MAGTF Tactical Warfare Simulation (MTWS) Interoperability
Issues
Curtis L. Blais
VisiCom Laboratories, Inc.
10052 Mesa Ridge
Court
San Diego, California 92121
curt@visicom.com
ABSTRACT
The Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Tactical Warfare
Simulation (MTWS) is a computer-assisted, multi-sided warfare gaming system
designed to support training of U. S. Marine Corps commanders and their staffs.
In recent years, new training and operational support requirements are extending
the mission of MTWS in several directions, from participation in exercises
involving individual platform simulators and live-fire ranges, to participation
in joint exercises involving multiple, dissimilar warfare models, to stimulation
of real-world Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence
(C4I) systems. Achieving these requirements demands varying levels of
interoperability, from common representation of the battlespace to exchange of
data through common message formats.
MTWS development is addressing interoperability issues
across these various fronts. This paper describes (1) MTWS capabilities in the
Aggregate Level Simulation Protocol (ALSP) Joint Training Confederation (JTC),
with particular focus on a planned approach for interfacing dissimilar ground
models; (2) a proposed architecture for interfacing to the Distributed
Interactive Simulation (DIS); and (3) initial capabilities and planned
development approach for interoperability of MTWS with Marine Corps tactical C4I
systems. In each area, technical issues are discussed, pointing out benefits and
limitations of the proposed approaches.
1. SYSTEM OVERVIEW
MTWS is a warfare gaming system designed to support
training of U. S. Marine Corps commanders and their staffs. MTWS primarily
supports Command Post Exercises (CPX) in which combat forces, supporting arms,
and results of combat are modeled by the system. MTWS can be used to plan and
rehearse tactical operations involving amphibious landings, air operations, fire
schedules, and ground schemes of maneuver against a variety of opposing force
operations under varying environmental conditions. The system can be operated at
real-time, slower than real-time, or faster than real-time as directed by the
system operator.
The architecture of MTWS has been described in previous
papers (Blais 1994; Blais 1995) and is illustrated in Figure 1. MTWS executes on
a distributed architecture consisting of one or more simulation processors, a
system control workstation, and one or more user workstations. The system
provides the flexibility to be configured to meet the size and needs of the
supported exercise. The initial fielded configuration consists of three Hewlett
Packard model 9000/755 workstations as simulation processors, one HP 9000/755 as
the system control workstation, and twenty-six HP 9000/735 user workstations.
These processors were procured from the Navy's Tactical Advanced Computer
(TAC-3) contract.
Current and future MTWS sites in the continental United
States are shown in Figure 2. MTWS is operational at the Marine Corps Combat
Development Command (MCCDC), Quantico, Virginia; First Marine Expeditionary
Force (I MEF), Camp Pendleton, California; II MEF, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina;
III MEF, Okinawa, Japan; and Joint Training, Analysis, and Simulation Center
(JTASC), Norfolk, Virginia. A test suite is installed at the Marine Corps
Tactical Systems Support Activity (MCTSSA), Camp Pendleton, California for Post
Deployment Software Support efforts. A new installation at the Amphibious
Warfare Training School, Coronado, California is in progress. Future planned
sites include the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC), Twenty-nine
Palms, California. The new and future sites will use HP 9000/770 workstations
procured from the Navy TAC-4 contract.
2. INTEROPERABILITY CONCEPT
The Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), General C. C.
Krulak, promulgated the Commandant's Planning Guidance (CMG) on 1 July 1995.
This document provides the Commandant's strategic direction for a ``Total Force
Marine Corps.'' The CMG serves as the keystone document for Marine Corps
planning and provides a common direction to the Marine Corps Total Force. The
Total Force Marine Corps concept integrates active and reserve components into a
balanced warfighting force. Paramount to force readiness is training.
"History has shown that even in an era of diminishing
resources, if we stay highly trained and ready, we can survive both as
individuals and as an institution. It is imperative that we never be found
lacking in our capability or ability to do what is expected or asked.
During previous times of fiscal constraints, the Marine Corps has always
turned to its training and education systems to keep it s warfighting
edge. We must do that today. The use of simulation, virtual reality,
models, and various warfighting games can make subsequent field training
more effective. We will pursue that kind of technology." [CMG, p 13]
|
During the development of MTWS over the past five years,
there has been a revolutionary change in application of warfare simulation
systems. No longer are such systems used solely as CPX drivers for single
military branch command staffs. Instead, advancing hardware and software
technologies are enabling warfare simulation to span several dimensions of
training, including application to the planning and conduct of actual combat
operations. These dimensions include individual, team, and small unit training,
command staff training, and Joint staff training. The Marine Corps Modeling and
Simulation Master Plan (MCMSMP) states: ``Marine Corps models and simulators
will be interoperable with those of the other Services, allowing the Marine
Corps to fully participate in joint and combined exercises.'' The goal is to
create a seamless, distributed, and interoperable environment that enhances
warfighting capabilities.
MTWS is a key component in the Marine Corps Master Plan.
To cover the broad mission and combined arms capabilities of the Marine Corps,
MTWS must provide an effective representation of land, air, sea, and littoral
warfare. While MTWS alone cannot meet the training requirements across all
dimensions, it can serve as a primary tool in achievement of those objectives.
To do so, MTWS must be able to interact with complementing systems and
technologies. The various dimensions were implied in the architectural diagram
in Figure 1:
The following paragraphs describe current and projected
capabilities of MTWS across these dimensions, discussing interoperability issues
addressed or needing to be addressed.
3. INTEROPERABILITY WITH OTHER CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATIONS
"We will be a Total Force, active and reserve, able
to effectively integrate a full range of capabilities--ours as well as
those of other services, agencies, and nations--into a unified and focused
instrument of national power." [CMG, p 3]
" 'Jointness' is a key warfighting capability. It is more about
headquarters and command elements than it is about the capabilities of any
individual unit. With our experience in coordinating the elements of a
MAGTF and the 'jointness' inherent in our relationship with the Navy, the
Marine Corps possesses the resident expertise necessary to coordinate
effectively ground, air, and sea forces." [CMG, p 6]
|
MTWS is a member of the 1996 ALSP Joint Training
Confederation (JTC). Table 1 provides a summary of the data and messages MTWS
shares with the other simulation systems. The current ALSP functionality
supports a rich array of air, surface, and ground warfare, including
Intelligence play using the Tactical Simulation (TACSIM) model and Electronic
Warfare using the Joint Electronic Combat Electronic Warfare Simulation
(JECEWSI). One of the most critical elements missing from the current
confederation is an interface between dissimilar ground models, such as MTWS and
CBS.
Table 1: Data and Messages Shared By MTWS and Other Systems
| |
MTWS Owned Objects |
Ghosted Objects (from other actors) |
Interaction___Messages |
Output Reports |
AIR.
- CRUISE_MISSILE
- FIXED_WING
- HELICOPTER
GROUND.MANEUVER.
SEA.SURFACE.
.
.
|
AIR.
- CRUISE_MISSILE
- FIXEDWING
- HELICOPTER
- TBM
GROUND.MANEUVER.
- ALLRAD
- COMBAT
- HIMAD
- RADAR
- SHORAD
- TEL
SEA.SURFACE.
.
|
ENGAGEMENT.
- AIR_TO_AIR
- AIR_TO_SHIP
- AIR_TO_GROUND
- GROUND_TO_AIR
- GROUND_TO_SHIP
- SHIP_TO_AIR
- SHIP_TO_GROUND
- GROUND_TO
_GROUND
- ..ARTILLERY
..
.
.
|
REPORT.ATTRITION.
- AIR_TO_AIR
- AIR_TO_SHIP
- AIR_TO_GROUND
- GROUND_TO_AIR
- GROUND_TO_SHIP
- GROUND_TO_GROUND
|
Concepts for interfacing dissimilar ground models have
been discussed over the past three years. Three alternative approaches have been
evaluated. These are described in the following paragraphs, together with the
advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
3.1 Standard ALSP Interactions
The standard approach to ALSP interactions is for models
(``actors'') to broadcast attributes describing their own objects and to receive
messages from other actors describing events that could affect their own
objects. For example, MTWS broadcasts information about air missions that are
being modeled in MTWS. Another actor, such as AWSIM, reads that information and
can determine that the ``ghosted'' air mission can be detected and engaged.
AWSIM then sends out an interaction message indicating that some number of
missiles have been launched at the MTWS air mission. The owning actor, MTWS in
this case, computes the losses to its own air mission. This is a straightforward
rule - the owning actor computes the effects of ordnance against its own
objects. The problem is, there can be fundamental differences in damage
assessment algorithms and associated parametric data between two models. When
firing against MTWS air missions, MTWS may compute one result, on a consistent
basis, whereas when MTWS objects fire like ordnance against AWSIM aircraft,
significantly different results occur on a consistent basis. The models provide
various mechanisms for adjusting parametric characteristics of weapons systems,
ordnance, and target vulnerabilities, but such adjustments cannot generally
bring about precise commonality between the models.
With respect to ground models, the general consensus in
the ALSP community is that there is too great a disparity in the level of detail
represented in the different models. For example, MTWS uses terrain elevation
and vegetation cover at a resolution of approximately 100 meters to determine
line of sight and possible visual detection of ground forces (as well as other
conditions affecting visual detection such as time of day, weather conditions,
and battlefield obscuration). CBS determines visual detection based on units
occupying adjacent 1500-meter hexagons (note: CBS is undergoing a transition to
terrain ``squares''). In direct fire engagements, MTWS calculates losses using
weapon-on-weapon hit and kill probabilities, whereas CBS uses Lanchester
equations and attrition factors.
Implementation of the standard ALSP interaction approach
requires that the models broadcast sufficient information describing the ground
units to enable each model to perform its visual detection and engagement logic.
For MTWS, such data would include the size and formation of the ghosted unit
(representing the area occupied by the unit's assets), its posture (level of
preparedness and concealment), and the major equipment items and dismounted
troops contained in the unit. These are the items that could potentially be
observed by MTWS-owned units and could come under fire based on MTWS engagement
algorithms. Provision for this information would involve minor changes to
existing ALSP message formats.
3.2 Gamebox-Allocated Interactions
The interoperability issue only arises when there is
potential for interaction between units owned by MTWS and those owned by CBS (or
any other ground model). The frequency and extent of such interactions depends
greatly on the design of the exercise scenario and partitioning of the forces
across the models for exercise control. If, for example, all Opposing Force
(OPFOR) units are played in one model, such as CBS, and the friendly forces are
played in multiple models, such as CBS for Army units and MTWS for Marine Corps
units, then there will be interactions across models whenever the Marine Corps
units encounter OPFOR units. In many cases, it may be possible to allocate the
OPFOR units across the models in such a way as to minimize these cross-model
interactions. A simple tactical situation is illustrated in Figure 3.
For purposes of discussion, assume the blue symbols (or darker, if the
diagram is not in color) are Landing Force ground and air objects owned by MTWS
and the red symbols with gray borders (or lighter shaded symbols, if not in
color) are ghosted OPFOR units owned by CBS. This allocation creates the
worst-case interaction demand.
This thinking led to an alternative approach wherein one
or more geographic regions would be defined. Within the regions, a designated
model--MTWS in this case--would have responsibility for adjudication of ground
combat. Outside the region(s) and across the boundaries, another designated
model--CBS--would have responsibility. This approach had merit from several
perspectives. First, MTWS currently has a smaller quantity of game objects due
to its greater detail in representation and modeling. This approach allows MTWS
to deal only with its own units and ghosted units that pass its geographic
filters. Second, the approach reflected a military concept of operations where
the Marine Corps would generally have a more geographically-limited objective
(Amphibious Operations Area) than the Army forces. Third, the approach allowed
the more detailed model--MTWS-- to use its algorithms for determining detections
and engagements within its area, while the less detailed model applied its
algorithms elsewhere. Interactions between ground units would be handled
differently, but there would be a consistency in the individual pairings. Units
would detect according to a common algorithm (one model or the other) and the
units would engage and inflict losses according to a common algorithm (one model
or the other).
This approach adds complexity to the interaction messages.
The models again need sufficient information to determine visual detection, but
also sufficient information to support the decision criteria for determining
when to initiate direct fire engagement and to assess the losses. For MTWS, this
means obtaining from CBS information on all weaponry possessed by the unit (not
just the major equipment items that can be detected, but also hand-held weapons)
and a description of the readiness of the unit to commit assets to the
engagement (called ``allocation of fire'' in MTWS terminology). The models also
need mechanisms for defining the regions where the adjudication responsibilities
are passed to a different model, messages for passing detection and engagement
status, and attrition messages for passing results of the direct fire
assessments. Moreover, complex situations can occur where part of the engagement
is within a defined region and other participants are across the boundary. For
example, if two units are engaged within an MTWS region, and one of the units
comes under fire from an enemy unit outside the region, the overall engagement
processing may need to be passed to CBS. These transfer mechanisms would need to
be added to the ALSP repertoire of messages.
3.3 Selected Model Responsibility
The third alternative is to remove the defined regions and
assign ground adjudication responsibilities to a model whenever its ground units
interact with ghosted units from another model. For example, if MTWS is assigned
responsibilities for adjudicating ground combat between MTWS and CBS units, then
whenever an MTWS unit is in position to detect a ghosted unit, MTWS would
determine the occurrence of detection for both sides, and would determine if a
direct fire engagement should be initiated. MTWS would process the engagement
and provide assessment results to CBS. Interactions between units owned by a
single model would be processed in the owning model.
The data and message requirements for performing the
ground combat would include the information described previously. In addition, a
mechanism needs to be defined that indicates which model has responsibility
whenever its units interact with those of another ground model. The assignment
of responsibility needs to be made between each pair of ground models that are
participating in the confederation. Long-term, new coordination messages will be
needed to establish the responsibilities when the game is started. Initially,
however, the coordination can be accomplished manually, and each model user can
independently provide the information to that model.
There are again situations where a transfer of processing
for an ongoing engagement must occur. Assume MTWS has been assigned adjudication
responsibility. If an engagement is already in progress involving only CBS
units, and an MTWS-owned unit comes into detection distance, then MTWS must
assume responsibility for continuation of the engagement. Anomalies may occur in
cases where the MTWS algorithms could cause the initial engagement to terminate
(e.g., due to line of sight or other visual detection factors), and further
actions between the units would become MTWS responsibility.
This approach--Selected Model Responsibility--has been
chosen as the preferred method for initial development of a ground-ground
interaction capability in ALSP. It is possible that CBS will not be able to
proceed with this approach for the 1997 Joint Training Confederation due to
prior funding commitments and priorities. However, the Marine Corps has
committed to implementation of the capability in MTWS for the 1997
confederation. This will have several benefits to the ALSP community at large
and the Marine Corps in particular:
4. INTEROPERABILITY WITH VIRTUAL SIMULATIONS
" Combined Arms Exercises (CAX). No unit training is more important
to our warfighting capabilities than the CAX program. As a combined arms
live-fire training area, the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center
(MCAGCC) provides us with a location and opportunity that are of
incalculable value to our Corps. My vision is to provide intense,
meaningful, live-fire training to infantry battalions at MCAGCC. While the
focus is on the infantry battalion, I want the other MAGTF elements to
receive equal benefit from this intense training evolution. One way to do
that is to network the other MAGTF elements through the Training Exercise
Evaluation Control Group to participate in a broader exercise via
simulation and interactive video. ... What I do not want to see is the
piling on of forces and staffs at MCAGCC itself. Use of distributed
interactive simulation can provide the same type of training at much less
cost." [CMG, p 17]
|
The best, but most costly, training environment is actual
combat. Only in combat is it possible to realize the will and capabilities of
the opposing force and its commanders, and the readiness and abilities of
own-force personnel and equipment. The goal of peacetime training must be to
replicate as closely as possible the combat conditions likely to be faced.
Live-fire exercises and the use of virtual simulations are valuable methods for
immersing individuals, teams, and small units into environments approaching the
realism of actual combat operations. Higher level commanders and staffs, removed
somewhat from low-level demands of maneuver and fire, can be placed in realistic
environments through the use of constructive simulation systems. MTWS can
provide representation of a large-scale operation, within which a portion of the
units are live or virtual and the remainder are simulated in MTWS. This enables
small unit operations to be conducted in live or virtual battlespaces, in the
context of a larger operation. Even for battalion operations in a CAX, MTWS can
provide the overall tactical context for the battalion commander and staff, and
also provide a training environment for adjacent battalion staff, regimental
staff, and higher command. The primary capability needed to achieve this goal is
communication of the small unit actions to MTWS and communication of tactical
context to the small units.
DIS is a standard for describing and transmitting entity
state information across a distributed network of dissimilar systems, including
instrumented ranges, virtual simulators, and constructive simulations. A
proposed architecture for implementation of DIS capabilities into MTWS was shown
in Figure 1. The concept is very similar to work performed for the Joint
Precision Strike Demonstration (JPSD) program's Corps Level Computer Generated
Forces (CLCGF) system (Calder, Peacock, Panagos, and Johnson, 1995). A new
Computer Software Configuration Item (CSCI) is proposed, the MTWS DIS Interface
Processor (MDIP), to act as an intermediary between MTWS and the entity-level
DIS environment. The MDIP would monitor the developing tactical situation and
determine when DIS entities might interact with MTWS objects. At that point, the
MDIP would use Modular Semi-Automated Forces (ModSAF) engines to deaggregate the
MTWS object into its component entities (tanks, troops, trucks, etc.) and take
over responsibility for movement, detection, and engagement processing. When
conditions for potential interaction with DIS entities are no longer satisfied,
the MDIP would re-aggregate the MTWS object, and pass simulation control back to
normal MTWS modeling. Sample criteria triggering deaggregation include (Calder,
Peacock, Wise, Stanzione, Chamberlain, and Panagos, 1995):
Other interoperability issues to be
addressed include (see also Pratt and Johnson, 1995):
- Resolution of different update rates - DIS entities are updated once
every 5 seconds, and often more frequently. MTWS operates in longer
timeframes, such as 10 seconds for air position updates and 30 seconds for
surface movement. The MDIP will buffer MTWS from the rapid update rate
occurring in the DIS network, and will provide a higher frequency update for
entities obtained from deaggregation of MTWS objects.
Different terrain resolution - MTWS provides terrain representation at
varying levels of resolution, from 500-meter intervals down to 100-meter
intervals. DIS generally represents terrain at 100-meter intervals. When
running MTWS in the DIS environment, common digitized terrain data, within
an agreed-upon playbox, needs to be used. The playbox would be selected as
the area(s) on the battlefield where interactions between MTWS objects and
DIS entities are expected to occur during the exercise. When deaggregation
occurs, the ModSAF engines will place the individual entities in proper
orientation and position on the terrain.
Event arbitration - Combat interactions (detections, engagements)
between aggregate objects and individual DIS entities must be adjudicated
consistently and realistically, and must be comparable to results obtained
between aggregate objects or between groups of individual entities. The
different levels of fidelity between the unit-level and entity-level models
must be resolved appropriately. The initial mechanism for achieving
comparable results is adjustment of parametric data used by the model to
represent weapon characteristics and effects. If that is unable to resolve
major differences in combat results, then modifications to MTWS algorithms
may be required.
Data initialization - There will need to be coordination between MTWS
and the external models to provide initial force structures. Ground units
represented at the entity-level external to MTWS need to be presented to the
MTWS operators as aggregates.
For example, consider the tactical situation illustrated
in Figure 4.
![]()
Assume the Landing Force units and air missions (indicated as in Figure 3)
are MTWS objects and the OPFOR objects and air missions are owned outside MTWS.
The OPFOR objects may consist of DIS entities that are displayed in MTWS in
aggregate form as ghosted objects.
Within each of the two groups of objects, assume conditions exist for visual
detection, whether from air-to-ground, ground-to-air, or ground-to-ground.
Objects that are not included in the indicated areas do not satisfy these
conditions. The MDIP would be responsible for deaggregating the units into their
individual assets. Multiple ModSAF engines may be needed to handle the quantity
of objects and entities, depending on the size of the exercise and the potential
interactions between MTWS objects and DIS entities.
Even in the absence of external DIS entities, there is
some interest in integrating MTWS and ModSAF. The approach would be analogous to
the ALSP ground-ground interaction decision--the simulation processing would be
passed to the model providing the higher resolution representation, in this
case, ModSAF. In addition to providing higher resolution movement, detection,
and engagement processing, the artificial intelligence embedded in the ModSAF
models has the potential for simplifying MTWS operator actions. While we can
accept that actual combat is the best training environment for all levels, it is
not as readily apparent that simulation systems, such as MTWS, that create the
combat environment for command staff training must model warfare down to the
individual Marine and item of equipment in order to provide full realism for the
learning experience. We assume that higher resolution models better replicate
the tactical actions and results of combat, but there is no known data to
support that assumption.
In the previous ALSP ground-ground discussion, there was an implicit idea
that the higher level of detail in the MTWS ground model makes it the model of
choice for adjudicating ground combat between it and CBS. However, no evaluation
of the two models has been made (to our knowledge) to support that idea.
Similarly, the higher resolution available in ModSAF is assumed to provide more
realistic results than the MTWS algorithms, but this would need to be verified
before initiating the integration effort.
Although the Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation
Management Office (MCMSMO) has stated its goal to ``exercise any size Total
Force MAGTF as part of combined or joint operations from home bases, aboard
ship, or forward deployed through the seamless integration of live, virtual, and
constructive simulations'' and has embraced Advanced Distributed Simulation as
the enabling technology to achieve this end, there has been hesitation within
the Marine Corps staff training community to place the requirement on MTWS. A
foundation has been built in several other programs, so it will not be necessary
to reinvent the capability. This is no longer a technology issue--the Marine
Corps needs to address the requirements issue.
5. INTEROPERABILITY WITH REAL-WORLD C4I SYSTEMS
A preliminary interface between MTWS and real-world C4I
systems was demonstrated at the Joint Warfighter Interoperability Demonstration
(JWID) at Camp Pendleton in October 1995. MTWS provided unit and ship position
data and detections of OPFOR ground units to the Joint Maritime Command
Information System (JMCIS) using standard Over-the-Horizon Targeting message
formats (OTH-Gold JUNIT and CONTACT messages). The interface demonstrated the
use of MTWS as a tool for training personnel in their normal operational
setting. However, this demonstration barely scratched the surface of the
potential benefits available in both the training environment and the
operational environment.
The most direct path to interoperability with MAGTF and
Navy C4I systems is through transition to the Global Command and Control System
(GCCS) Common Operating Environment (COE). MTWS is one of 15 systems identified
by the Marine Corps for re-engineering to the GCCS COE (Marine Corps Tactical
Systems Support Activity, 1994). Other systems include:
- Tactical Combat Operations (TCO) - Supports the operations element of
the MAGTF, providing commanders with the ability to fuse, select, and
display information from both MAGTF and joint sources down through battalion
level.
- Position Location Reporting System (PLRS) - Provides the Army Division
and MAGTF with real-time and accurate three-dimensional positioning and
navigational information in support of dynamic tactical operations.
- Intelligence Analysis System (IAS) - Provides an all-source intelligence
fusion center, providing automated direction, collection, processing,
production and dissemination of Critical Commander's Information
Requirements using both embedded databases and Tactical Remote Sensor System
(TRSS), Tactical Electronic Reconnaissance Processing and Reporting System
(TERPES), and national/theater sources.
- Advanced Tactical Air Command Central (ATACC) - Automated mission
planning and analysis aids enabling the generations, dissemination, and
manipulation of Air Tasking Orders (ATO) via integration of the Air Force
Contingency Theater Automated Planning System (CTAPS).
- Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) - A joint
Army/Marine Corps fire support system providing the capabilities to process,
analyze, and exchange information across U. S. and NATO systems.
The following interoperability issues need to be addressed
to press forward in interfacing MTWS to real-world C4I systems:
- MTWS User Interface Migration to JMCIS/GCCS. MTWS command entry, report
generation, and graphics display capabilities can be converted to operate as
one or more JMCIS segments. The migration would provide exercise controllers
with access to MTWS user input/output capabilities, but with a common look
and feel to other JMCIS applications. Similarly, if desired, operational
users would have access to MTWS user interface capabilities to enter
simulation orders, obtain data, and observe the simulated tactical
situation. The situation display and data base could reflect information
provided by the simulation as well as data on live units.
- Generate Tactical Messages. Through JMCIS core capabilities, MTWS
simulation events can trigger generation and transmission of tactical
messages to other participants, stimulating tactical planning, situation
assessment, and decision-making. Analysis needs to be performed to identify
the messages that should be generated.
- Receive Tactical Messages. Messages received through JMCIS core
capabilities can provide information about the position and disposition of
forces, and tactical actions (orders and directives). Analysis needs to be
performed to identify the messages that should be received to stimulate
actions within MTWS.
- Initialization Data. An interface to the MAGTF Deployment Support System
II (MDSS II) would enable the users to rapidly configure exercise and
operational planning data bases from actual force compositions. Operations
could be planned and rehearsed to move forces from garrison to objective
area.
Interoperability with C4I systems will enable MTWS to
transition from the training and educational environment into the operational
environment. As an operational support system, MTWS will assist commanders and
staffs in planing and evaluating tactical operations against different projected
enemy force structures and actions. While expanding its role, overall training
breadth and benefits are increased by using the system to stimulate C4I systems
and by making the system available to deployed forces.
6. TOTAL FORCE EXERCISE
The Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation Master Plan
states the following desired end states for Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation
capabilities:
The composite capability obtained through development of
interoperability across live-fire, virtual, and constructive simulations and
through interoperability with real-world C4I systems can be powerfully
demonstrated through a world-wide Total Force Marine Corps exercise. Possible
participants in such an exercise are shown in Figure 5, including deployed
Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) in the Mediterranean Ocean and Pacific Ocean.
Multiple host sites at MCCDC, I MEF, II MEF, and III MEF could be linked over
high-speed dedicated links. Using ALSP technology, the host sites would split
the simulation processing load, enabling a greater number of game objects to be
represented than possible with a single system. Participants could also include
joint forces, using other virtual and constructive simulation systems, extending
the exercise beyond a Marine Corps/Navy-only exercise. Reserve command staffs in
New Orleans (MARFORRES) could use remote user stations, tied into one of the
host sites over telecommunications lines, to serve as OPFOR staff or other
components of the landing force control staff or player staff. Interface to
JMCIS using tactical messages or data base commonality would create a gateway
for tactical message traffic over satellite links to the deployed forces. Live
forces at MCAGCC could participate on live-fire ranges through DIS connectivity.
To the higher level commanders, all forces could appear to be operating in
coordinated action against enemy forces.
Onboard ship, MTWS could serve as a decision support tool,
providing a means for defining alternative tactical courses of action and for
playing out those actions, providing data that can be used to evaluate the
outcomes. The timing of landing plans and preparatory air and surface strikes
can be defined and rehearsed in the model. Air mission plans can be played
against known and projected enemy positions to evaluate mission survivability.
These are only a small sample of the possible activities that could be
performed.
Interoperability is the key to vast opportunities for
improving Marine Corps training. The technological challenge is great, but
components are in place to enable rapid progress toward desired capabilities.
MTWS is a valuable tool to help achieve the vision of improved mission
performance across the Total Force.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanks Mac Garrabrants, VisiCom Laboratories,
for his assistance in preparing the MTWS graphics for this paper and for
concepts relating to C4I interfaces and the Total Force world-wide exercise. The
graphics were captured from the MTWS user workstation using the Xwindows xwd
command, and imported into Framemaker for annotation and inclusion into the
paper. The author thanks Amos Jessup, VisiCom Laboratories, for his assistance
in editing and converting this paper to HTML format.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author
and VisiCom Laboratories, Incorporated, and do not necessarily express the
official position or policies of the United States Marine Corps.
REFERENCES
Blais, C. Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Tactical
Warfare Simulation (MTWS). Proceedings of
ELECSIM 1994 Electronic Conference on Constructive Training Simulation.
Blais, C. Scalability Issues in Enhancement of the MAGTF
Tactical Warfare Simulation System. Proceedings
of ELECSIM 1995 Electronic Conference on Constructive Training
Simulation.
Calder, R. B., Peacock, J. C., Panagos, J., and Johnson,
T. E. Integration of Constructive, Virtual, Live, and Engineering Simulations in
the JPSD CLCGF. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Computer Generated
Forces and Behavioral Representation. May 1995.
Calder, R. B., Peacock, J. C., Wise, B. P., Stanzione, T.,
Chamberlain, F., and Panagos, J. Implementation of a Dynamic
Aggregation/Deaggregation Process in the JPSD CLCGF. Proceedings of the Fifth
Conference on Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation. May
1995.
Commandant of the Marine Corps. Commandant's Planning
Guidance. 1 July 1995.
Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation Management Office.
Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation Master Plan. 29 July 1994.
Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity. MAGTF C4I
Transition to the Global Command and Control System (GCCS) Common Operating
Environment. 15 March 1994.
Pratt, D. R., and Johnson, M. A. Constructive and Virtual
Model Linkage. Proceedings of the 1995 Winter Simulation Conference ed.
C. Alexopoulos, K. Kang, W. R. Lilegdon, and D. Goldsman.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
CURTIS L. BLAIS is Manager of Wargaming Systems for
VisiCom Laboratories, Incorporated, and Software Engineering Manager for the
MTWS project. He has twenty-two years of experience in analysis and simulation
of Navy and Marine Corps command, control, and communications architectures, and
in design and development of combat models. He specialized in modeling of ground
combat and casualty/damage assessments. Mr. Blais holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in
Mathematics from the University of Notre Dame.
Postscript
Version