some Federation
AB.fed
Addition of federate C whose SOM is different
from the current federation FOM requires
federates A and B to update their runtime FED
files.
This does not address RTI compatibility (even
bigger problem!).
Multiply this process by 20 federates and 15
exercises annually.
17
HLA Challenges

• No RTI to RTI interoperability
• Reliance on bridges adds complexity and latency
• Changing RTIs and FOMs requires engineering
  efforts
• Additional cost and time
• No direct support for legacy DIS
• Reliance on gateways adds complexity and
  latency
• RTI and FOM incompatibilities
• Performance and scaling concerns
• Perceived or real
• Tactical level simulation (i.e. Air to air combat
  maneuvering)
• Sender- based filtering

18
DMOCs Wish List for HLA

• Allow individual federates to load SOM-based FED
  files vs. FOM-based at start up (federation
  changes, FOM flexibility)
• Revisit the wire standard for the RTI protocol
  (RTI interoperability, performance)
• Sockets vs. CORBA vs. RPC vs. whatever trade
  study
• Pick the one with the best performance, establish
  a communication protocol and pursue
  standardization
• Open the wire protocol to allow users to develop
  their own Local RTI Components (LRCs)
• RTI vendors become true LRC vendors working with
  the same interface
• Provide built-in support for DIS (support
  legacy DIS)
• Treat incoming DIS as RPR objects and
  interactions
• Broadcast DIS PDUs for all published RPR data

19
Conclusion

• DMO
• CAF-DMO (Low volume high frequency team
  training)
• Virtual Flags (Theater-level exercises low
  frequency)
• Complex network topology (Asia North America
  Europe)
• T-1s
• ATM Clouds
• Future calls for 100s federates 10,000s
  entities
• Varying latency and fidelity requirements
• DMO is predominantly DIS (years of
  infrastructure)
• Move to HLA hinges on solving few showstoppers

20
Questions
MISSION REHEARSAL
SCHEDULING
INTEGRATION
DISTRIBUTED MISSION OPERATIONS
EXPERIMENT
TRAIN
REPOSITORY
SCENARIOS
TEST
RANGE INTEGRATION
DECISION SUPPORT
17