NATO INDUSTRIAL ADVISORY GROUP (NIAG) NATO AIR FORCE ...2018... · NATO’s readiness for coalition...

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Interoperability Platform

21 February 2018 DOCUMENT NIAG-D(2018)0005

AC/224-D(2018)0001

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

-1-

NATO INDUSTRIAL ADVISORY GROUP (NIAG)

NATO AIR FORCE ARMAMENTS GROUP (NAFAG)

FINAL REPORT ON NIAG STUDY GROUP 215

ON FUTURE COMBINED / JOINT DISTRIBUTED TACTICAL TRAINING THROUGH SIMULATION FOR JOINT AND COMBINED TASKS AND OPERATIONS

Note by the NIAG Secretary

1. Enclosed is the Final Report on NIAG study 215 on Future Combined / Joint Distributed Tactical Training through Simulation for joint and combined tasks and operations, as conducted by NIAG SG.215, which is now published to the sponsor.

(signed) Nathalie Van Donghen

1 Enclosure Original: English

NHQD93107

NATO UNCLASSIFIED releasable to Interoperability Platform

ENCLOSURE TO NIAG-D(2018)0005, MULTI REF

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Sub-Group 215

Future Combined / Joint Distributed Tactical

Training through Simulation for joint and combined

tasks and operations

15 February 2018

The work described in this report was carried out under the provisions of the NIAG Study Order for Study Group 215.

Disclosure, utilization, publication or reproduction of this report by industry is subject to pre-approval by NATO until such time as NATO may have released such work to the public.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NATO and Nations need Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS) to provide mission rehearsal and operational assessment of Air and C2 systems in all core air power roles. NAFAG requested a NIAG study to investigate mission simulation technologies and the means and way ahead to achieve MTDS to enable interoperable multinational distributed tactical training; main interest is in demonstrating the potential of networked simulation to enhance NATO’s readiness for coalition air, maritime and land joint operations.

The NIAG SG215 study group, composed of experts from 20 companies of 10 different countries, was therefore established to provide advice on:

• how technological innovations can be implemented to improve MTDS capability to meet NATO and national training;

• related technologies, standards, architectures, processes, interfaces, and information exchange interoperability issues;

• procedures required for establishing and operating the distributed networks;

• security and protection of classified data/information exchanged on the distributed networks,

• industrial contributions that can be offered to nations for networked simulation training;

• current simulation centers that could potentially contribute to NATO MTDS exercises.

Operational Employment started to identify a reference scenario providing the broadest spectrum of requirements relevant to a MTDS exercise, in terms of assets/systems and communication needs; a survey was performed with Nations to assess their current/future capabilities and collect their end user requirements. Interoperability gathered the requirements and gaps from previous studies and documents and identified interoperability issues that were categorized; for each category activities have been recommended. MTDS specific requirements on security, repository and implementation aspects were identified, and compared to applicable State of Art solutions; finally, a roadmap has been created, identifying solutions to fill the remaining gaps.

In coordination with the NAFAG Sponsor, the NIAG SG215 study group has exchanged with several external NATO and national bodies:

• with the NAFAG plenary through a MTDS Workshop in the Warrior Preparation Center (WPC) for presentation of MTDS state of the art, and MTDS governance discussions including NAFAG-NMSG relationship, Smart Defence Initiative project (2.117) and SG215 extension supporting the NATO M&S Action Plan;

• with STO MSG-128 task group on MTDS, to prepare a follow-on MSG-165 study including SG215 findings.

With an extension to the Study Order, NIAG SG215 has also supported NATO ACT in the analysis of the 2015 NATO Modelling and Simulation (M&S) Gaps and provided input to the 2016 NATO M&S Action Plan. During the gap analysis, SG215 has:

• identified new gaps on Air Operations (High Level Training for Air Policing, JFAC Training, Collective Training and Exercise for Systems), which, after coordination with NAFAG and Air OPS COE, have been included in the new NATO M&S Gap Analysis by HQ SACT;

• revised some gaps, already included in the 2015 NATO M&S Gap Analysis, relevant for Air & Joint Air domain of Maritime, Land & Special OPS and Cyber;

• revised some gaps identified in the Education Training Exercise & Evaluation (ETEE) gap analysis (INFOSEC Policies and Procedures, Geo Data/Map Building, Modelling of the Operational Environment, Technology).


NATO UNCLASSIFIED ii

Key Findings and Recommendations

Many high level governance, operational and technical gaps remain in order to achieve the

ambition of an Air and Joint MTDS capability.

What appears to be generally lacking at NATO and National level is a common or at least a more

shared approach to MTDS:

• National MODs should be involved in the achievement of a common NATO MTDS capability by defining/updating national M&S strategies and identifying the National Simulation/Training Centers to be allocated and integrated into National and/or NATO MTDS;

• NMSG, with its role as Delegated Tasking Authority (DTA), should be part of the future governance structure supporting NATO M&S (including MTDS);

• the establishment of a common MTDS approach should be part of the NATO Smart Defence Initiative (SDI);

• MTDS capability should be developed as a NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) target.

Key SG215 recommendation is to establish, through STO MSG-164 “M&S as a Service” and

MSG-165 “Air and Joint MTDS” studies, multi-national programs including R&D to provide

solutions to identified gaps, experiment the solutions and cooordinate NATO and multi-national

efforts within the proposed Smart Defense Initiative project (SDI 2.117) on MTDS and future

studies.

MSG-165 should address technical standards, architectures and processes providing:

• operational and technical support to the Exercise Control cells (EXCON);

• a Qualification Process & Tools suite for an efficient integration of MTDS assets;

• standardization of interfaces to Live systems with Virtual and Constructive (LVC) elements;

• technologies and solutions for Multi-Level Security (MLS) environments and associated INFOSEC procedures;

• the MTDS Initial Operational Capability.

MSG-164 should address a Common M&S Repository to facilitate exchange of common data, terrain data base, scenario, configuration files, support tools and services support (e.g. exercise management) between MTDS participants.

The SDI project should then enable a common investment for a MTDS Full Operational Capability (FOC).

In order to be able to achieve interoperability between Air and Maritime or Land collective training, it is important to implement compatible solutions. Implementation of the NATO M&S Action Plan for short and medium term is the enabler to achieve consistency between the different training domains; for this reason, the SG215 contribution has addressed recommendations to ACT for Maritime, Land and Cyber, as well as M&S specific actions.

Digital transformation (e.g. Big Data, Cyber, Artificial Intelligence) and networking of Air Systems will be the key challenge for future 5th generation assets design and training. Industry has a capital role in this domain as assets’ provider and supporter of MTDS infrastructures; SG215 recommendations are to establish an industry/military collaborative environment to support the evolution of MTDS architecture, infrastructure and required capabilties enabling integration of 5th generation assets.

At governance level, M&S should be recognized as a capability area in its own right. In addition, the governance structure supporting NATO M&S needs to be reviewed to ensure that the community of interest is correctly identified and that there is a process to prioritize the development of M&S capabilities in line with other Defence Planning priorities.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 TASKING OBJECTIVES/STUDY SCOPE .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 SCENARIOS............................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 PARTICIPANTS........................................................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 STUDY ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 TERMINOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.6 ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

CHAPTER 2 - STUDY APPROACH ............................................................................................................ 4

2.1 STUDY BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................. 4

2.1.1 NIAG SG-162 study (2010-2011)......................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.2 STO MSG-128 study (2013-2017) ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 STUDY FOREGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 5

2.2.1 SG215 Gaps with MSG-128 study ....................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.2 Team structure and scope of work ....................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.3 Leadership group ................................................................................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER 3 - STUDY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 7

3.1 OPERATIONAL EMPLOYMENT .................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

3.1.2 Work approach / activities carried out ................................................................................................................ 7

3.1.2.1 Analysis approach .............................................................................................................................................. 7

3.1.2.2 Mission Rehearsals & Operational Assessments ................................................................................................ 7

3.1.2.3 Survey/Interviews ............................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 9

3.1.3.1 Mission rehearsal and operational assessment for Air and Joint tactical training............................................. 9

3.1.3.2 Potential users and value of the approach ....................................................................................................... 10

3.1.3.3 Potential employments for current NATO and National exercises and potential industry’s contributions ..... 13

3.2 EXERCISE MANAGEMENT & INTEROPERABILITY ................................................................................................ 14

3.2.1 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 14

3.2.2 Work approach / activities carried out .............................................................................................................. 14

3.2.3 Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................................................... 15

3.2.3.1 MTDS Exercise Management ............................................................................................................................ 15

3.2.3.2 Air MTDS Scenario Definition Language ........................................................................................................... 16

3.2.3.3 Dynamic Terrain Solutions ................................................................................................................................ 17

3.2.3.4 Data Link Interoperability ................................................................................................................................. 18

3.2.3.5 Live Virtual Interoperability .............................................................................................................................. 19

3.3 IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................................... 20

3.3.1 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 20

3.3.2 Work approach / activities carried out .............................................................................................................. 20

3.3.3 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................................ 20

3.3.3.1 Security ....................................................................................................................................................... 20

3.3.3.2 Repository ................................................................................................................................................... 22

3.3.3.3 MTDS implementation ................................................................................................................................ 23

CHAPTER 4. - STUDY EXTENSION ON NATO M&S ACTION PLAN ......................................................... 26

4.1 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................................... 26

4.2 WORK APPROACH / ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT .......................................................................................................... 26

4.3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 27

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................... 29

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 33


NATO UNCLASSIFIED iv

ANNEX A ACRONYMS

ANNEX B PARTICIPANTS LIST

ANNEX C STUDY PLANNING

ANNEX D TERMINOLOGY

ANNEX E OPERATIONAL EMPLOYMENT

ANNEX F MTDS GUIDANCE & DOCTRINE DOCUMENT

ANNEX G EXERCISE MANAGEMENT & INTEROPERABILITY

ANNEX H IMPLEMENTATION

ANNEX I M&S GAP ANALYSIS FOR AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING

ANNEX J M&S ACTION PLAN FOR AIR & JOINT TRAINING

ANNEX K SMART DEFENCE INITIATIVE AND TECHNICAL ACTIVITY PROPOSALS

ANNEX L COMMON REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Teams Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Figure 3.1 Mission Rehearsal & Ops Assessment roadmap overview 2 .................................................................... 9

Figure 3.2 Potential users & Value of the Approach roadmap overview 3 ............................................................. 12

Figure 3.3 Potential Industry Contribution roadmap overview 4 ............................................................................ 13

Figure 3.4 MTDS Exercise Management roadmap overview 5 ................................................................................ 15

Figure 3.5 Air MTDS scenario definition roadmap overview 6 ................................................................................ 16

Figure 3.6 Dynamic Terrain roadmap overview 7 ................................................................................................... 17

Figure 3.7 Data Link interoperability roadmap overview 8 ..................................................................................... 18

Figure 3.8 Live Virtual interoperability roadmap overview 9 .................................................................................. 19

Figure 3.9 Security roadmap overview 10 ............................................................................................................... 21

Figure 3.10 Repository roadmap overview 11 ......................................................................................................... 22

Figure 3.11 MTDS Implementation roadmap overview 12 ..................................................................................... 24

Figure 3.12 Overall Implementation Roadmap 13 .................................................................................................. 25

Figure 6.1 Air & Joint MTDS Roadmap 14 ................................................................................................................ 33

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Time-ranges scale....................................................................................................................................... 3

Table 3.1 Simulations and Communication Needs for Personnel Recovery/Extraction Operational scenario ......... 8

Table 3.2 Simulation/Training Centres which provided feedback ............................................................................ 9

Table 5.1 High Level Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 32


NATO UNCLASSIFIED 1

Chapter 1 - Introduction

NATO NAFAG is addressing, through the “Mission Training through Distributed Simulation” (MTDS) Working Group and in collaboration with the NATO Modelling and Simulation Group (MSG-128, Task Group on Incremental Implementation of NATO MTDS Operations), the mechanisms for distributed tactical training amongst and between NATO Nations’ Maritime, Air and in the future Land Forces. Main interest is in demonstrating the potential of networked simulation to enhance NATO’s readiness for coalition air, maritime and land joint operations by providing realistic and representative training opportunities for freedom of maneuver to enhance training value as well as security of data and introduction of 5th generation systems.

NAFAG requested a NIAG study to investigate mission simulation technologies and the means and way ahead to achieve distributed networking of simulation systems to enable interoperable multinational distributed tactical training, as a follow-on of the NIAG SG-162 “Simulation for Air and Joint Mission Training”. NIAG sponsored the Sub-Group 215 “Future Combined / Joint Distributed Tactical Training through Simulation for joint and combined tasks and operations”, which started September 2016.

Midway through study execution, considering that SG215 could effectively contribute to the NATO effort to update the Modeling & Simulation (M&S) Action Plan, the CNAD agreed to extend scope and duration of the Study Group 215 (until March 2018) to address and support the revision of the NATO M&S Gap Analysis and Action Plan.

1.1 Tasking Objectives/Study Scope

The core study should address and provide advice on the following:

• How technological innovations can be implemented to improve the capability to meet NATO and national training objectives in the context of joint and combined simulated operations.

• Related technologies, standards, architectures, processes, interfaces and information exchange interoperability issues (including scenario and terrain database exchange; simulation interoperability; exercise management; interfaces with real assets, network access and security issues).

• Procedures required for establishing and operating the distributed networks.

• Security and protection of classified data/information exchanged on the distributed networks.

• A common modelling and simulation repository to support a common environment for the MDTS network and interoperability between candidate NATO and National Training centres.

• Industrial contributions that can be offered to nations for networked simulation training.

• The role of legacy simulation centers.

• Identification of simulation centers interested by follow-on experiments/exercises of this nature.

As a consequence of the extension, the study should address and provide advice on the following:

• Support the ACT Requirement Authorities and Department Heads involved in the update of the list of M&S Gaps.

• Provide input to the revised M&S Action Plan with main focus on training requirements and subsequent training needs for Air Operations (Air Policing, JFAC Training and Systems), secondary focus on the link with Maritime, Land, Cyber and BMD M&S


NATO UNCLASSIFIED 2

domains for Air & Joint MTDS, building on the common gaps identified in the Education Training Exercise & Evaluation (ETEE) gap analysis.

• M&S solutions to support Air Operations training, to be reflected in the M&S Action Plan.

1.2 Scenarios

On commencement of the study, through the minutes of the EG meeting the Sponsor addressed Operational Scenarios to consider for MTDS. Specifically, Operational Scenarios to consider for Mission rehearsal and operational assessment of joint air and C2 systems (including data links) in all core air power roles and types of air operations are Counter-Air, Offensive-Air, Air Mobility, JISR, and Personnel Recovery involving aircrews, controllers (i.e. NAEW, Forward Air Controllers, Joint Air Terminal Controllers, Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) operators), and CAOC/JFAC staff.

1.3 Participants

The Study was open to NATO/IP nations. The Study Group was composed by 20 Companies/Entities from 10 Nations, which allocated 41 experts to the activity; the Sponsor and a Quick Reaction Team (represented by Military experts) also provided continuous support. A detailed list is included in Annex B.

1.4 Study Organization

Three Teams were created to address the study (Operational Employment, Interoperability, and Implementation), further subdivided in SubTeams in line with specific areas to be addressed, organized by deliverables and relationship hierarchy as shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 Teams Structure

The activity was continuously coordinated with Sponsor/QRT through Plenary and Leadership meetings. A Topical session with the (NAFAG) Sponsor was also held, while the SG215 Lead group supported also the Nov. 2017 ACT workshop focused on the NATO M&S Action Plan. A total of 6 Plenary and 5 Leadership meetings was held; working level Management and Teams’ WebEx Meetings were conducted at the discretion of the Management and Team Leads. Goals for each meeting were established, properly phased to provide:

• an initial feedback to the NAFAG by their June 2017 session;

• the contribution to the NATO M&S Gap Analysis report by end August 2017 and a revision for the ACT Workshop in November 2017;


NATO UNCLASSIFIED 3

• a progress update to the NAFAG by their December 2017 session;

• the contribution to the ongoing NATO M&S Gap Analysis and Action Plan update effort by end December 2017, to be used by NATO for the documents’ February 2018 update.

Annex C addresses the overall study planning, also detailing the established meeting goals and milestones.

1.5 Terminology

The Study Group agreed that the term of Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS) will be used through the study instead of Distributed Training Through Simulation (DTTS), in order to avoid any confusion; MTDS is recognised throughout the community as the capability to achieve DTTS.

Aknowledging that MTDS related terms were used with different meanings and definitions, the Study Group recognised the need to use consistent terminology across the study and that some basic definitions were needed. SG215/QRT agreed to adopt the following high-level definitions:

• Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS): A shared environment that includes a blending of Live, Virtual, and Constructive simulations within a common synthetic environment that will allow war fighters to train individually or collectively at all levels of war.

• Operational Scenarios: “Storyboard” of the exercise scenario. It is the authoritative descriptions provided by SMEs (Subject-Matter Experts) using their specific terminology of the real world that need to be represented in the simulation environment, if simulation is to be used. It comprises the Geo-Strategic situation, the Theatre of Operations, Strategic Initiation and Crisis Response Planning, known as the Country Book. The Customer then adds Force Activation, Deployment and Execution Information.

• Legacy Simulations Centers: A facility originally developed to simulate the capability of a specific system or sub-system. Depending on the systems generation, the simulations center can be interfaced with another system or not.

• Non-Legacy Simulations Centers: A facility that has the ability to simulate not only specific systems but potentially other systems. The non-legacy center should have the organic capacity to interface with other systems.

A detailed list of MTDS relevant terminology used through the study is addressed in Annex D.

1.6 Assumptions

The NATO “standard” definition of time-ranges (i.e. Short Term = 0-6 yrs, Medium Term = 7-19 yrs, Long = 20 yrs and beyond) was considered not fully applicable to the M&S topic, i.e. when a M&S related capability is needed. SG215 therefore adopted the time-ranges scale more applicable to M&S, as addressed in the final report from MSG-ET-039 “Operational Requirements for Training Interoperability”:

M&S Time Blocks M&S Time-Ranges

Short term 0-3 yrs

Medium term 3-5 yrs

Long term 5+ yrs

Table 1.1 Time-ranges scale


NATO UNCLASSIFIED 4

Chapter 2 - Study Approach

2.1 Study Background

2.1.1 NIAG SG162 study (2010-2011)

In June 2011, the NAFAG Aerospace Capability Group 6 on Command and Control requested a NIAG study “...to develop a roadmap for future Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS), starting from currently available and known planned simulation architectures, to support air and joint simulated mission training....”.

The conclusion was than partner Nations and NATO components recognise that collective Mission Training through Distributed Simulation is required to meet their current and future training requirements.

• Nations have a strong desire to transfer live flying hours to lower cost simulation, in particular for complex scenarios, and are currently developing national MTDS capabilities

• As a real-time C2 node, NATO AWACS have requirements for AWACS mission crew systems training as well as collective operational training with national assets which are increasingly difficult to achieve through live flying only.

The SG162 recommended:

• NAFAG organise a NATO MTDS operational community and governance body.

• STO/NMSG organise a technical community to experiment and validate NATO MTDS technical requirements.

2.1.2 STO MSG-128 study (2013-2017)

MSG-128 study aims at initializing a persistent distributed air mission training capability supporting operational readiness of collective NATO and national air forces, by:

• Establishing the essential elements for a NATO MTDS: concept, standards, services infrastructure, and standard operating procedures,

• Validating these elements through initial operational tests and evaluations (exercises)

In total 7 nations (CAN, DEU, FRA, NLD, NOR, TUR, USA) and 5 NATO organisations (Air OPS COE, M&S COE, NAEW, NIAG, NCIA) provided active contributions.

The activities were organized in 3 teams:

• Operational Team focusing on developing a MTDS concept, operational training needs, and operating procedures

• Technical Team focusing on defining a MTDS reference architecture

• Implementation Team focusing on implementing an initial MTDS capability and preparing and executing exercises

The validation process was to organize one exercise each year between 2014 and 2017, starting for the first exercise by single Air-to-Air combats (blue against red) supported by AWACS, up to exercise 4 to reach multiple Air missions including Air-to-Ground.

At the same time the technical specification of the exercise started with a basic architecture using the DIS protocol and voice, introducing progressively new solutions and functionality like HLA, Tactical Data Link, and common terrain representation with heterogeneous standards to support legacy simulators as well as introducing new technologies.

The 4th exercise demonstrated with success the feasibility to organize exercises with legacy simulators using DIS or HLA, different Link-16 implementations and different terrain database implementations.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED 5

2.2 Study Foreground

2.2.1 SG215 Gaps with MSG-128 study

The SG215 objectives are larger than the MSG-128, as reference operational scenarios defined for this study extend Air and Joint MTDS to all core airpower roles and types of air operations including JISR and Maritime and Land Air domain.

• Scalability for participants is required for medium to large exercises. Manual scenario management for exercise like in MSG-128 are no more possible, exercise management supporting EXCON (EXercise CONtrol) is required.

• Sim-C2 interface from C2 database should feed automatically all simulation databases, and the simulations should interact with C2 not only through L16 data links.

• Geo-data alignment between simulations, simulators and C2 become critical, covering all spectrum of sensors (Visual, EO/IR, radars) and requesting consistency between all MTDS assets contributing to a real time situation.

• In support of exercises, simulation capabilities and live training opportunities should be used for the maximum benefit of Air C2 and new JISR systems such AGS, using realistic simulation of communications.

• Data and common tools repository are required among all participants

• Multi-level security is also required considering the different type of NATO and national classifications involved

• Air Warfare Training transition toward new and future systems, such as AFSC and other 5th generation systems, should be prepared.

2.2.2 Team structure and scope of work

The team structure presented above in figure 1.1 was organised in 3 Teams.

• The Operational Employement Team specific objectives were to:

o Analyze the operational scenario requested for Air and Joint tactical training, o Identify the potential users and the value of the approach o Define potential employments for existing NATO and National exercises, and potential

industry’s contributions

• The Interoperability Team specific objectives were to: o Analyze MTDS exercise management requirements considering the scalability and

EXCON support requirements o Analyze a Air MTDS definition language to feed the simulation environment from

EXCON operating on Air and Joint C2 databases. o Analyze Dynamic terrain solutions for Geo data alignment between simulation,

simulators and C2 in real time execution of the missions. o Analyze Data Link interoperability extension to Air and joint o Analyze Live-Virtual interoperability requirements to integrate instrumented systems in

a MTDS exercise.

• The Implementation Team specific objectives were to: o Analyze the MTDS security solutions, in particular for Multi-Level Security. o Analyze the requirements for repository of data and tools o Propose a road map for an implementation plan.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED 6

2.2.3 Leadership group

The Lead group was composed by the study Management Team, the Team Leaders, the Sponsor and the Quick Reaction Team (represented by additional Military experts); it acted as main internal (intra-Teams) and external (interface with MSG-128, NAFAG and ACT) coordination body.

• A joint meeting with NAFAG was held (Ramstein (WPC)), and a NAFAG MTDS topical workshop was attended in order to discuss road map and exercises. Key decisions were:

o Propose a Smart Defence Initiative on Air and Joint MTDS o Support to the NATO M&S Gaps Analysis and Action Plan, focusing on Air Operations o Need to review the governance relationship between NMSG, NATO Head Quarters

and the NATO Military Authorities (NMA)

• Coordination was done with STO/MSG-128 RTG “Incremental Implementation of NATO Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS) Operations” in order to prepare a follow-on study (MSG-165) supporting the SG215 findings and recommendations.

• SG215 contributed to the drafting of the MSG-165 Technical Activity Proposal (Annex K) that was later approved by STO, with a study starting in January 2018.

• Specifically, the Sponsor, through SG215 activity and the development of interim results, has identified shortfalls in the M&S Governance area. These have been sued to develop high level recommendations for the restructuring of the governance of NATO M&S.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED 7

Chapter 3 - Study Analysis

3.1 Operational Employment

3.1.1 Objectives

This Chapter outlines the Operational Employment for Mission Training through Distributed Simulations (MTDS); details are provided in Annex E. In accordance with the tasking, it will:

Take into account the Operational Scenarios:

• Mission rehearsal and operational assessment of Joint Air and Command and Control (C2) systems (including data links) in all core Air Power roles and types of air operations.

Address:

• Balance between Live/Virtual/Contructive (LVC) simulations in training;

• Role of legacy simulation centres;

• Industrial contributions that can be offered to nations for networked simulation training;

• Training centres interested or that could benefit from MTDS experiments/exercises.

3.1.2 Work approach / activities carried out

3.1.2.1 Analysis approach

The approach followed by the Team A to conduct the analysis included:

• the identification of a scenario providing the broadest spectrum of requirements relevant to a MTDS exercise, in terms of assets/systems and communication needs;

• the assessment of a Mission Rehearsal exercise based on the proposed scenario, to identify simulation/stimulation requirements applicable to an MTDS exercise;

• an assessment of the Training Audience (including NATO and National Centres);

• an assessment of the factors determining the balance of LVC simulations for MTDS;

• a survey, conducted through a focused questionnaire and interviews/visits, on the current status of MTDS across NATO and National Simulations/Training Centres that have either participated in MTDS exercises or are likely to do it in the future, to assess their current/future capabilities and collect their end user requirements;

• the identification of potential employments of MTDS, considering the active NATO and National exercises that already use MTDS or could use it in the future, and the industry’s contributions to the development of a NATO capability.

3.1.2.2 Mission Rehearsals & Operational Assessments

Given the wide variety of potential scenarios, Team A defined a Personnel Recovery-Extraction scenario as a reference to identify issues and gaps to be analyzed by the other Teams. Simulations and communications requirements were identified in order to achieve high fidelity and high quality replication of the exercise scenario. Interaction with National training military entities confirmed that the chosen scenario is one of the most challenging for MTDS employment. Specifically, the following operations were addressed:

• Command and Control/Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C2/ISR)

Heavily relies on simulations to replicate ISR data units required to plan, prepare, and execute coordinated missions and to assess results. Simulations are required to stimulate training audience C2 systems.

• Offensive Counter Air (OCA) and Support missions (e.g. Tankers, Electronic Warfare), to counter/negate the Opposing Forces (OPFOR) Air Power


NATO UNCLASSIFIED 8

Mix of LVC simulations of Fixed and Rotary Wing assets. BLUFOR Strategic Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) operating, as Joint Area Denial, in coordination with OCA Air, and OPFOR GBAD could be replicated with virtual/constructive models. Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) crews frequently train procedures in live simulations (i.e., fielded or classroom C2) in response to stimulation from virtual or constructive models.

• (Digital) Close Air Support (CAS/DCAS)

With Forward Air Controllers (FAC) and Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC) support, Joint Fires and Extraction packages, composed by Rotary Wing/UAS components, heavily rely on LVC simulations; coordination, synchronization and deconfliction of the different components through the battle space and in time would then be one of the major objectives of the MTDS training, allowing to test and train TTPs.

• Maritime component

Characterized by BLUFOR Tactical Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) along with OPFOR Surface-to-Surface Missiles (SSMs) and Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs), needs to be replicated in an exercise scenario for its unique simulations and comms requirements.

• Battle Damage Assessment (BDA)

Heavily relying on C2/ISR network, Recce or OCA/CAS sensors/comms suites, it would conclude scenario execution, consisting of a mix of LVC simulations and stimulation specifically for sensors. Accurate BDA replication provides an objective measure of mission success or failure. Often White Cell injects will provide the objective feedback.

Table 3.1 Simulations and Communication Needs for Personnel Recovery/Extraction Operational scenario

3.1.2.3 Survey/Interviews

Completed questionnaires (see para 3.1.2.1) were provided by the national MoDs and the Simulation/Training Centers listed in Table 3.2.

With the occasion of the SG215 attendance to a NAFAG M&S topical workshop, visit and briefing were also provided by the USAFE WPC.

Assets Simulations Comms

C2/ISR OCA CAS/DCAS/JF Maritime All areas

• C2 Domain

o ACCS (NCS &

National)

• Air Domain

o AGS

o E3/NAEW

(AFSC in future)

o JSTARS

o ISR UAS

(different classes)

o ISR Airborne

assets

o SIGINT

o ELINT

• Ground Domain

o SOF

o HUMINT

o POLAD: ROEs

• C2 Domain

o ACCS (NCS &

National)

o JFAC

• Air Domain

o AGS

o E3/NAEW (AFSC in

future)

o SEAD, Fighter

Aircraft

o Tankers

o UAS/UCAS

(different classes)

o SIGINT

o ELINT

• Ground Domain

o GBAD (OPFOR and

Strategic BLUFOR)

• C2 Domain

o ACCS (NCS & National)

o JFAC

• Air Domain

o FAC

o E3/NAEW (AFSC in future)

o CAS/DCAS Aircraft

o Tactical/MALE UAS/UCAS

o Rotary Wing (CSAR/

Escort)

o Rotary/Fixed Wing

Transport

• Ground Domain

o SOF

o FAC/JTAC

o GBAD (OPFOR)

• Joint Fires (Land, Air,

Surface)

• C2 Domain

o ACCS

(NCS &

National)

o CMS

o JFAC

o JFMC

• Surface

Domain

o TLAMs

o SSMs

(OPFOR)

o TBMs

(OPFOR)

• AGSAGS

• Secure Voice

& Data:

o ACCS

o Imagery/Vi

deo

o TDL: Link

11/16/22

• Back-up

Voice &

Data Comms

• Radio

Comms

(LOS/BLOS)

• Satellite

Comms

(SATCOM)


NATO UNCLASSIFIED 9

Canada Air Force Canadian Forces Aerospace Warfare Centre (CFAWC)

France Air Force MoD and FRA AWC

Italy Air Force Integration Test Bed (ITB) CSV

Netherlands Air Force Volkel AFB Site

Norway - Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) Site

Spain Air Force MoD

UK Air Force

Navy

Air Battlespace Training Centre (ABTC)

Maritime Composite Training System (MCTS) shore training for Surface Warfare

UKR Air Force MoD

USA USAFE

USAFE

Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC)

Warrior Preparation Center (WPC)

Table 2.2 Simulation/Training Centres which provided feedback

Though the survey outcomes don’t fully cover what available in all NATO Nations, due to somewhat limited replies, Team A considers that the indications provided can be effectively extended to all the NATO centres (potentially) supporting MTDS, since the replying centres represent a reasonably wide spectrum of training requirements and capabilties.

3.1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

In this paragraph for each of the three Operational Employment topics the main conclusions and recommendations are presented. Detailed information and analysis can be found in Annex E.

3.1.3.1 Mission rehearsal and operational assessment for Air and Joint tactical

training

Conclusions

• Main focus of an MTDS exercise, specifically when addressed to a joint audience, with different military “cultural” backgrounds and diversified TTPs, should be coordination and synchronization of information flow, assets employment both in the battle space and in time, and feedback that can provide objective measures of mission success or failure.

• The availability of a common reference scenario to be used within a NATO/Nations MTDS employment would allow to identify areas of strength in NATO’s current MTDS capability as well as areas requiring improvements. The SG215 Personnel Recovery/Extraction scenario, adopted as a reference within the SG215 study, is one of the most challenging for a MTDS employment, allowing to efficiently achieve the above objectives.

• The survey performed highlighted that:

o In most of the joint multinational exercises it is missing a repository to share a common database, and the database correlation is not guaranteed; this causes issues during training since trainees in different simulators can see different things (e.g. when looking at the terrain, the features might be different); not all systems “see” the same things.

o After-Action Review (AAR) is considered essential to maintain or improve the unit combat readiness and to provide effective exercise assessment; it is performed in several different ways, but such a diversified approach is considered normal, since the training audience and the background can be very different.

Recommendations

Figure 3.1 Mission Rehearsal & Ops Assessment roadmap overview 2

Short Term Medium Term

Scenario Development Live integration and

debrief


NATO UNCLASSIFIED 10

Short Term

• Identify a minimum set of capabilities to be met by each “MTDS enabled” Simulation/Training center to take part and support MTDS effectively

• Use the Personnel Recovery/Extraction scenario as a reference mission rehearsal exercise or operational assessment.

• Agree the database during the exercise preparation phase to ensure that each system database is in alignment and consistent for the scenarios exercise area (e.g. Terrain Data; assure that all the systems are using DTED level 1 or higher) and to overcome the issues due to the lack of a common database.

Medium Term

• During the planning phase of an exercise, consider the integration of simulations in all exercises, including the live component, weighing advantages/disadvantages against training objectives.

• Choose the right balance of LVC simulations in training taking into account all the factors (e.g training objectives, available resources, environmental-psyco-physical constraints, technology advance, etc…), as in-depth addressed and analyzed in Annex E, para 4.2.

• Increase the use of Virtual and Constructive simulations for training to achieve an higher ratio benefits vs costs, considering that Live assets training will still be necessary to guarantee the maximum training effectiveness level for operational employment.

• Perform high fidelity and quality After-Action Review (AAR), accurately replaying what happened during the exercise and accessing and integrating all exchanged info/data and interaction, along with White Cell injects.

• Allow Observer-Controllers/Trainers (OC/T) to access and manipulate exercise data/format to provide to the training audience a distributed (e.g over video-conference) assessment.

• Standardise the Personnel Recovery/Extraction scenario and use it as reference benchmark for the identification of shortfalls in training exercises.

3.1.3.2 Potential users and value of the approach

Conclusions

• Though the MTDS concept is not new and its training benefits are well known and recognized, MTDS is still not fully exploited at its best potential; within NATO there is a gap between some Nations already making an extensive use of (joint) MTDS, and the rest of NATO Nations. Some NATO nations also have capabilities, but still do not achieve full exploitation of the MTDS potential, relegating it mainly to NATO or national exercises, usually involving the personnel only few times a year.

• Existing national and NATO Legacy Simulation Centres (facilities originally developed to simulate a system/sub-system) often have MTDS capabilities. A list of national centers with a MTDS potential, interested in MTDS or that could benefit from it is contained in Paragraphs E 3.2.4/3.2.5 of Annex E), but is not exhaustive and should be expanded.

• Also existing Verification and Validation (V&V) Simulation Centers (e.g. Test Beds) have a good MTDS potential. While still retaining their primary V&V role, they proved effective also in supporting training when connected into NATO/National MTDS exercises.

• Within these Legacy and selected V&V Centres, MTDS could be used effectively by properly balancing the mix of LVC simulations, taking into account training needs, audience and constraints; the integration of a legacy simulation centre into a MTDS network might be challenging for technology and costs unless the centre already has



interfacing capabilities in terms of connections to national simulation networks and support of appropriate simulation standards (e.g. DIS/HLA).


o Training centers supporting MTDS are interconnected via different connections; the most used for joint NATO exercises is the connection to the multinational Combined Federated Battle Laboratories Network (CFBLNet).

o Simulation interoperability is seen as one of the key requirements for distributed exercises; standards as DIS and HLA are supported by almost all training centers

o Most of the centers see the need for a persistent connection to connect exercises on short-notice; the main issues highlighted were: the common availabilty of minimum set of specific capabilities (Annex E, para

E.3.3.5) so that a common MTDS approach could be reached; the security accreditation process, whose length (weeks or even months) makes

short notice exercises not possible and full MTDS potential not exploited. o The need to support exercises at different security levels was stressed, although this

capability is not implemented in all centers.

• As an overall conclusion from the survey performed, what appears to be generally lacking at NATO and National level is a common or at least a more shared approach to MTDS:

o A shared approach to exercise planning, preparation, execution, and recovery is one of the key pillars for the achievement of a common NATO MTDS capability. Considering the range of training levels addressed, and level of maturity demonstrated through the survey/interviews, the USAFE Warrior Preparation Center (WPC) appears to be making a more extensive use of MTDS to provide Joint and Combined warfighter training through live, synthetic and blended capabilities.

o Establishing a common approach to MTDS should be supported by Simulation and Training Centers, but cannot be demanded to them, since their vision might be too much focused on their specific needs.

• Ideally, units will train in a live simulations environment to the greatest extent possible. However, training events conducted in a live environment result in a greater amount of uncertainty, cannot be reset and are subject to limitations preventing to meet their full potential (e.g. cost, air/land space availability, environmental impact/limitations and the availability of units). Constructive and Virtual simulations can mitigate the Live simulations limitations; they can also expand the number of participating units and reduce the training costs (e.g., by putting aircrews/operators in virtual simulators that allow TTPs training in support of live simulations and training around the clock).

• MTDS allows units to address such restrictions as well as distance, which would prevent to train together and also provides planners the possibility to add complexity in a realistic manner with accurately replicated effects.

• The use of Virtual and Constructive simulations for training would significantly reduce the environmental impact (e.g., noise pollution, CO2 emissions, release of hazardous material/chemicals).

• The introduction in the NATO Air Forces of 5th generation assets (equipped with very long range sensors/weapons, with stealth and networked operation capabilities) and weapon systems (to include UCAVs) is creating interoperability problems for networking with lower generation assets, and will make difficult to perform or will even negate/descope realistic complex live exercises addressing networked sensor to shooter events or coordinated employment. MTDS could support the resolution of the interoperability issues between 5th and 4th generation systems, while providing a secure training for TTPs of advanced technology assets.

• The distributed nature of MTDS makes security a primary factor to be considered.



• The establishment of a common MTDS approach should be part of NATO Smart Defence Initiative (SDI); its benefits are in line with SDI aims, by providing a way for the nations to pool and share capabilities to achieve a more cost effective training.

Recommendations

Figure 3.2 Potential users & Value of the Approach roadmap overview 3

Short Term

• Integrate Legacy and selected V&V Simulation Centres in the training exercises since they have expert and qualified training systems operators who could benefit from the integration in MTDS exercises and, at the same time, bring into the MTDS environment their experience and knowledge of the systems.

• Involve Legacy and selected V&V Simulation Centres in the definition of a common MTDS approach by: identifying current capabilities and gaps, providing baseline for capabilities to mitigate gaps, developing and implementing, at national and multinational level, requirements and Test Beds for MTDS capabilities, assuring the life cycle management of national MTDS capabilities.

• Develop an MTDS Test & Certification Process, focused at certifying legacy and non-legacy LVC assets.

• Involve National MODs in the achievement of a common MTDS capability:

o MODs to define/update national M&S strategies to take into account the training needs;

o MODs to conduct a detailed survey on available capabilities and national needs;

o MODs to identify the National Simulation/Training Centers that each nation would be willing to allocate/integrate into a National and/or NATO MTDS;

o Start a discussion at NATO level, considering the National contributions, and organize workshops with industry and end users to agree on a common approach on MTDS.

• Continue to effectively disseminate NIAG/STO studies outputs to National MoDs and down to end users.

• Inform Simulation/Training Centres potentially involved in a MTDS exercise as soon as possible, to overcome security issues (e.g. accreditation) which might need significant time and prevent the participation to the exercise.

• Establish, through MSG-165, a link between NATO MTDS and the Smart Defence Initiative (SDI), led by Simulation Centers which have demonstrated the achievement of a wider range of training levels addressed and level of maturity in using MTDS (e.g. the USAFE WPC).

Medium Term

• Establish a MTDS capability, focused on supporting interoperability assessment between multinational 5th generation systems, also when networked with 4th generation platforms.

• Address regularly security issues such as level of exercises and accreditation, taking into account also the aspects related to cyber defense.

• Initial secured MTDS Operational Capability. Establish accreditation procedures for a set of simulation centres.

Short Term Medium Term Long Term

Secure MTDS FOC

Involvement of

simulation centers and

MoDs

Interoperability and initial

security accreditation



Long Term

• Final secured MTDS Operational Capability. Connect the MTDS Simulation/Training Centres to a persistent MTDS network, also to mitigate security accreditation issues (S-NAEC and I-NAEC for CFBLNet).

3.1.3.3 Potential employments for current NATO and National exercises and

potential industry’s contributions

Conclusions

• Paragraph E 5.1 of Annex E contains a list of current exercise, where MTDS could be used effectively, by properly balancing the mix of LVC simulations, while taking into account training needs, audience and constraints.


o distributed exercises, either NATO or National, are the most natural application of MTDS, since they usually foresee the participation of different Armed Forces (Joint) and offer the possibility to train the operators in quite complex scenarios;

o there is not a real life cycle management of the training simulators in order to manage changing simulations and training requirements;

o several technologies (Annex E, para E.3.3.5) are lacking to improve the training value of the exercises; some of them are common to the achievement of a persistent connection.

• The collaboration between Military Forces and Industry is considered a key factor in developing a NATO MTDS capability, involving different phases from requirement definition to solution-technology identification to, finally, capability development.

• MTDS needs an improved life cycle management to take advantage of the advances in simulation technologies which can provide a more effective training; industry can provide a definite contribution since, in the industrial process, simulations are normally used in all stages of the Product Life Cycle (PLC).

Recommendations

Figure 3.3 Potential Industry Contribution roadmap overview 4

Short Term

• Start building a collaborative environment between industry and military forces where industry engineers work together with operators, trainers and trainees so that:

o stakeholders needs are collected/implemented by industry, along the PLC; o military operators can report bugs or malfunctions in real time so that engineers can

shorten the time needed to solve them; o industry can support military personnel during the execution of exercises.

• Assure the link with industry, which could provide:

o support in the definition of MTDS architecture, infrastructure and required capabilties; o new technologies (e.g. Virtual Reality, Mixed Reality, Augmented Reality) providing

immersive Virtual training with improved realism, reducing the need for Live Training; o simulations of assets, platforms and weapons, to overcome/mitigate security, safety or

environmental issues deriving from live employment of them;


Continue service

support….

Increase industry-military

collaboration Industrial Service Support



o support to the final assessment of training exercises by providing existing HW/SW tools to gather and analyse data recorded during the execution;

o expanded use of commercial or mixed commercial/military training sites for basic training of aircrews, operators and maintainers, so that nations can attain basic training without the need to invest in buying, employing and maintaining dedicated assets;

o initial connection of industry’s Simulation Centers to national networks for insertion of developmental systems.

Medium Term

• Maintain the link with industry, which could provide:

o support to the management of MTDS architecture and infrastructure taking into account technology and standard evolutions;

o simulation as a service according to different audiences and requirements; o tools to support an improved planning and scenario definition, using new technologies

such as Artificial Intelligence, Deep Learning and Big Data; o support services for connectivity (e.g., Cross-domain capability, Bandwidth efficiency,

Data and network security); o support to the final assessment of a training exercise by providing new HW/SW tools

to improve the gathered data quality-availability and analyse data recorded during the execution.

o connection of industrial Simulation/Training centers to the Nations/NATO MTDS network allowing the insertion in a MTDS environment of systems still under development and concurrently start training operators.

Long Term

• Maintain the link with industry, which could provide:

o an efficient simulator/training system Product Life Cycle (PLC).

3.2 Exercise Management & Interoperability

3.2.1 Objectives

This Chapter outlines the Exercise Management and Interoperability topics for Mission Training through Distributed Simulations (MTDS); details are provided in Annexes F and G. In accordance with the tasking, it will specifically examine related technologies, standards, architectures, processes, interfaces and information exchange interoperability issues (including scenario and terrain database exchange; simulation interoperability; exercise management; interfaces with real assets (e.g. C4ISTAR, UAVs, fighters, ships and land assets) and network access).

3.2.2 Work approach / activities carried out

The Team B has identified 5 interoperability topics that should be addressed: Exercise Management; Air MTDS scenario definition language; Dynamic Terrain solutions; Datalink Interoperability; and Live-Virtual Interoperability. To analyse these topics the Team B is divided in five sub-teams. Each sub-team analyses one of the topics. The following approach is taken by each sub-team:

• Identify requirements and gaps

o Describe requirements from available documentation o Identify known gaps with respect to requirements o Identify issues with respect to interoperability

• Analysis

o Group issues into categories o Analyse issue categories (including identifying current standards and activities)



• Solutions and road mapping

o Analyse current solutions per identified category o Propose short term, mid term, long term solutions to implement solution o Recommend activities how to achieve short term/mid term/long term solutions o Summarize Conclusions and Recommendations

3.2.3 Conclusions and recommendations

In this paragraph for each of the five interoperability topics the main conclusions and recommendations are presented. Detailed information and analysis can be found in the Annexes F and G.

3.2.3.1 MTDS Exercise Management

Conclusions

MTDS Exercise Management (MEM) aims to provide operational and technical support to the Exercise Control cells (EXCON) of any exercise. This support is focused on the preparation, execution and post processing stages of the MTDS exercise. Currently many of the MEM functions are done manually like scenario data conversion, MEL/MIL management. There is only limited tool functionality available for supervision and data management. This limits the scaleability of MTDS exercises due to workload, availability of specialized personnel and risk of errors when exercises grow in size and complexity. The following requirements for MEM are identified to fill these gaps. In the exercise preparation stage:

• MEM converts the scenario data, provided by EXCON, in inputs for all simulation assets connected through the MTDS infrastructure.

• Scenario data distribution service to MSUs, common tools and test services should be available

• MEM reports to EXCON on the MTDS infrastructure set-up progress.

In exercise execution stage:

• MEM supervises the start-up of MSUs required for scenario execution and manages incidents during the execution

• MEM synchronizes MTDS infrastructure configuration and scenario execution in relation with the MEL/MIL directives

• MEM informs the EXCON on the MTDS infrastructure health and scenario progress

• MEM manages the data collection at central and local level to support EXCON in post exercise analysis.

In post processing stage:

• MEM supports the EXCON for mass debrief with scenario replay using centralized data logs, possibly synchronized with replay at local level of specific logs.

Recommendations

MTDS Exercise Management Action Plan :

Figure 3.4 MTDS Exercise Management roadmap overview 5


Big data and AI for TTPs Initial MEM capabilities MSaaS design for full

MEM capabilities



Short term:

• Web portal application for administrative support to exercises

• Scenario generation tool with support for ORBAT editing, entity allocation to MSUs, importing ATO and OPTASKLINK, INTEL data

• Shared repository for exchange of data, documents and tools

• Supervision tool for

o network configuration monitoring and analysis o MTDS exercise set up and execution

• Recording and debrief tools for MTDS exercises

Medium term:

• Extend Scenario generation tool with MEL/MIL interface, allocation of trainees and training objectives, and support for resource management

• Extend shared repository and start installing MSaaS functionality (scenario data extraction, terrain database generation/extraction)

• Extend supervision tool with better support for database set-up, test services and dry-run capability, crash recovery and zombies’ entities management and run-time re-allocation

• Adopt standards for distributed logging and debrief

Long term:

• Big data services on MTDS scenarios and exercise data collection.

• Artificial Intelligence for Tactics, Technics and procedures

• Support development of new systems

3.2.3.2 Air MTDS Scenario Definition Language

Conclusions

Conceptual model plays a central role in simulation and its application areas because it forms the core requirements document for the simulation environment. It therefore sets the logical frame for the technical implementation of a simulation environment and ensures that the technical implementation fulfils the objectives of the simulation. Common language (and more important a common understanding) of descriptions, parameters, relationships of entities and their meaning is required to successfully set up a simulation environment. If there is a common understanding of terms and definitions a standardized way of documenting descriptions, parameters and their meaning in the simulation environment context needs to be agreed on. More complex aspects like behaviors or relationships must documented in a standardized way. The coordinated initialization of C2 systems and simulation systems should be addressed, this means that each simulator has to be adapted to follow the defined initialization sequence.

Recommendations

The below recommendations include short, medium and long term components designed to lead from the current situation to the desired long term solutions.

Figure 3.5 Air MTDS scenario definition roadmap overview 6



Short Term

• Develop conceptual model of Air Operations.

• Specify common language and develop data mediation for legacy tools. Extension of the Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL) SISO standard could be a solution.

• Tactical scenario manager including intel data.

• Provide a federation on a first set of data to be exchanged. Air missions, trajectories, airborne equipment/ammunition, RoE.

Medium Term

• Best practice document on conceptual model.

• Formalize common language standards and identify/implement critical services.

• Harmonize MSDL and common language for air operations.

• Address interoperability issue with aggregate simulation if required.

Long Term

• NMSG and SISO addressing conceptual modelling for all domain (Air, Land, Maritime).

• Adopt common language for general use.

• Tactical scenario generation tools to be common language native.

3.2.3.3 Dynamic Terrain Solutions

Conclusions MTDS Exercise Management (MEM) can provide operational and technical support to the Exercise Control cells (EXCON) of any exercise; this support is focused on the preparation, execution and post processing stages of the MTDS exercise. A common scenario language of descriptions, parameters, relationships of entities and their meaning improves the setting up of a simulation environment. A single SNE model that can be incorporated into a large number of simulators, and a set of network services for dynamic effects ensures “fair-fight” conditions in MTDS exercises A Qualification Process & Tools suite would be needed to evaluate off-line the interoperability of systems, expecially for datalink interoperability. Interfaces to Live systems (C2, Aircraft, instrumented systems) should be standardized and best practice developed for coherent representation of environment among all LVC elements of a MTDS exercise.

Recommendations

Figure 3.6 Dynamic Terrain roadmap overview 7

Short term

• Prototype SNE dynamic services such as damage, weather, etc.

• Promote the inclusion of fitness for MTDS requirements in new simulator procurements in member states. Define the standards and requirements.

• Keep working on standards to be applied in the medium term, and test their viability through reference implementations and prototypes.


Single SNE with dynamic services

SNE services & standards definition

SNE services & standards

implementation



Medium term

• Provide services for parts of SNE based on currently ongoing standards development as TRL improves. Impose requirements to interface to SNE and dynamic terrain services for MTDS preparation and execution according to standards and interface control documents published for these new services.

• Implement requirements in new operational systems that contemplate their use in MTDS. Work with national procurement agencies to include these standards by providing cost/benefit information.

• Work with national organizations to use the same emerging standards for SNE data sets as are to be required for participation in MTDS.

Long term

• Create a universally available, vendor-neutral synthetic environment covering the entire world, and standardize the interfaces used to work with it. The main idea is to invert the current model of “providing a terrain for simulator X” into “connect simulator X to the exercise environment”. Move ownership/responsibility for the SNE from the simulator to the exercise organizers by providing common databases and services.

3.2.3.4 Data Link Interoperability

Conclusions

The analysis of the subject Data Link Interoperability for MTDS exercises leads to the definition of categories in which interoperability issues should be solved:

1. MTDS Specification: During this phase it is important to share detailed information regarding required data exchange, modeling fidelity and synchronization that will be required during the exercise.

2. Data Link Applicable Standards: The correct standards should be identified for data exchange via Data Link. A single standard is preferred as gateways which translate between different standards can add instability to the federation. Nevertheless local back-up gateway should remain when no other solutions are available.

3. Data Link Standards Implementation: Standards do not guarantee plug and play. Define an ICD document that specifies details about the standard implementation.

4. MTDS setting to work: Use a standard process to discover early any critical issue that affects interoperability. Early identification and management can drastically reduce impact (time and cost) on the core MTDS activities. Most critical issues in this phase are the network availability and performance.

Recommendations

Figure 3.7 Data Link interoperability roadmap overview 8

Short Term

• Use suite of gateways to integrate federates with different standard implementations; missing gateways should be developed.

• Refine the process of Federation Agreement definition in order to be sure that covers all relevant details.



• Refine the Setting to Work process of MTDS Federation, also by using Test Tools, in order to evaluate in early phase the Federate Interoperability.

Medium Term

• Create a library of Federation Agreements and a shared Setting to Work process to standardize definition and setup of MTDS Federation.

• Define a Qualification Process to verifyoff-line system interoperability.

• Define standard for voice communications between Live assets and Simulations.

Long Term

• Implement the Qualification Process & Tools suite in order to verify off-line the interoperability of systems.

3.2.3.5 Live Virtual Interoperability

Conclusions

This section addresses issues, gaps and solutions related to Live-Virtual Interoperability (LVI). The analysis took outputs from previous work which highlights challenges associated with system connectivity. These issues crossed a number of common areas relating to interoperability of Live, Virtual and Constructive (LVC) systems:

• Simulation Architecture - Live platforms have no specific interfaces dedicated to receive simulation data.

• Encoding & Decoding - Accuracy of simulations must be high in order to supply live platforms with high quality data.

• Live System Integration - Implementation(s) of communications protocols in simulations must be adapted to support live platforms implementations.

• Live-Simulation Interoperability - There are security issues related to connection of live platforms to simulation network.

• Time Management & Synchronisation - Time management: simulation must be run in real time and a common time synchronization source must be defined.

Note: Currently various training mode are implemented in real systems. Simulation link with live systems are not yet standardized.

Recommendations

In order manage and address the above issues the following roadmap should be considered:

Figure 3.8 Live Virtual interoperability roadmap overview 9

Short term

• Accept that integration of legacy live platforms with simulations have limitations.

• Use adapters/gateways to overcome differences in protocol and transmission.

• Run current simulations in real time.

• Define a common policy for integration of live platforms.

• Use GPS as time source for simulation synchronisation and localisation



Medium Term

• Update existing Virtual/Constructive simulations with real time dynamics.

• Develop Cross Domain Security (CDS) solutions.

• Develop specific gateways to adapt and filter data .

• Define specific data exchange standards.

Long Term

• Design live systems with simulation in mind and vice versa.

• Develop dedicated data link for integration of live platform with simulation federations.

3.3 Implementation

3.3.1 Objectives This Chapter outlines the Implementation (Team C) for Mission Training through Distributed Simulations (MTDS); details are provided in Annex H. This chapter provides, within the overall roadmap development, consideration to the following topics:

• Security: Securing and protection of classified data and information exchanged on the distributed networks,

• Repository; A common modelling and simulation tool repository to support the MTDS network and interoperability between candidate NATO and National Training centers.

• MTDS implementation: Procedures and agreement required for establishing and operating the distributed networks, testing, validation, certification, accreditation before use, management requirements during network operation, maintenance and servicing requirements.

3.3.2 Work approach / activities carried out The study starts with the identification of applicable documents for the MTDS subjects studied. Analysis of these documents leads to MTDS specific requirements on security, repository and implementation aspects. Next the requirements are used to identify applicable State of Art solution and to identify remaining gaps with respect to the MTDS requirements. In the following step a roadmap is created, identifying solutions to fill the gaps within specific terms. Finally conclusions and recommendations are provided

3.3.3 Conclusions and recommendations In this paragraph for each of the three Implementation topics the main conclusions and recommendations are presented. Detailed information and analysis can be found in Annex H. The study and analysis of MTDS related Security, Repository and Implementation issues has resulted in a proposed roadmap with recommendations for implementation of organisations, policy development and technology development to support effective and efficient operation of MTDS within NATO countries. For each of the topics the conclusions and recommendations are summarized next.

3.3.3.1 Security

Conclusions

• Multi Single Levels of Security (MSL) and Multiple Independent Level of Security architectures with Data Diode don’t provide bi-directional interoperability and as such are not solutions to pursue for MTDS

• A System High (SH) security architecture requires all equipment with different classification to be configured to the highest security classification This requires extraordinary efforts for setup and dismounting of re-classified equipment..



• Each time a SH security architecture is set up a full certification/accreditation by the Information Assurance Authorities has to be performed, which can take considerable time and effort.

• A security policy is required to prevent unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, inspection, recording or destruction of information. Some nations currently don’t allow Multi-Domain Security Architectures such as Multiple Independent Level of Security with bi-dectional data exchange gateway (MILS/IXG) or Multiple Level of Security (MLS) architecture for MTDS, because (national) Information Security (INFOSEC)policies are missing for information assurance authorities to approve the use of these MTDS security solutions.

• No dedicated (NATO) authorized organisation exists to manage and operate the MTDS security architecture.

Recommendations

Based on these conclusions the following recommendations are provided and a schedule of implementation (Short, Mid or Long Term) for the capability or solution identified.

Short Term Medium Term Long Term Figure 3.9 Security roadmap overview 10

Short term

• Establish an (NATO) MDSA (Multi-Domain Security Architecture) Management Organisation capable of managing the security related aspects of the MTDS infrastructure (in relation with national authorities)

• A System Highsecurity architecture should be considered only as interim MDSA, until permanent MILS/IXG or MLS solutions will be available

• For recurring MTDS training events with same assets and infrastructure, a one-time certification and accrediation of assets and infrastructure should be pursued to allow for efficient setup and preparation. Manage and operate this infrastructur during training delivery.

• NATO and nations should request from industry to demonstrate MILS/IXG and MLS solutions to evaluate the compliance with operational and training needs. Furthermore NATO and national IA Authorities should be involved to assess INFOSEC compliance.

Medium term

• Nations should define INFOSEC Policies based on the latest MDSA solutions like MILS/IXG and MLS enabling IA Authorities to certify these architectures.

• Design, Develop and demonstrate MDSA solutions for MTDS and develop, together with national IA authorities, required policies... Although MLS solutions already exist lack of INFOSEC Policies are preventing further employment. Verification of the performance of the proposed MLS solutions in an MTDS context is required before further recommendations for full operational deployment can be developed

Long term

• Take MLS as long term solution for full LVC interoperability.

Establish MDSA Organisation

Define MDSA solutions and

develop INFOSEC policies

Validate MDSA

solutionsand INFOSEC

policies

Application to LVC



3.3.3.2 Repository

Conclusions

• The repository promotes interoperability and re-use of assets and as such plays an essential role in MTDS development and delivery. The repository provides facitlites to exchange common data (terrain database, scenarios, configuration files, support tools,..) and services (e.g. Exercise Management support) between MTDS participants. For MTDS initiatives currently no common repository faciltiy is available and implemented.

• Policies for using repositories (e.g. covering access, maintenance and IP restrictions) are missing in most nations. At international level there is lack of common policies and mandate for using registry/repositories (i.e., sharing of information, regularly updating metadata).

• For MTDS development and setup, dealing with the composition of a suitable federation for a specific training, information on the specifics and characteristics of simulation assets is required. Various metadata schemas exist to store basic descriptions of simulation resources (e.g., MSC-DMS).There is no NATO-wide agreement on preferred metadata specification schema.

• The MSaaS initiative could be a solution providing data and tool access services.

Recommendations

Based on these conclusions the following recommendations are provided and a schedule of implementation (Short, Mid or Long Term) for the capability or solution identified.

Figure 3.10 Repository roadmap overview 11

Short term

• Share required information about existing models and data sets (using Excel or similar tools)

• Exchange data across various systems (of different nations) through manual data export.

• Develop mappings between different existing metadata specifications.

• Introduce and use templates throughout the MTDS lifecycle (e.g. for test plan)

• Transition existing repositories for operational use with minor modifications and adaptations.

• Identify and analyse repository requirements. Evaluate MSaaS to support common MTDS repository.

Medium term

• Design and start development of common MTDS repository. Define roadmap for repository development

• Address Identity and Access Management. Permanently connect national repositories and allow specific data exchange (i.e. metadata about simulation resources).

• Develop and adapt STANREC/STANAG for a preferred metadata specification.



• Develop and adopt policies that mandate using and maintaining repositories (i.e., sharing of information, regularly updating metadata etc.)

• Identify MTDS-specific requirements for repository user interface (e.g., required roles, actions, views, reports)

• Integrate process support using repositories into comprehensive management systems (for planning, designing and executing an exercise)

• Select or develop MTDS specific collaboration tool services. Migrate templates from stand-alone use (Excel) to collaborative work environment.

Long term

• Implement, test and operationalize common MTDS repository

• Integrate MTDS Exercise Management services into the common MTDS repository. Select or develop an MTDS specific set of services

3.3.3.3 MTDS implementation

Conclusions

• Current MTDS implementations and exercises executed on national (e.g. US Distributed Mission Operations) and international scale (e.g. Spartan Warrior) can only be successful when organized and managed by dedicated organisations. Such an organisation should manage the delivery and execution of the MTDS training to the national participants/simulation centres and should manage the development and maintenance of the MTDS infrastructure/architecture supported by industry (asset and service providers).

• Most MTDS exercises take considerable time, costs and effort to prepare, execute and evaluate, mainly due to the scale and complexity of the simulation environment. A well orchestrated and managed process (MTDS Exercise Management) for planning, preparation, setup, execution and evaluation of MTDS exercises/training, supported by (automated) tools, can reduce costs, effort and time in order to deliver training at more frequent intervals.

• An MTDS Reference Architecture is a prerequisite to develop an initial operational capability MTDS infrastructure and to support (cost) efficient and effective development, integration and testing of legacy and new MTDS assets and services.

• Efficient and frequent (weekly, monthly) use of MTDS requires (1) security accreditation, (2) verified, validated and accredited assets, and (3) support services to enable efficient and effective exercise preparation and testing.

• The existence of interoperability issues in an MTDS exercise can not only have a negative impact on the training objectives but also on the acceptance of the training adience to use the MTDS infrastructure for the purpose envisioned. Although, for some interopability issues, solutions are available on the market, there is no common set of MTDS Qualification tools/services and MTDS Support services available to mitigate interoperability issues during MTDS development and execution. MTDS Support services, amongst others, can consist of Terrain/Weather Database production and distribution facilities, centralized repository services, MTDS Exercise Management services and Training Analysis services.

• MSG-165 (see Technical Activity Program in Annex K) has been established to support R&D and trials, to solve the current MTDS gaps, and initiate operational exercises.

• MSG-164 (see Technical Activity Program in Annex K) has been established to initiate M&S Services based on cloud and big data technologies. The previous MSG-136 study demonstrated web portal access to repositories, data and tools.



Recommendations

Based on these conclusions the following recommendations are provided and, where applicable, a schedule of implementation (Short, Mid or Long Term) for the capability or solution identified.

Figure 3.11 MTDS Implementation roadmap overview 12

Short term

• Establish an MTDS Training Organisation capable of delivering training on request by participating nations or self-initiated training, while hosting the White Cell and Exercise Management facilities/services

• Establish an MTDS Development & Maintenance Organisation capable of developing, implementing, upgrading and maintaining the MTDS Training Infrastructure and related MTDS Reference Architecture.

• Develop a persistent, Initial Operational Capability MTDS infrastructure to allow for continuous NATO and National mission training. Development should, next to composition of the MTDS federation, take into account the Development and instantiation of a long-term CFBL initiative, delivering the required network infrastructure between participating nations. (see SDI project, Annex K).

• To efficiently integrate national (legacy and new assets) into the MTDS infrastructure it is recommended to develop and maintain the MTDS Reference Architecture for Air and Joint Operations.

• Establish an MTDS IOC through the MSG-165, to support the SG215 key findings for Air and Joint MTDS. This study will support the SDI discussions under the lead of USAFE WPC.

• Analyze and define relevant M&S Services for MTDS through MSG-164.

• Create awareness of MTDS capabilities and benefits through key international events (ITEC, I/ITSEC, CAX forum).

Medium term

• Develop, implement and maintain (a set of) MTDS Qualification Services to support efficient and effective MTDS development, implementation, integration & test and execution. Amongst others, development should be focused at:

o Development of a MTDS Test & Certification Process, focussed at certifying legacy and non-legacy LVC assets efficiently using the MTDS Test & Certification Suite and Certification Services (technical support) provided.

o Develop a smart and efficient tool suite to support MTDS Test & Certification of national LVC assets and other support tools. Smart in a sense that no dedicated tool specialists are required to operate the MTDS Test & Certification suite at the different stages of the process and, by using advanced analysis methods, that the analysis of test results are largely automated. Development can take advantage of MSG-134 study results and follow-on study currently prepared.

• Develop and implement Services for MTDS exercise preparation, conduct and debrief through MSG-164.



Long term

• Develop, Implement and Maintain MTDS Services/Support Tools to efficiently and effectively support MTDS capability development and MTDS delivery, amongst others:

o Terrain Database Production facility: Develop and implement an architecture, process and HW/SW infrastructure to support Terrain Database development, maintenance and distribution to participating MTDS LVC assets.

o EXCON / Simulation Management Services capable of efficient LVC asset initialisation by distribution of (standard formatted) configuration files prior to start of the exercise

o Weather-, terrain-, weapons-, damage- and radio effects services in order to reduce impact of fidelity and fair fight limitations.

o Mission Training Analysis Tools, to support evaluation of training objectives achievement

In summary, the study and analysis of MTDS related Security, Repository and Implementation issues has resulted in a proposed roadmap with recommendations for implementation of organisations, policy development and technology to support effective and efficient operation of MTDS within NATO countries. The following graph shows the main items of the roadmap clustered and projected in time. The stars in the roadmap show the estimated time of start of operation for the identified organisations and the estimated time for the implementation of the required operational capability for technology and policy topics. The dotted lines represent the development period required for delivering the operational capability.

Figure 3.12 Overall Implementation Roadmap 13



Chapter 4. - Study extension on NATO M&S Action Plan

In accordance with the additional tasking provided with NIAG SG215 Study Order Extension DI(2017) 0231 (IP) dated 2 August 2017, the SG215 has contributed to the revision process of the :

• 2015 Gap Analysis Report on Modelling and Simulation in support of Military Training dated 15th July 2015

• NATO Action Plan on Modelling and Simulation in Support of Military Training dated 25th January 2016

This Chapter outlines the resulting activities performed by SG215; details are provided in Annexes I (Gap Analysis) and J (Action Plan).

4.1 Objectives

The objective of the study extension was to analyze the revised NATO M&S Gaps and provide input to the revised NATO M&S Action Plan.

The main focus was on Air Operations and C2 Systems:

• High Level Training for Air Policing (see note below)

• JFAC training (Air and Joint operations training)

• Systems (Combined/ joint Tactical Training)

Notes: Following discussions with Sponsor and interaction with ACT, it was agreed that: o Air Policing issues had to be specifically re-focused on the NATO and National Air

Policing decision makers, who need to be trained together with the civil and military ATC authorities;

o within an Integrated Air Missile Defence (IAMD) approach, the BMD issue, deleted by ACT as specific gap, was however still a relevant aspect of Collective Training & Exercise for Systems (MTDS) and JFAC Training, and as such had to be addressed in these Gaps.

Second focus was the link with other relevant M&S domains for Air & Joint MTDS:

• Maritime (for Air operations coordination)

• Land (for Air operations coordination) & Special OPS

• Cyber on Air Operations

Building on the common gaps identified in the Education Training Exercise & Evaluation (ETEE) gap analysis (INFOSEC Policies and Procedures, Geo Data/Map Building, Modelling of the Operational Environment, Technology).

4.2 Work approach / activities carried out

SG215 recognised that Air Operations Training Gaps were not addressed at all in the 2015 NATO M&S Gap Analysis and 2016 Action Plan. SG215 consolidated their inputs with the initial NAFAG inputs (Ramstein topical workshop held in June 2017); Air OPS COE for Systems; and SG215 & QRT operational experts. A very first input was therefore provided to ACT in August 2017 and further analysed during the dedicated SG-161 workshop held in STO in November 2017.

Other training disciplines (secondary focus and ETEE) were already included in the 2015 NATO M&S Gap and 2016 Action Plan (Noted G01 to G29 in the 2016 Action Plan version). Draft



revised Gaps were also provided by ACT & CMRE during the above mentioned SG-161 workshop.

Revised ETEE Gaps (G12 to G18) by ACT & CMRE had been provided in a more detailed list of M&S Specific Gaps noted 1 to 23. SG215 provided contribution only to ETEE Gaps: G14 -

INFOSEC, G15 - Geo Data / Map Building (renamed “Lack of a common approach for the Synthetic Natural Environment”), G16 - Modelling of the Operational Environment, G17 - Technical Gaps.

Even though the NIAG SG215 group is not a training authority able to declare training gaps, ACT recognised that it “provided valuable feedback for the elaboration of this Gap Analysis. Due to their knowledge and expertise on M&S-based training, HQ SACT has decided to include (in the NATO M&S Gap Analysis and Action Plan) the three gaps on Air Operations training declared by this NIAG working group”.

4.3 Conclusions and recommendations

The Key Air Operations identified Gaps and Action Plan entries concern:

• For JFAC: A comprehensive JFAC live training would require a significant complexity in terms of scenario and multiple assets employment (types and capabilities). Since JFAC is mainly handling data and information, the use of a synthetic environment would be as effective as the live without the associated issues (resources/cost/etc…).

• For systems: It is increasingly difficult to fullfill the execution of live exercises to train adequately at the Operational/Tactical Level, due to the growing complexity of Air Systems in light of the fielding of 5th generation systems and interoperability with JISR, Maritime, Land and Cyber operations. Integration of Live, Virtual and Constructive simulation requires mature and scalable MTDS capabilities, supported by Simulation Tool allowing reduced EXCON manning and be easy to operate.

• For Air Policing: The NATO and the national Air Policing decision makers need to be trained together with the civil and military ATC authorities. The various types of crisis situations, and the evolutions of civil ATM rules and Air C2, require a specific simulation environment for Air Policing.

For each of the above gaps, completely missing in the initial version of the NATO M&S Action Plan, a newly elaborated time related sequence of Actions was proposed, addressing from policy definition to requirements to management/maintenance organization, infrastructure and tools, up to capability achievement, as detailed in Annex J.

For Maritime Ops, Land & Special Ops, and Cyber Defence Training Gap Analysis, SG215 provided few modifications in order to include Air and Joint integration for MTDS:

• An additional action both for Land and Maritime Action Plans (G01 & G02), has been added to the original Action Plan in order to support Air and Joint exercise.

• For Cyber Defence Training (G04) and Infosec (G15), few modifications are proposed, but the original Action Plan is considered to cover already the actions needed for Air and Joint exercises.

• For Special Ops (G07), no Action Plan modifications was considered necessary as this Gap already addressed “Individual and Small Team Training – Air”.

For ETEE (M&S specific tools)

• G15 - Geo Data / Map Building. the Gap Analysis and the Action Plan are completely reviewed in order to include also weather and dynamic effects (mandatory for Battle Damage Assessment).



• G16 - Modelling of the Operational Environment. The 2015 Gap analysis is maintained with some modifications or integrations to take in account the Air and Joint MTDS Exercise Management needs identified in previous para 3.2 and detailed in Annex G to this document. The corresponding Action Plan and time lines have been completely reviewed considering the rise of MSaaS and the SG215 finding.

• G17 – Technical Gaps. The 2015 Gap analysis is conserved with addition of NATO LVC M&S specific Gap and IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) impacts of MSaaS as tool and data server provider. Again the Action Plan is completely reviewed to include the M&S interoperability solutions identified in Annex G of this document.

Additionally, several gaps and action plans need coordination between different M&S disciplines:

• Particularly for Air Operations (JFAC and Systems training) with Maritime, Land and Special Operations.

• For Air Policing training with CIMIC training diciplines

• For Cyber Defence Operations training with all other domains (Air, Maritime, Land, …)

M&S specific technics identified need also to be coordinated, but also tailored for the different domain (Air, Maritime, Land, cyber, etc.) as the requirement are necessarly identical.

For Air and Joint tactical/operative training, the different needs to be integrated in a joint program and do not developed separately for each training discipline, like for FMN.



Chapter 5 Conclusions

The Air and Joint MTDS appears as a key driver toward NATO tactical/operative exercises including Live/Instrumented systems, Virtual and Constructive simulation (i.e. LVC); it is also an enabler toward the digital transformation and the rise of the 5th generation interconnecting Air components, JISR/UCAV, Ground/Surface Air Defense and C2 in cyber resilient systems.

In the previous chapters, the study has provided details and suggested framework of processes and methodologies by area of interest. Sponsor expected results, addressed in previous para 1.1., are mapped below to the higher level conclusions of the study:

Expectations Overall SG215 Conclusions

Address how technological innovations can be implemented to improve the capability to meet NATO and national training objectives in the context of joint and combined simulated operations.

As an overall conclusion from the survey performed, what appears to be generally lacking at NATO and National level is a common or at least a more shared approach to MTDS:

• A joint service approach to exercise planning, preparation, execution, and recovery is one of the key pillars for the achievement of a common NATO MTDS capability.

• Such a common MTDS capability should be coherent with the Joint Air Power Strategy1

• The establishment of a common MTDS approach should be part of NATO Smart Defence Initiative (SDI) with support of the USAFE WPC.

• The M&S action plan in short, medium and long term should be addressed: o Proper body should be the NMSG which has the vision and

competence to coordinate activities o Integration can be achieved through the current (MSG-165) SDI project

(currently 2.117) and future studies

The availability of a common reference scenario to be used within a NATO/Nations MTDS employment would allow to identify areas of strength in NATO’s current MTDS capability as well as areas requiring improvements.

Examine related technologies, standards, architectures, processes, interfaces, and information exchange interoperability issues

Full discussion of all aspects is addressed in previous para 3.2.3 and in Annexes F and G; in summary:

• MTDS Exercise Management (MEM) can provide operational and technical support to the Exercise Control cells (EXCON) of any exercise, focused on the exercise preparation, execution and post processing stages.

• A common scenario language of descriptions, parameters, relationships of entities and their meaning improves the set up a simulation environment.

• A single SNE model should be made available that can be incorporated into a large number of simulators, and a set of network services for dynamic effects ensures “fair-fight” conditions in MTDS exercises.

• A Qualification Process & Tools suite should be defined and to evaluate off-line the interoperability of systems, especially for datalink interoperability.

• Standardize interfaces to Live systems (C2, Aircraft, instrumented systems) and develop best practice for coherent representation of environment among all LVC elements of a MTDS exercise.

1 MCM-0257-2017 NATO Joint Air Power Strategy dated 18 Dec. 2017



MTDS could effectively support the resolution of the interoperability issues between 5th and 4th generation platforms/systems, while providing a secure training for TTPs of advanced technology assets.

MSG-165 is currently addressing the above topics.

Address security and protection of classified data and information exchanged on the distributed networks.

Full discussion of all technical aspects is addressed in previous para 3.3.3.1 and in Annex H; in summary:

• The distributed nature of MTDS makes security a primary factor to be considered.

• A bidirectional cross domain solution needs to be developed

• NATO/Nations authorized organizations are needed to manage and operate the MTDS security architecture.

• A Security Policy/INFOSEC is required to prevent unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, inspection, recording or destruction of information.

Advice on testing, validation, certification, accreditation before use, management requirements during network operation, maintenance, and servicing requirements.

Most MTDS exercises are demanding to prepare, execute and evaluate, mainly due to the scale and complexity of the simulation environment.

• A well-orchestrated and managed process (MTDS Exercise Management) for planning, preparation, setup, execution and evaluation of MTDS exercises/training, supported by (automated) tools, can reduce costs, effort and time in order to deliver training at more frequent intervals.

• An MTDS Reference Architecture is a prerequisite to develop an initial operational capability MTDS infrastructure and to support (cost) efficient and effective development, integration and testing of legacy and new MTDS assets and services.

• MTDS Qualification Services are required which support testing during development, integration, certification and accreditation of LVC assets, by use of largely automated testing tools.

Advice on a common modelling and simulation repository to support a common environment for the MDTS network and interoperability between candidate NATO and National Training centers.

The repository promotes interoperability and re-use of assets and as such plays an essential role in MTDS development and delivery. The repository provides facilities to exchange common data (e.g., terrain database, scenarios, configuration files, support tools) and services (e.g., Exercise Management support) between MTDS participants.

• In most of the joint multinational exercises it is missing a centralized repository to share a common database, and the database correlation is not guaranteed; this causes issues during training since not all systems “see” the same things.

• Policies for using repositories (e.g. covering access, maintenance and IP restrictions) are missing in most nations. At international level there is lack of common policies and mandate for using registry/repositories (i.e., sharing of information, regularly updating metadata).

• For MTDS development and setup, dealing with the composition of a suitable federation for a specific training, information on the specifics and characteristics of simulation assets is required. Various metadata schemes exist to store basic descriptions of simulation resources (e.g., MSC-DMS). There is no NATO-wide agreement on a preferred metadata specification scheme.

MSG-164 is currently supporting development and implementation of such Services.

Full discussion of all short, medium and long-term action plan for an industry contribution is addressed in previous para 3.1.3.3 and in Annex E; in summary:



Address Industrial contributions that can be offered to nations for networked simulation training.

• The collaboration between Military Forces and Industry is considered a key factor in developing a NATO MTDS capability, involving different phases from requirement definition to solution-technology identification and finally to capability development.

• The connection of industrial Simulation centers to the Nations/NATO MTDS network could support the air power digital transformation by allowing the insertion in a MTDS environment of systems still under development, to assess effectiveness and integration/human factor issues for new features and technologies, and concurrently start training operators.

• MTDS needs an improved life cycle management to take advantage of the advances in simulation technologies which can provide a more effective training; industry can provide a definite contribution since, in the industrial process, simulations are normally used in all stages of the Product Life Cycle (PLC).

Address the role of legacy simulation centers.

Existing national and NATO Legacy Simulation Centers often have MTDS capabilities; also, some existing Verification and Validation (V&V) Simulation Centers (e.g. Test Beds) have a good MTDS potential.

• Within these Legacy and selected V&V Centers, MTDS could be used effectively by properly balancing the mix of LVC simulations, taking into account training needs, audience and constraints;

• the integration of a legacy simulation center into a MTDS network might be challenging for technology and costs unless the center already has interfacing capabilities in terms of connections to national simulation networks, and support of appropriate simulation standards (e.g. DIS/HLA).

Establishing a common approach to MTDS should be supported by Simulation/Training Centers, but cannot be demanded to them, since their vision might be too much focused on their specific needs.

Identify simulation centers interested by follow-on experiments/exercises of this nature.

A list of national centers with a MTDS potential, interested in MTDS or that could benefit from it, is contained in Annex E, Paragraphs E 3.2.4/3.2.5.

Annex E Paragraph E 5.1 also contains a list of current exercises where MTDS could be used effectively, by properly balancing the mix of LVC simulations, while taking into account training needs, audience and constraints.

Support the ACT Requirement Authorities and Department Heads involved in the update of the list of M&S Gaps.

Provide input to the revised M&S Action Plan with main focus on Air Operations (Air Policing, JFAC Training and Systems), secondary focus on the link with Maritime, Land, Cyber and BMD M&S domains for Air & Joint MTDS, building

The detailed Gap Analysis and Action Plan activity and contribution to ACT is addressed in Chapter 4 and Annexes I and J. As requested, the SG215 input was provided to ACT by end December 2017 to support the elaboration of the new NATO M&S Action Plan.

In synthesis:

• For JFAC: Since JFAC is mainly handling data and information, the use of a synthetic environment would be as effective as the live without the associated issues (resources/cost/etc…).

• For systems: Integration of Live, Virtual and Constructive simulation requires mature and scalable MTDS capabilities, supported by Simulation Tool allowing reduced EXCON manning and be easy to operate.

• For Air Policing: The NATO and the national Air Policing decision makers need to be trained together with the civil and military ATC authorities. The various types of crisis situations, and the evolutions of civil ATM rules and Air C2, require a specific simulation environment for Air Policing.

• For Maritime Ops, Land & Special Ops, and Cyber Defence Training: few modifications provided to include Air and Joint integration for MTDS.



on the common gaps identified in the Education Training Exercise & Evaluation (ETEE) gap analysis.

Provide advice on training requirements and subsequent training needs for the Air Operations disciplines missing in the M&S Gap Analysis report.

Provide advice on M&S solutions to support Air Operations training in NATO, to be reflected in the NATO M&S Action Plan

For ETEE specific M&S additional Gaps and Action Plan are proposed for Air and Joint MTDS

• G15 - Geo Data / Map Building. weather and dynamic environment impact from human is currently missing

• G16 - Modelling of the Operational Environment. The corresponding NATO M&S specific Action Plan and time lines has been completely reviewed considering the rise of MSaaS and the SG215 findings.

• G17 – Technical Gaps. The Action Plan is completely reviewed to include the M&S interoperability solutions identified in Annex G of this document.

Additionally, several gaps and action plans need coordination between different M&S disciplines:

• Particularly for Air Operations (JFAC and Systems training) with Maritime, Land and Special Operations.

• For Air Policing training with CIMIC training disciplines

• For Cyber Defence Operations training with all other domains (Air, Maritime, Land, …)

• M&S specific techniques identified need also to be coordinated, but also customized for the different domain (Air, Maritime, Land, Cyber, etc.) as the requirements are not necessarily identical.

• For Air and Joint tactical/operative training, the different needs have to be integrated in a joint program and not developed separately for each training discipline, like for FMN.

Table 5.1 High Level Conclusions

Governance issue – a Note by the Project Sponsor.

There are many stakeholders in the NATO M&S Community of Interest (COI) but there is an incomplete picture of the extent of the COI and the associated roles and responsibilities. The NMSG which is the Delegated Tasking Authority (DTA) for STANAGs, sits under the STO rather than CNAD or MC. This is non-standard and as such the work of the NMSG has not had the necessary visibility alongside other mainstream work. There needs to be a review of the governance structure supporting NATO M&S and wider engagement to ensure that the community of interest is correctly identified and that there is a process to prioritize the development of M&S capabilities in line with other Defence Planning priorities. Correct POCs are needed, to ensure engagement on the Action Plan and that the Military Operational Requirements Sub-group (MORS) is fully supported.



Chapter 6 Recommendations

Many high level governance, operational and technical gaps remain in order to achieve the

ambition of Joint MTDS exercises.

Overall

• Key SG215 recommendations are:

o to address the NATO M&S Action Plan for short and medium term actions;

o to establish, through MSG-164 phase 1 and MSG-165 (short term), MSG-164 phase 2 (medium term), multi-national programs including R&D to provide solutions to identified gaps, experiment the solutions and coordinate NATO and multi-national efforts within the proposed Smart Defense Initiative project (SDI 2.117) on MTDS (Annex K) and future studies.

Figure 6.1 Air & Joint MTDS Roadmap 14

Specifically, by using the M&S focused time-range scale addressed in para 1.6:

Short term

• Involve National MODs in the achievement of a common NATO MTDS capability:

o MODs to define/update national M&S strategies and identify the National Centers willing to allocate/integrate into a National and/or NATO MTDS .

o Integrate Legacy and selected Verfication & Validation (V&V) Simulation Centers in the training exercises and involve them in supporting MoDs in the definition of a common MTDS.

• Start building an industry/military collaborative environment and assure the link with industry, to provide new technologies and support in the definition of MTDS architecture, infrastructure and required capabilties.

• Initiate all relevant NATO Action Plans for M&S specific gaps on Governance, Air Operations (G43, 44 and 45), INFOSEC (G14) to include Multi-Level Security Governance, Environmental Dynamic Data Base (G15), EXCON M&S Services (G16) and Technical Gaps (G17).



• Experiment interim M&S Multi-Level Security (MLS) technologies.

• Standardize interfaces to Live/Instrumented Systems (C2, Air and Surface Systems).

• Establish a follow-on NIAG Study group focused on 5th generation assets simulation needs for system design and training.

Medium Term

• Develop MTDS capability that is coherent with the Joint Air Power Strategy.

• Establish a MTDS capability, focused on supporting interoperability assessment between multinational 5th generation systems, also when networked with 4th generation platforms.

• Standardise a scenario (such as the Personnel Recovery/Extraction) as a reference benchmark for the identification of shortfalls in NATO/Nations MTDS training exercises.

• Implement M&S Services for MTDS, specifically for MTDS Exercise Management (MEM) in preparation, execution and debriefing of the exercises.

• Implement interfaces to Live/Instrumented Systems (C2, Air and Surface Systems).

• Validate and Accreditate M&S Multi-Level Security (MLS) solutions.

• Industry to provide support to the MTDS architecture and infrastructure management, simulation as a service and connection of their simulation centers to the Nations/NATO MTDS network for insertion of systems under development.

Long Term

• Unify MTDS (including LVC) training and exercises on Air, Land, Maritime and Cyber domains.

• Employ MTDS in Operational Exercises supporting large programs such as 5th generation assets and AFSC.

• Achieve full operational deployment of M&S Multi-Level Security (MLS) solutions.

• Industry to provide an efficient digital transformation for Air Operations and simulator/training systems Product Life Cycle (PLC).

• Implement advanced technologies (such as Big Data and AI) into the MTDS environment.

Governance issue – Project Sponsor Recommendations

It is recommended that:

• M&S is recognized as a capability area in its own right and included in NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) targets

• the NMSG is confirmed as the focal point for the coordination of NATO M&S activity with either the Head of ACT FUSOL or the Chairman of the NSMG as the Capability Area Facilitator (CAF);

• the correct Points of Contact are identified including:

o NATO HQ (IMS/IS);

o ACT (FUSOL and Project TIDE Sprint)

o ACO, AIRCOM

o M&S COE and SDI 2.117 (including the Warrior Preparation Center as the Lead organization).

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

releasable to Interoperability Platform

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

A-1

ANNEX A - ACRONYMS

AACMI Autonomous Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation AAR After Action Review ABTC Air Battlespace Training Center ACCS Air Command and Control System AD Air Defence AGS Alliance Ground Surveillance AFB Air Force Base AFSC Alliance Future Surveillance and Control AI Air Interdiction AMSP Allied Modelling & Simulation Publication AOC Air Operations Center APR Aeromobile a Pilotaggio Remoto ASCOT Advanced Simulation Combat Operations Trainer ATM Air Traffic Management BDA Battle Damage Assessment BLOS Beyond Line of Sight BLUEFOR Blue Forces BMD Ballistic Missile Defence BQ Basic Qualification C2 Command and Control C4ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, And

Reconnaissance CAOC Combined Air Operations Center CAS Close Air Support CAX Computer Assisted eXercises CDG Cross Domain Guard CDS Cross Domain Server CFAWC Canadian Forces Aerospace Warfare Centre CFBLNet Combined Federated Battle Laboratories Network CFG Computer Generated Forces CFMWC Canadian Forces Maritime Warfare Centre CFXNet Canadian Forces Training & Experimentation Network CFI Connected Forces Initiative CGF Computer Generated Forces CMS Combat Management System CoE Centre of Excellence COP Common Operational Picture COTS Commercial-Off-The-Shelf CPX Command Post Exercise CRC Control and Reporting Center CSAR Combat Search and Rescue CWIX Coalition Warrior Interoperability eXploration, eXperimentation, eXamination,

eXercise DACCC Deployable Air Command and Control Centre DACT Dissimilar Air Combat Training DB Data Base

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

A-2

DCA Defensive Counter Air DCAS Digital CAS DIS Distributed Interactive Simulation DMAO DSEEP Multi-Architecture Overlay DMO Distributed Mission Operations DMOC Distributed Mission Operation Center DMS Distributed Mission Simulation DMT Distributed Mission Training DSEEP Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process DTED Digital Terrain Elevation Data DTTS Distributed Training Through Simulation ELINT Electronic Intelligence EOB Electronic Order of Battle EW Electronic Warfare EXCON Exercise Control EXPLAN Exercise Plan EXSPEC Exercise Specification EXCON Exercise Control FAC Forward Air Control(ler) FAFD Federation Agreements and Federation Design FEZ Fighter Engagement Zone FMV Full Motion Video FRP Forward Refuelling Point FW Fixed Wing GAF SCC German Air Force Command A3C Simulation Control Centre GBAD Ground Based Air Defence GGS Gruppo Gestione Software GOTS Government-Off-The Shelf HALE High Altitude Long Endurance HICON High control cell of the exercise HLA High Level Architecture IA Information Assurance ISR Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance ITB Integration Test Bed JAPCC Joint Air Power Competence Centre JAPS Joint Air Power Strategy JATC Joint Air Tasking Cycle JCATS Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation JFAC Joint Force Air Component JFTC Joint Forces Training Center JISR Joint ISR JMNIAN Joint Multinational Interoperability Assurance Network JMRC Joint Multinational Readiness Centre JMSC Joint Multinational Simulations Centre JPOW Joint Project Optic Windmill JREAP Joint Range Extension Application Protocol JSTARS Joint Surveillance Target Attack System JTAC Joint Terminal Attack Controller JTEN Joint Training & Experimentation Network JTLS Joint Theater Level Simulation

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

A-3

JWC Joint Warfare Centre LIVEX Live Exercise LOCON Low control cell of the exercise LOS Line of Sight LVC Live Virtual Constructive MALE Medium Altitude Long Endurance MDSA Multi-Domain Security Architecture MEM MTDS Exercise Management MEZ Missile Engagement Zone MILS Multiple Independent Levels of Security MLS Multi Level Security MoD Ministry of Defence MSL Multiple Single Levels of Security MSU MTDS Simulation Unit MTDS Distributed Training Through Simulation MTMD Maritime Theater Missile Defense M&S Modelling and Simulation NAEW NATO Airborne Early Warning NASAM Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System NCS NATO Command Systems NETN NATO Education and Training Network NIAG NATO Industry Advisory Group NMSG NATO Modelling & Simulation Group NoN Network of Networks NSC National Simulation Centre NSHQ NATO SOF Headquarters NSWAN NATO Secret WAN OCA Offensive Counter Air OC/T Observer-Controllers/Trainers OPFOR Opposing Forces PLC Product Life Cycle POP Point of Presence QRT Quick Reaction Team RACSA Reparto Addestramento Controllo Spazio Aereo RAP Recognised Air Picture ROE Rules of Engagements RPAS Remotely Piloted Aircraft System RW Rotary Wing SATCOM Satellite Communication SCC Simulation Control Center SDI Smart Defence Initiative SEAD Suppression of Enemy Air Defences SH System High SIGINT Signal Intelligence SIMPLE Standard Interface for Multiple Platform Link Evaluation SOF Special Operation Forces SSM Surface to Surface Missile STAE Steadfast Alliance STAR Steadfast Armor STARTEX Start of Exercise

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

A-4

SW Soft-Ware TBM Tactical Ballistic Missile TBMD Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence TDL Tactical Data Link TLAM Tactical Land Attack Missile TLP Tactical Leadership Programme TST Time Sensitive Targeting TTPs Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures UAS Unmanned Aircraft System UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UCAV Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle USAFE United States Air Forces in Europe V&V Verification and Validation VBS Virtual Battle Space VoIP Voice over Internet Protocol VTC Video Teleconference WPC Warrior Preparation Centre


NATO UNCLASSIFIED B-1

ANNEX B

LEAD GROUP

Role Name Company/Organization Nation

CH Jean Pierre FAYE Thales Air Operations FR

V-CH Arjan LEMMERS NLR NL

R Giuseppe Fristachi Atlantic Organization

for Security (AOS) BE

TL A Arnold GEISLER

Erik Di QUIRICO

Raytheon

MBDA

GE

IT

TL B Arjan LEMMERS NLR NL

TL C Henk JANSSEN TNO NL

SPONSOR Don TURNBULL NATO IS A&ACAP UK

QRT Stephane LINTANT FR. Air Force FR

QRT François HANNE FR. Air Force FR



SG215 Study Participants

Study Group Companies/Nations

Company Nation

1 AOS BE

2 DIGINEXT FR

3 Thales AOS

4 Aditerna

GE

5 Airbus D&S

6 IABG

7 INSYEN AG

8 Raytheon

9 Rockwell Collins

10 LEONARDO IT

11 MBDA

12 NLR NL

13 TNO

14 GTD SP

15 Pitch Technologies SW

16 STM TU

17 TÜBİTAK SAGE

18 BAE Systems Surface Ships UK

19 Rockwell Collins

20 KM TEKHNO UKR



Study Group contributing members

COMPANY EXPERTS Role Aditerna Siegfried Robert NFP GE

Airbus D&S Kallfass Daniel

Sommer Martin

AOS Fristachi Giuseppe Rapporteur - NFP BE

BAE Systems Surf. Ships Turner Neil

Hempsell Adrian

DIGINEXT Carrè Michel

GTD Yanez Morillo Eduardo NFP SP

KM TEKHNO Khyzhnyak Andriy NFP UKR

IABG Fokken Theodor

Rother Martin

INSYEN AG Gosling Austin

Leonardo

Astengo Roberta

Rivetta Andrea

Rovetti Fausto NFP IT

MBDA Di Quirico Erik TL A

NLR Lemmers Arjan V-Chair – TL B - NFP NL

Pitch Technologies

Sievert Nicke

Johansson Martin

Svensson Patrik NFP SW

Raytheon GE Geisler Arnold TL A

Rockwell Collins GE Jebautzke Michael

Rockwell Collins UK

Lynch Adelle

Matharu Paramjit

White Andrew NFP UK

STM Canberì Haluk NFP TU

Thales AO Faye Jean-Pierre Chair - NFP FR

TNO Janssen Henk TL C

Huiskamp Wim

TÜBİTAK SAGE Selbes Tunca

Kalkan Mert B.

Kick-Off

(Ottobrunn - GE)LDRM (Bruxelles – BE)) Plenary (Odense –DK)

LDRM (Lisbon – PO))Plenary (Nerviano -IT)

LDRM (Garmish –GE)) Harmonization

Plenary(Ulm -GE)

Full

Report

Meeting

goals Review extended outline of annexes

Identify gaps in activity

Align with SAA ST publication

Review STs task achievements

Review links to external SAA stakeholders

Review STs task achievements

Review links to external SAA stakeholders

Review Alignment with SAA ST publication

Review draft of annexes vs study questions

Review Study Results vs Expectations

Harmonize Annexes and Identify parts for

Main Body Report

Leadership Meetings (LDRM) consist of: •Management Team (MT)

•Quick Reaction Team (QRT)

•Subject Team Leads and Deputies (STL/dSTL)

when feasible, colocated with SAA ST mtgs

to allow for joint SAA ST/SG205 sessions

SUBJECT TEAMS (STs)Requirements

Surveillance

Human Factors

Certification/Oper. Approval

Provide Input for SAA ST publication

Assess draft of annexes vs study questions

Review initial study results vs SAA ST

progress

Feedback on extended outline of annexes

Harmonize STs efforts and address gaps

Review (QRT coordinated) guidelines for

study progress

Review SAA ST/SG205 joint planning

Meeting Structure Established

STs effort Defined and Coordinated

Report Annexes Structured

SAA ST and SG205 plannings aligned

NIAG Interim Report Drafted

Subject Team WebEx Meetings conducted

at the discretion of the ST Leads

Editorial

effort

Final

Annexes

Interim

Report

LDRM

NIAG

Report

Oct ‘16 Nov Dec Jan ‘17 Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan ‘18 Feb

NATO Gap Analysis & Action Plan effort

Kick-Off

(Massy - FR)

Harmonization

LDRM (Roma-IT)Plenary (Ottobrunn-GE) LDRM (Leiden-NL)

LDRM (Roma-IT)

Final

Report

Extended outline of annexes reviewed

Gaps identifed

Teams task achievements reviewed

Links to NATO/Nat. Sim. Centers reviewed

Coordination with STO/MSG-128 established

Links established toNATO/nat. sim. Centers

Reviewed NAFAG guidance MTDS SDI discussed Extension proposal drafted

Study Results reviewed vs Expectations

Gap Analysis and AP requirements jointly

defined with ACT

Annexes finalized and Identified parts for

Main Body Report

TEAMS Ops Employment

Interoperability

Implementation

Teams’ Annexes progressed to maturity

Main Report task allocation definied

Competences allocation for extension

achieved

M&S Gap Analysis progressed

Meeting Structure Established

Sponsor/QRT approval of path

forward Achieved

Teams/SubTeams effort Defined

Editorial

Effort

Massy(FR)

Interim Report

Sponsor

Brief

Plenary (La Spezia -IT)

LDRM/NAFAG

(Ramstein –GE)Plen/MSG (Roma-IT)

Plenary

(Aix en

Prov-FR)

LDRM/ACT

(Neuilly-FR)

Meeting

goals

Survey letter finalized and endorsed by

NAFAG

Progress reported to NAFAG and guidance

received

Addressed support to ACT on MS AP

Annexes harmonized and gaps addressed

Main Report structure defined

Extension strategy finalized

Unsolicited Air Ops Gaps analyzed for ACT

Plenary (Amsterdam-NL)

M&S Gap Analysis and AP

input for ACT produced

Input for

ACT

ANNEX CStudy Planning/Milestones

Leadership Meetings (LDRM) consist of: •Management Team (MT)

•Sponsor/Quick Reaction Team (QRT)

•Team Leads (TLs) Teams efforts harmonized/gaps addressed

Guidelines for study progress reviewed

MTDS Guidance & Doctrine defined

NAFAG Workshop expectations defined

NIAG Interim Report Drafted

M&S Gap Analysis and AP

input for ACT produced

Agreed conclusions

Feedback from ACT

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED D-1

ANNEX D

TERMINOLOGY

Aggregation Consolidation of a number of exercise entities into a higher-level entity capable of conducting operations in the exercise scenario reflecting the combined capabilities of the consolidated entities.

Collective Training

Procedural drills and the practical application of doctrine, plans, and procedures to acquire and maintain tactical, operational, and strategic capabilities.

Concept of Operations (CONOPS)

Concept of Operations refers to a verbal or graphic statement that clearly and concisely expresses what the commander intends to accomplish and how it will be done using available resources.

Constructive Simulation

Constructive Simulation involves simulated people in a simulated environment; all entities and activities are simulated.

Disaggregation Separation of an exercise entity into lower level entities such that each entity is capable of independent operation in the exercise scenario within the limits of its doctrinal or technical capabilities.

Distributed Interactive Simulation

A time and space coherent synthetic representation of world environments designed for linking the interactive, free-play activities of people in operational exercises. The synthetic environment is created through real-time exchange of data units between distributed, computationally autonomous simulation applications in the form of simulations, simulators, and instrumented equipment interconnected through standard computer communicative services. The computational simulation entities may be present in one location or may be distributed geographically.

Gaming The playing of games that simulate actual conditions (as of business or war) especially for training or testing purposes.

High Level Architecture

The High-Level Architecture (HLA) is a technical architecture developed to facilitate the reuse and interoperation of simulation systems and or assets.

Individual Training

All instructional activities that provide the knowledge, skills, and competencies required in the performance of assigned duties. The definition applies to individual entities such as air crews, weapon systems, team training.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



Industry Contribution

Simulations capabilities, infrastructure, and services developed by NATO/national industry partners in accordance with NATO and national MTDS needs.

Legacy Simulations Center

A facility originally developed to simulate the capability of a specific system or sub-system. Depending on the implementation of the simulation, the simulations center is interoperable with another system or not.

Live Training “Live” Training can refer to an individual operating a system within the exercise scenario. The second meaning of “live” can refer to live effects on live systems within the exercise scenario.

Live Simulations A simulation involving real people operating real systems, such as a soldier on a field training mission or air combat training where real aircraft are operating in the real world against real advisories.

Metadata Describes simulation resources to enable decisions to be made if a specific simulation resource satisfies a requirement and how to acquire

Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS)

A shared environment that includes a blending of Live, Virtual, and Constructive simulations within a common synthetic environment that will allow warfighters to train individually or collectively at all levels of war.

MTDS Capable Simulations Center

Facility which has not only the ability to simulate specific systems but that has also the organic capacity to interface with other systems and support training.

MTDS Concept of Operation

MTDS system characteristics from an operational perspective in order to run the MTDS capability.

Multi-Domain Security Architecture (MDSA)

A Multi-Domain Security Architecture consists of all necessary hardware and software components required to connect distributed synthetic and live training environments with different classification domains/networks.

Multiple Independent Levels of Security (MILS)

Multiple Independent Levels of Security is a high-assurance security architecture based on the concepts of separation and controlled information flow; implemented by separation mechanisms that support both untrusted and trustworthy components.

Multi-Level Security

(MLS)

In a Multi-Level Security architecture, all information is stored in a trusted system that is trusted to contain sensitive data of various security levels. The trusted system can release data to each external system (or user) based on “need-to-know”. The release mechanism, often referred to as Trusted Guard, may be based on the classification and information content.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



Multi Single Levels of Security

(MSL)

An Multi Single Levels of Security architecture consist of data and systems with different security classifications which are processed completely separated, for example one system for restricted information and one system for secret information. Data may be transferred between domains using other means, for example by manually transferring information. In practice this often means that users need to operate several computers.

Non-Legacy Simulations Center

A facility that has the ability to simulate not only specific systems but potentially other systems. The non-legacy center should have the organic capacity to interface with other systems.

Operational Concept Description

(OCD)

An Operational Concept Description is a system (subsystem, etc)-centric description of the users of the system, the intended uses of that system, how it is intended the system be used, and the external conditions during which the system will be used. The OCD describes the context within which the problem definition (requirements, MOEs, goals and value relationships) exists, i.e. the purpose of the system. Also called a Concept of Use (CONUSE).

Operational Scenario

An operational scenario is the “storyboard” of the exercise scenario. It is authoritative descriptions provided by SMEs (Subject-Matter Experts) using their specific terminology of the real world that need to be represented in the simulation environment, if simulation is to be used. It comprises the Geo-Strategic situation, information regarding the Theatre of Operations, Strategic Initiation and Crisis Response Planning which are known as the Country Book. The Customer then adds Force Activation and Deployment and Execution Information to complete the Operational Scenario.

Registry A registry stores information about simulation resources and provides capabilities for discovering simulation resources (e.g., browse resources, search for resources).

Repository A repository stores the actual simulation resources and provides user access to the resources.

System High

(SH)

In a System High security architecture, all participating systems are (re)classified to the same, highest level, for example “SECRET”. This means that all data and all systems are treated as if they were classified at the highest security level of any data in the simulation.

Virtual Simulations

Virtual simulation involves real people operating real equipment that simulates a platform in a simulated environment. An example is an Aircraft Trainer where real pilots operate a trainer that simulates a real aircraft operating in the real world.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX E

TEAM A

OPERATIONAL EMPLOYMENT

ON

NIAG SG215 FUTURE COMBINED / JOINT DISTRIBUTED

TACTICAL TRAINING THROUGH SIMULATION

FOR JOINT AND COMBINED TASKS AND

OPERATIONS

The work described in this Annex was carried out under the provisions of the NIAG Study

Order for Study Group 215.

Disclosure, utilization, publication or reproduction of this Annex by industry is subject to pre-

approval by NATO until such time as NATO may have released such work to the public.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

E-i

INDEX E.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1

E.2 Analysis approach ...................................................................................... 2

E.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 2

E.2.2 Specific Assumptions/Considerations ............................................................... 2

E.2.3 Scenario definition .......................................................................................... 2

E.2.4 Surveys ............................................................................................................ 4

E.3 Operational Employment ........................................................................... 6

E.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 6

E.3.2 Mission Rehearsals & Operational Assessments .............................................. 6

E.3.2.1 MTDS Objectives ........................................................................................................ 6

E.3.2.2 MTDS Exercise Requirements .................................................................................... 6

E.3.2.2.1 C2/ISR Operations .............................................................................................................. 7

E.3.2.2.2 Offensive Counter Air (OCA) .............................................................................................. 8

E.3.2.2.3 CAS/DCAS/Extraction Packages/Joint Fires ....................................................................... 9

E.3.2.2.4 Maritime .......................................................................................................................... 10

E.3.2.2.5 Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 10

E.3.2.3 Training Audience ..................................................................................................... 11

E.3.2.3.1 NATO Centers ................................................................................................................... 12

E.3.2.3.2 National Centers .............................................................................................................. 14

E.3.2.3.3 Role of Legacy Simulation Centers ................................................................................... 18

E.3.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................... 19

E.3.3.1 Training Centers primary audience .......................................................................... 20

E.3.3.2 MTDS in Distributed Exercises.................................................................................. 20

E.3.3.3 Current capabilities .................................................................................................. 21

E.3.3.4 Connectivity .............................................................................................................. 23

E.3.3.5 End User Requirements ............................................................................................ 23

E.4 Mission Training Through Distributed Simulations (MTDS) ....................... 26

E.4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 26

E.4.2 Finding the right balance of LVC simulations/training ................................... 27

E.5 Potential Employment ............................................................................. 32

E.5.1 NATO/National Exercises (not exhaustive) ..................................................... 32

E.5.2 Link with NATO Initiatives ............................................................................. 34

E.5.2.1 Smart Defence Initiative (SDI) .................................................................................. 34

E.5.2.2 Connected Forces Initiative (CFI) ............................................................................. 34

E.5.3 Industry Contributions ................................................................................... 34

E.6 Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................... 37

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED E-ii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE E. 1 – AIR & JOINT MTDS VISION ............................................................................................................................ 4 FIGURE E. 2 – V APPROACH TO PRODUCT LIFE-CYCLE ...................................................................................................... 18 FIGURE E. 3 – TRAINING SYSTEMS PLC ............................................................................................................................. 35 FIGURE E. 41- ROADMAP TO IMPLEMENT MISSION REHEARSAL AND OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT .............................. 41

FIGURE E. 52- ROADMAP TO IDENTIFY/INVOLVE POTENTIAL USERS ............................................................................... 42 FIGURE E. 63- ROADMAP TO IMPLEMENT POTENTIAL INDUSTRY’S CONTRIBUTIONS ..................................................... 42

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE E. 1 – C2/ISR SIMULATIONS AND COMMUNICATION NEEDS .................................................................................. 7 TABLE E. 2 – OCA SIMULATIONS AND COMMUNICATION NEEDS ...................................................................................... 8 TABLE E. 3 – CAS/DCAS SIMULATIONS AND COMMUNICATION NEEDS ............................................................................. 9 TABLE E. 4 – MARITIME SIMULATIONS AND COMMUNICATION NEEDS .......................................................................... 10 TABLE E. 5 – SIMULATION/TRAINING CENTERS WHICH PROVIDED FEEDBACKS .............................................................. 19

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED E-iii

ANNEX CONTRIBUTORS The present Annex was produced by a dedicated Team of SG215 experts, supported by members of the Sponsor and the QRT groups. Specifically, the SG215 experts contributing to the production of this Annex are:

• Mrs. Roberta Astengo (LEONARDO) • Mr. Erik Di Quirico (MBDA) • Mr. Giuseppe Fristachi (AOS) • Mr. Arnold Geisler (Raytheon)


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

E-1

E.1 Introduction

This Annex outlines the Operational Employment for Mission Training through Distributed Simulations (MTDS); it was developed in accordance with the Sponsor tasking order, for those parts relevant to Operational Employment.

Specifically, it will:

Take into account the Operational Scenarios: • Mission rehearsal and operational assessment of Joint Air and C2 systems (including

data links) in all core Air Power roles and types of air operations (Counter-Air, Attack, Air Mobility, JISR, and Personnel Recovery) for aircrews, controllers (i.e. NAEW, Forward Air Controllers, Joint Air Terminal Controllers, Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) operators, and CAOC/JFAC staff.

Address: • the balance between the advantages of the freedom of manoeuvre in a virtual

environment versus the need for training in a real-life environment given the increased competition from civilian users;

• the role of legacy simulation centers; • the industrial contributions that can be offered to nations for networked simulation

training.

Provide advice on: • simulation centers interested or that could possibly benefit from follow-on

experiments/exercises of this nature.

This Annex will describe an example of a complex operational scenario in which MTDS could be effectively employed, covering a lot of aspects of MTDS for joint operations.

It will also discuss the training value of MTDS as well as potential employment venues and member nations’, partner capabilities and industry contributions to further the development of NATO’s MTDS capability.

In accordance with the Study Order indications, NIAG SG162 Study on “Distributed Simulation for Air and Joint Mission Training” and STO MSG-128 Activity on “Incremental Implementation of NATO MTDS Operations” were considered and informed this Annex’s results.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED E-2

E.2 Analysis approach

E.2.1 Introduction

This paragraph describes the approach followed by the Team to conduct the analysis needed. Specifically, the high-level analysis approach included:

• the identification of a scenario which could provide the broadest spectrum of requirements relevant to a MTDS exercise;

• the identification of specific scenario requirements in terms of assets/systems and communication needs;

• the assessment of a Mission Rehearsal exercise based on the proposed scenario, to identify simulation/stimulation requirements applicable to the four phases of an MTDS exercise (planning, preparation, execution, and assessment);

• a survey conducted through a focused questionnaire and interviews/visits on the status quo of MTDS across NATO and National Simulations and Training Centers to understand current capabilities and their end user requirements and if applicable to on-going experimentations;

• an assessment of the Training Audience, including NATO and National Centers, and of the factors determining the balance on the use of LVC simulations for MTDS;

• the identification of potential employments of MTDS, taking into account the active NATO and National exercises which are already using MTDS or could use it in the future, and the industry’s contributions to the development of a NATO capability.

E.2.2 Specific Assumptions/Considerations

The concept of “Live” training used in this study can have two meanings: • “Live” training can refer to an individual operating a system within the exercise

scenario. For example, an airman could operate a command and control or Intelligence/Surveillance/Reconnaissance (ISR) system which receives prompts (is stimulated) from a system to which the airman must respond within the exercise scenario.

• The second meaning of “Live” can refer to live effects on live systems within the exercise scenario. For example, in a live training event, simulated area weapons effects (replicate indirect fires) can have effects on instrumented vehicles or weapons systems on the ground. Alternatively, instrumented GBAD systems can replicate engagements with airborne aircraft causing the aircraft to take evasive actions.

During this study, the concept of Serious Gaming and its integration into MTDS were also considered; however, in this report further discussions on serious gaming were not developed as the study group considered that as a commercial-off-the-shelf capability already used.

E.2.3 Scenario definition

The identification of one or more scenarios that could be used for mission rehearsal and operational assessment of joint air and C2 systems was performed, initially taking into account the NIAG SG-210 report, as indicated by the SG215 Study Order, in order to identify which scenario could provide an appropriate spectrum of requirements relevant for MTDS exercises. As a result of this process, SG210 Vignette #5 “SEAD – Personnel Recovery” was initially chosen, taking into account that for CAX training, one of the most complete and demanding missions is personnel recovery.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



It was soon recognised however that the SG210 scenario was mainly focused only on the SEAD component of the Personnel Recovery scenario; in order to address a much broader spectrum of requirements, further “enhancements” were therefore introduced to better cover the Personnel Recovery-Extraction components.

Additional aspects considered included OCA/Support Packages, CAS/DCAS, Joint Fires, Extraction Package, Maritime component and Battle Damage Assessment (BDA).

As a result, this modified complex scenario was adopted as a reference to identify all the issues and gaps to be analysed by all SG215 teams.

Specifically, as part of the complex scenario to be considered by the SG215 study group, the following training areas were addressed:

• Through the whole mission, C2/ISR operations, to include Time Sensitive Targeting (TST), are required to support all mission phases: planning, preparation, execution, and assessment.

• Offensive Counter Air (OCA) and Support Packages: o Fighter Sweeps, Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD), Tankers, etc.., to

counter/negate the Opposing Forces (OPFOR) Air Power, targeting the OPFOR Air component (in the air and on the ground), the OPFOR Ground Based Air Defense (GBAD) and all Air related infrastructures.

o Strategic level GBAD, operating as Joint Area Denial assets, as an Offensive Counter Air (OCA) component in full coordination (i.e. Fighter/Missile Engagement Zones, F/MEZ) with OCA Air assets packages; some sort of lower level air defence capability was also included the extraction package. Other scenario types (mainly Defensive) will require the participation and/or replication of Blue Forces (BLUFOR) GBAD at different level.

• BLUFOR (Digital) Close Air Support (CAS/DCAS)/Extraction/Joint Fires, to address the actual execution of the Personnel Recovery and Extraction: o the Extraction package, composed by a (Combat Search-and-Rescue (CSAR)

and Escort) Rotary Wing/UAS component, would be directly supported by CAS/DCAS aircraft targeting OPFOR GBAD and OPFOR Land forces;

o during the return phase, establishment of Forward Refuelling Points through insertion/airdrop of Special Operation Forces (SOF) managed equipment would also be considered.

• A BLUFOR Maritime component, to include C2, JFAC, Joint Fires, the (Maritime) Air/Ground units and the employment of Tactical Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs), along with countering OPFOR Surface-to-Surface (SSMs) and Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs).

• A Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) phase, to provide objective measure of mission success or failure, would then conclude the scenario execution.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



Figure E. 1 – Air & Joint MTDS Vision

Through interaction with National military entities responsible for training/exercises requirements and/or management, including the USAFE Warrior Preparation Center (WPC), confirmation was received that the SG215 chosen scenario represents one of the most challenging for MTDS employment, also routinely used by them for LVC training; this also substantiated the correctness to use it as reference scenarion within the SG215 study.

The above with the understanding that other scenarios will require other capabilities not addressed in this study.

E.2.4 Surveys

Two different surveys were conducted by the study team, in order to get a deeper knowledge of how MTDS is currently used in NATO nations.

The first survey was based on the review of MTDS literature and of the final reports from NIAG SG210 and NIAG SG162.

The second survey was based on a questionnaire prepared by the team and addressed to National and NATO Simulation/Training Centers in order to understand their:

• Current capabilities, in terms of o Training Audience o Level and frequency of distributed exercises o Joint exercises o Types of exercises supported (unit readiness or mission rehearsal) o Simulation interoperability standards (DIS, HLA, …) o Connection with other Training Centers o Different security levels supported o Collaboration with industry engineers o Simulation tools used for training support o Simulators life cycle management o After Action Review (AAR) o Management of databases

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



• Future capabilities/requirements, in terms of: o Need for a persistent connection that will allow Training Centers to connect

national or multinational exercises on short-notice o Specific capabilities required to a persistent connection o Sharing approach to exercise planning, preparation, execution, and recovery o Types of technologies needed to improve the training value of the exercises

To the greatest extent possible, the questionnaire has been supported by NAFAG and sent to NATO and National Simulation/Training Centers that have either participated in distributed exercises or are likely to do it in the future.

The “questionnaire” survey was also integrated by visits to National Simulation/Training Centers and/or Face to Face interviews.

Specific requirements received from the study Sponsor, all available documentation, input from the other SG215 Teams were analysed and the results have been included in the study assessment.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



E.3 Operational Employment

E.3.1 Introduction

Mission Training through Distributed Simulations (MTDS) can be effectively employed to:

• train combat skills and assess readiness in preparation for specific missions; • make operational assessments of unit readiness; • support (routine) training events and exercises from geographically separate

locations.

This paragraph considers the Operational Employment of MTDS taking into account:

• the use for Mission Rehearsal and Operational Assessment; • the training value and audience of MTDS; • the current level of use of MTDS by different NATO and National Simulation Centers.

E.3.2 Mission Rehearsals & Operational Assessments

E.3.2.1 MTDS Objectives

Some of the main objectives to be achieved through the use of MTDS within an exercise are listed below:

• Assess the information’ processing and distribution; • Train Joint/Combined Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs); • Develop TTPs for possible future scenarios; • Address wartime Rules of Engagements (ROEs) (no peacetime limitations); • Exercise maximum flexibility in terms of:

o Routine training to time critical mission rehearsal; o Mission “size” (from small 1v1 engagements, to force level exercises); o Quick tailoring through the exercise, in accordance to changing mission

objectives.

E.3.2.2 MTDS Exercise Requirements

Given the wide variety of potential scenarios, this study used a Personnel Recovery/Extraction scenario to identify areas of strength in NATO’s current MTDS capability as well as areas requiring improvements. A Personnel Recovery/Extraction scenario can be conducted as a mission rehearsal exercise or operational assessment. The five areas of this scenario’s execution are required in many other training scenarios as well. They are:

• Command and control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C2/ISR); • Offensive Counter Air (OCA); • Close Air Support/Digital Close Air Support (CAS/DCAS) and Joint Fires; • A Maritime component • Assessment, which includes Battle Damage Assessment within the exercise

construct and Training Audience Assessment (i.e. an After-Action Review following the exercise).

For each area in this study, simulations and communications requirements were identified. These are the simulations models and systems as well as the communications systems and architectures necessary to achieve high fidelity, high quality replication of the exercise scenario.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



Furthermore, specific requirements were identified for all four phases of an exercise (planning, preparation, execution, and assessment).

E.3.2.2.1 C2/ISR Operations

C2/ISR operations, to include Time Sensitive Targeting (TST), are required for all four phases of the exercise: planning, preparation, execution, and assessment. C2/ISR operations rely heavily on simulations to replicate intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data units required to plan, prepare, and execute coordinated missions. Simulations are required to stimulate training audience command and control systems.

• In the Personnel Extraction/Recovery scenario, Air Command & Control Systems (ACCS) will rely on NATO Command Systems (NCS) as well as national Command and Control (C2) systems.

• Simulation and stimulation will be required for current systems such as Joint Surveillance Target Attack System (JSTARS), ISR satellites, the Air (High-Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAV) and Ground mission components of the Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) system, differing classes (HALE, MALE and Tactical) of C2/ISR capable Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) systems. In addition to NATO Airborne Early Warning (NAEW) or national E3A assets, simulation and stimulation will be required for the future Alliance Future Surveillance and Control (AFSC) system. In some cases, stimulation will derive from emulated sensors and other systems.

• Simulation will allow to effectively replicate the rapid build-up of Recognised Air and Common Operational Pictures (RAP/COP) (e.g. radar/IR/EO fusion, radar/track correlation, etc…) and the OPFOR Electronic Order of Battle (EOB).

• Exercise communications networks will necessarily be comprised of secure voice and data communications, line of sight and beyond line of site radio communications. Satellite communications have to include C2 and data for, among others, UAS. In all cases, back-up communications plans must be in place both to ensure uninterrupted communications throughout the exercise as well as an exercise training objective in itself.

Assets Simulations Communications needs

• C2 Domain • ACCS (NCS & National)

• Air Domain • AGS • E3/NAEW (AFSC in future) • JSTARS • ISR UAS (different classes) • ISR Airborne assets • Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) • Electronic Intelligence (ELINT)

• Ground Domain • SOF • HUMINT

• POLAD: Rules of Engagement

• Secure Voice & Data: • ACCS • Imagery/Video • TDL: Link 11/16/22

• Back-up Voice & Data COMMS

• Radio Communications (LOS/BLOS)

• Satellite Communications (SATCOM)

Table E. 1 – C2/ISR Simulations and Communication Needs

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



E.3.2.2.2 Offensive Counter Air (OCA)

Replication of BLUFOR Offensive Counter Air (OCA) (e.g. Fighter Sweeps, SEAD, UCAV, etc..) and related Support missions (e.g. Electronic Warfare (EW), Tanking, Escort) will consist of a mix of Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) simulations of Fixed and Rotary Wing assets as well as Air Defence; stimulation will also be required for Sensors in general, OCA, EW and strike packages. BLUFOR Strategic level GBAD simulation could also be introduced, to operate, as Area Denial assets, in coordination (i.e. Missile Engagement Zones, MEZ) with OCA Air assets packages; BLUFOR and OPFOR Ground-Based Air Defence (GBAD) systems will very often be replicated using a virtual or constructive models. On the other hand, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) crews will frequently train crew procedures in live simulations in response to stimulation from virtual or constructive models.

• C2 and Joint Force Air Controllers (JFAC) can generally participate as live simulation. In other words, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines operating NATO or national Command and Control (C2) systems can train even if they are operating in a simulation or simulator. This is an instance of the balance between the live and simulated environments.

• The availability and/or the classification level of operational and strategic NATO or national assets such as NAEW/E3 (or AFSC in the future) or Electronic Warfare (EW) assets or satellite communications will limit their participation in exercises as anything other than a replicated system in simulation. Frequently, the replication of such systems may be nothing more than an exercise White Cell inject. A number of models exist to replicate more EW, SIGINT and ELINT systems with greater fidelity.

• OPFOR air-, ground-, or maritime-related C2 infrastructures as well as the surface threat environment can, depending on the exercise venue, be replicated in virtual or constructive models. The same holds true for air simulations. Both Blue and Opposing Forces (BLUFOR and OPFOR, respectively) can be replicated in virtual or constructive models, though virtual models offer the training audience the opportunity to train aircrews with greater fidelity and quality than constructive model.

• The communications networks and architecture will resemble to a considerable degree those used in the for the C2/ISR portions of the training event. One change will be the requirement for communications to relay data from national manned systems or UAS that cannot communicate directly with units from other nations.

Assets Simulations Communications needs • C2 Domain

• ACCS (NCS & National) • JFAC

• Air Domain • AGS • E3/NAEW (AFSC in future) • UAS (different classes including

UCAV) • SEAD, Fighter Aircraft • Tankers • Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) • Electronic Intelligence (ELINT)

• Ground Domain • GBAD (OPFOR and Strategic

BLUFOR)





Table E. 2 – OCA Simulations and Communication Needs

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



E.3.2.2.3 CAS/DCAS/Extraction Packages/Joint Fires

Close Air Support (CAS)/Digital Close Air Support (DCAS), supported by Forward Air Controllers (FAC) and Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC), Joint Fires, and Extraction packages will rely heavily on simulations in most, if not all MTDS exercises. Coordination of the different package types would then be one of the major objectives of the MTDS training. In addition to air simulations (BLUFOR and OPFOR), OPFOR GBAD, and the exercise JFAC teams will depend on constructive and virtual models, even when a “live” Airman is manning the team.

• Extraction will be particularly reliant on simulations of Rotary Wing (RW) packages (CSAR/Escort) in order to be able to test and train covert tactics, techniques, and procedures for the coordination, deconfliction, and synchronization between the RW packages, Time Sensitive Targeting (TST) and CAS/DCAS fire support throughout the battle space. Simulation of Manned-UnManned Teaming (MUM-T) will allow to test and train Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) for the coordination, deconfliction, and synchronization between RW and Tactical/MALE UASs. Particularly relevant are the coordination and synchronization issues related to the timely establishment (return phase) of Forward Refuelling Points (FRP) through SOF insertion/airdrop from Fixed/Rotary Wing components.

• Joint Fires will be particularly reliant on simulations in order to be able to test and train tactics, techniques, and procedures for the coordination, deconfliction, and synchronization of fires throughout the battle space.

• Communications networks and architectures will again very closely resemble those used in support of exercise C2/ISR, TST and OCA replication. CAS/Extraction/Support packages (covert) communications will be added, expanding communications requirements for the exercise.


• C2 Domain • ACCS (NCS & National) • JFAC

• Air Domain • FAC • E3/NAEW (AFSC in future) • CAS/DCAS Aircraft • Tactical/MALE UAS • Rotary Wing (CSAR/Combat Escort) • Rotary/Fixed Wing Transport Aircraft

• Ground Domain • SOF • FAC/JTAC • GBAD (OPFOR and Tact. BLUFOR)

• Joint Fires (Land, Air, Surface)

• AGS





Table E. 3 – CAS/DCAS Simulations and Communication Needs

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



E.3.2.2.4 Maritime

Not all exercises will include a Maritime component. The maritime component was included in the study scenario in order to address its unique simulations and communications requirements, particularly in the joint environment.

• While there are many similarities among the air, ground, and maritime components, differences do exist. C2, JFAC, Joint Fires, as with air and ground simulations, will also need to be simulated for the maritime component. BLUFOR Tactical Land Attack Missiles (TLAMS) along with OPFOR Surface-to-Surface Missiles (SSMs) and Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs) play a significant role in maritime component operations and must, therefore, be also replicated in the exercise scenario.

• In addition to the communications systems and networks discussed previously, the maritime component will also require Link 11/16/22 capability to replicate fully its operational communications capabilities.


• C2 Domain • ACCS (NCS & National) • CMS • JFAC • JFMC

• Air Domain

• Surface Domain • TLAMs • SSMs (OPFOR) • TBMs (OPFOR)





Table E. 4 – Maritime Simulations and Communication Needs

E.3.2.2.5 Assessment

As noted earlier, there are two components to the assessment phase of an exercise.

• The first is the Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) that will heavily rely on previously addressed C2/ISR network/assets, dedicated Recce assets or OCA/CAS onboard sensors’ suites and communication networks. This assessment is an integral part of exercise execution and will consist of a mix of LVC simulations, as well as stimulation specifically for sensors. Accurate replication of BDA capabilities and feedback can provide the training unit with an objective measure of its mission success or failure. While in some cases, simulations can provide instant BDA, often White Cell injects will serve to provide the objective feedback. The exercise communications network will generally remain in place and serve as the replicated source for gathering BDA and providing the assessment to the training unit.

• The second component to exercise assessment comes in the form of feedback to the training audience. It is ultimately this assessment, provided to the training audience in the form of an After-Action Review (AAR), that helps the unit to maintain or improve its combat readiness. o While simulations will normally not be used to conduct the training audience

assessment, much of the data required for the AAR will be gathered from the simulations models used to create the exercise scenario.

o For an After-Action Review to be meaningful for the training audience, it must be of high fidelity and quality. That is, the AAR must accurately replay what happened during the exercise. The AAR must be able to access and integrate

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



messages, graphics, full-motion video, voice communications, simulations entity state data and interaction along with White Cell injects, if used.

o Trained Observer-Controllers/Trainers (OC/T) should have access to exercise data and be able to manipulate the data and format it in a way that can show the training audience what it did well and what it did less than well.

o AARs should be conducted at the multinational and national (system) levels and should provide the possibility to focus on different system levels in order to allow the training audience to focus on the part of interest (i.e. ACCS operator should have a different AAR than the operator of a national C2 or the operator of manned platform).

o To permit sharing of training data, the After-Action Review should be broadcasted over a robust network that includes at least video-teleconferencing capability, one that will allow participating members of the training audience to interact collectively and simultaneously with the OC/T and the training audience at geographically distant training venues. All locations should be able to see all imagery used by the OC/T to highlight all points of the After-Action Review.

o During the AAR it can be also useful to have the possibility to switch the control of the AAR from venue to venue.

E.3.2.3 Training Audience

The MTDS exercise training audience can train at the strategic, operational, and tactical level. Regardless of the level of the exercise, training can be done at the individual and collective levels, frequently simultaneously within the same exercise. MTDS exercises can include individual, collective, and joint training in the same exercise with collective and joint training audiences as the primary audience. In some cases, MTDS exercises will have as their primary training audience individual entities. The inherent flexibility of MTDS exercises gives them the capability to provide high value, high consequence training.

Taking into account the MTDS flexibility, the training audience can be very heterogenous and composed by:

• Air crews/operators

• Individual pilots/operators

• C4ISR systems operators

• Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs)

• Air Operation Center (AOC) operators

• Weapons crews

• Commanders & staffs at the tactical, operational, & strategic levels all services

• Personnel dedicated to AAR

• Naval: o Combat Management System (CMS) Operators o Weapon systems operators

• Land:

o Weapon systems (i.e. GBAD) operators

A key factor in determining how best to support the training audience becomes the question of to what level should the simulations models’ entities are aggregated or disaggregated. As a general rule, the higher the level of the training audience, the higher the level of aggregation that may be required and can be permitted. All exercises will have varying

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



levels of aggregation. Tactical-level exercises generally demand greater disaggregation of entities, frequently to the individual player or vehicle echelon. Operational-level exercises will tend to be more balanced between the disaggregation of individual players and aggregated units while strategic-level exercises can be accomplished with increasingly higher degrees of aggregation.

Two factors help determine to what degree entities will be aggregated: the level of simulation fidelity required to meet the training objectives and technical limitations of the models supporting the exercise scenario.

• All exercises require some level of fidelity. Generally speaking, the lower the level of the exercise, the higher the fidelity of the simulations model needed to replicate the systems involved in the exercise as well as the scenario itself. Because of limits in the inherent or organic capability of the simulations model, more than one model may be required to achieve the desired scenario fidelity.

• The ability to support multiple models in an MTDS exercise will be determined by the capabilities of the individual simulations centers capabilities. Are the most current models available at the centers participating in the exercise? Do the simulations centers have sufficient staffing to set-up and operate the models required? Do the centers have the ability to secure and monitor the network? Simulations models can impose technical limitations to scenario fidelity.

The NATO Training Audience consists of the forces of all 29 members. The NATO approach to Mission Training through Distributed Simulations should provide all members the ability to train outside of scheduled exercises in ways that meet national and Alliance training needs.

The next two paragraphs contain a list of NATO and National Centers which are already using MTDS or could be MTDS end users, taking into account their actual role and capabilities. This list, based on the information provided by the QRT and the SG experts, is not exhaustive.

E.3.2.3.1 NATO Centers

The major NATO Training Centers which use MTDS are briefly described below: o Air Operations (Air Ops CoE), Lyon, France.

The Air Ops is a NATO Center of Excellence (CoE) which builds on its specific expertise in air operations and in combined and joint environments to:

support NATO's standardization and interoperability efforts by providing education and training to staff elements that plan and conduct air operations at the operational and tactical levels;

provide NATO Nations with an education and training service according to their specific requirements;

contribute to the development, testing and validation of new game and simulation capabilities;

explore concepts and experiment on new supporting technologies related to air operations in close relationship with the JAPCC;

collect and analyse lessons from operations, as well as from training events, in the area of air C2 in order to enhance NATO concepts, doctrine and procedures (with JALLC and JAPCC), federate relevant subject matter experts and contribute to establishing the NATO knowledge base in the air C2 area.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



• The Joint Warfare Center (JWC), Stavanger, Norway The JWC provides operational level joint training in support of NATO's ongoing operations. It conducts and supports collective training of joint and combined staffs of the NATO Command Structure (NCS) and NATO Force Structure (NFS). The JWC provides key leaders with a training capability that relies state-of-the-art computer simulation and media training capabilities, emphasizing adherence to joint operational warfare doctrine and standards. The Joint Warfare Center uses the Joint Theater Level Simulation (JTLS), which is a simulation that models multi-sided air, ground, and naval civil-military operations with logistical, Special Operation Force (SOF), and intelligence support and allows the connection via HLA to a joint training environment.

• Joint Force Training Center (JFTC), Bydgoszcz, Poland The JFTC conducts joint and combined training of NATO forces at the tactical level to achieve joint interoperability at key interfaces. The JFTC:

o provides support and expertise in training of Alliance and partner nations' forces. It co-operates with national training centers, including Partnership for Peace (PfP) Training Centers and Centers of Excellence to ensure the application of NATO standards and doctrine in combined and joint fields.

o provides expertise to help NATO Response Force joint and component commanders ensure each NATO Response Force rotation achieves a high level of interoperability and flexibility to be combat ready at the beginning of a cycle of duty.

JFTC uses the Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS) SW which is a constructive battlefield simulation of conflict, at the individual soldier and vehicle levels.

• NATO Special Operations Headquarter (NSHQ), Casteau, Belgium The NATO Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ) provides focused Special Operations advice to the SACEUR and the NATO Chain of Command and provides on a collaborative, inter-dependent platform to enhance the Alliance SOF network. NATO Special Operations Forces (SOF) provide capabilities that complement those of NATO air, maritime and land forces and are relevant across the full range of military operations. NATO Special Operations Headquarters use virtual simulation to support the training and certification of aviation crews in their procedural skills of planning, preparing, and executing special air missions.

• NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control (NAEW & C) Force Command, E3-A Component, Geilenkirchen Air Base, Germany The NATO E-3A Component mission is to provide aircraft and trained aircrews to deliver a surveillance and/or control platform whenever directed by the NAEW&C Force Commander. Headquarters NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control (NAEW & C) Force Command is committed to -develop its own MTDS network in order to advance current simulator capabilities. Throughout the development of MTDS at HQ NAEW & C Force Command, the E-3A Component has executed various test and development exercises such as GOAL POST and VIRTUAL MAGIC.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



• NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control (NAEW & C) Force Command, E3-D Component, RAF Waddington, UK The E-3D Component shares the NAEW&C mission with its sister Component at Geilenkirchen. From its Main Operating Base at Royal Air Force Waddington, the E-3D Component’s fleet of seven E-3D aircraft supports NATO missions and provides the United Kingdom with a national capability when necessary. The Component also comprises mission support, training, and engineering elements; maintains an expeditionary capability to respond from a state of high readiness to any operation around the world either as a NAEW&C Force asset, including as an element of the recently-formed NATO Response Force, or as a national contribution to any coalition.

• Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) Main Operating Base (MOB), Sigonella, Italy The main operating base for AGS serves as a NATO Joint Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance (JISR) deployment base and data exploitation center and hosts the AGS Core ground segment including dedicated mission support facilities. The support segment provides Pilots/Operators and Mission Crew Trainers with Simulation capabilities and Classroom Training Equipment.

• Tactical Leadership Programme, Albacete Air Force Base, Spain Tactical Leadership Programme (TLP) is an organisation (not part of the NATO structure, but linked to NATO via a Letter of Agreement with NATO HQ AC Ramstein) whose mission in to increase the effectiveness of Allied Air Forces through development of leadership skills, mission planning, briefing, tactical air operations and debriefing skills and conceptual and doctrinal initiatives. The training is performed through LVC simulations.

• Joint Air Power Competence Center (JAPCC), Kalkar, Germany. This center does not have MTDS capabilities but supports MTDS actively. The Joint Air Power Competence Center (JAPCC) is a NATO Center of Excellence (COE) which provides the strategic level proponent for Joint Air and Space (A&S) JAPCC, being charged with the development of innovative concepts and solutions required for the transformation of A&S Power within the Alliance and the Nations.

E.3.2.3.2 National Centers

• Canada o Canadian Forces Aerospace Warfare Center (CFAWC)

The CFAWC will be the engine of Air Force transformation. CFAWC will become the center of excellence for air power development, including Concept Development and Experimentation (CD&E) and lessons learned. In addition, CFAWC will develop and maintain the Air Force air power knowledge repository and coordinate efforts to provide advanced synthetic environment and modelling and simulation services to assist CD&E, requirements definition, operational test and evaluation (OT&E) and mission rehearsal.

o Canadian Forces Maritime Warfare Center (CFMWC)

The Canadian Forces Maritime Warfare Center (CFMWC) is responsible for providing core training in the tactical employment of maritime forces and for evaluating the effectiveness of tactical doctrine, operating procedures and equipment performance through the analysis and reconstruction of Maritime Command operations and exercises. CFMWC has MTDS capabilities which are used in MTDS Exercises.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



• France

o Distributed Mission Operation Center (DMOC), Mont deMarsan

In the future Distributed Mission Operations Center (DMOC), both virtual and real-world aspects are fully complementary, with the goal of integrating everyone who takes part in an air operation. The facility will pave the way to the future by fostering a better understanding of how military forces function and act, in order to advise personnel on operational control and conduct tactical exploratory studies. DMOC will be able to provide different services such as build tactical scenarios, animate the scenarios in real time, measure the performance (PK, Attrition, Kill Ratio, ...) and draw the useful lessons learned. Based on a Centralised Tactical Server (STC) DMOC center should be able to link most of virtual players and connect to the CFBLNet.

• Germany

o German Air Force Command A3C Simulation Control Center (GAF SCC), Cologne

The GAF SCC took part in the MSG-128 exercises focused on MTDS, providing: Plan, support, execute and evaluate Distributed Mission Operations (DMO)

exercises Connect GAF asset to the GAF DMO and to joint / combined DMO activities

• Italy

o Integration Test Bed (ITB), Pratica di Mare (Air Force), Sabaudia (Army), Taranto (Navy)

The (ALT)BMD component, designed as V&V tool for BMD, it is also used for MTDS exercises. Each ITB site has SWIL and HWIL simulators of assets (Air Defence Systems, Sensors) with BMD capabilties and has also the possibility to integrate other assets (e.g the Air Force has a physically/logically separated additional generic aircraft simulator configurable as fighter or UAV)

o Gruppo Gestione Software (GGS), Pratica di Mare AFB

Used as developmental/certification center for aircraft Operational Flight Program, employs several aircraft rigs; simple cockpit is available, making also possible the employment as MTDS component

o CdE APR, Amendola AFB

Equipped with simulators for training of GCS UAS pilots/operators; available systems include simulators for MALE, Tactical and Mini UAS.

o Reparto Addestramento Controllo Spazio Aereo (RACSA), Pratica di Mare AFB

Center dedicated to ATC, Air/Missile Integrated Defence operators; owns a DACCC reproduction

o Several ItAF AFBs

Already present or ongoing upgrades to the locally available Flight Simulators are providing DIS interface for MTDS connectivity within AFBs.

o Autonomous Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation (AACMI) Training Center, Decimomannu, Italy:

The AACMI allows realistic Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) with no use/carriage of real air to air weapons. Using pods of the shape of IR air to air missiles carried by the fighters, inflight aircraft parameters are Data Link transmitted to ground stations that, with Real Time Track Position (RTTP)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



capability, reproduce in real time a 3D view of the engagements; weapons employment simulation is also provided, together with engagement effectiveness. Post-flight debriefing facilities, using the recorded data, allows the aircrews to assess the effectiveness of their tactics and derive lessons learned.

o Centro di Programmazione della Marina Militare (MARICENPROG), Taranto

MARICENPROG is an Italian Navy center of excellence for joint M&S; it is part of the Italian BMD ITB and is involved in other international activities such as Maritime Theater Missile Defense (MTMD). It represents the on-ground component of the Navy Distributed Training System which allows the integration of real ships into Fleet Synthetic Training exercises. MARICENPROG can contribute to MTDS thorough the on-ground replicas of Combat Management Systems (CMS) of different ship classes, and of the JTAC component of the Digitalized Landing Force.

• Netherlands

o NLR Fighter 4-Ship simulator (F4S), RNLAF Volkel AB

The primary objective for the Fighter4Ship (F4S) facility is to enable research on fast-jet team operations and the embedding thereof in potentially large-scale collective, combined and/or joint operations. Research is focused on, but not limited to: Progressing Distributed Mission Simulation (DMS) technology; Improving Distributed Mission Training (DMT) training; Enhancing team tactics; Performing Concept Development and Experimentation (CD&E).

The F4S took part in the MSG-128 exercises focused on MTDS, providing 2 F16 for Defensive Counter Air (DCA) and Air Interdiction (AI).

o MASE / ISP, RNLAF Volkel AB and AOCS (Air Operations Control Station), Nieuw Milligen

The MASE/ISP provides Air Battle Management and can support the whole spectrum of missions required and has the ability to simulate AWACS fighter control. The MASE/ISP took part in the MSG-128 exercises focused on MTDS, providing CRC for surveillance and fighter control.

o F-16 Unit Level Trainer (ULT), RNLAF Volkel and Leeuwarden AB

Procedural and Tactical mission training for fighter pilots. Four fixed based cockpits (2 per Air Base). In 2018 a project will run to connect these 4 ULTs in a network. It can support all tactical missions in air domain (both air-to-air and air-to-ground).

o Ground Based Air Defence Command (DGLC), De Peel

The DGLC has the following training assets: Tactical mission training for PATRIOT Operators. Most NATO-PATRIOT

systems are capable of live-integration onto the network, including their C2 element (ICC), as done during all JPOW exercises. A Hardware in the Loop (HWIL) configuration.

Tactical mission training for NASAM (Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System) 2 Operators. Most NASAMS systems are capable of live-integration onto the network, including their C2 element as done during previous JPOW exercises.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



It can support all tactical missions in air domain (Ground-to-Air) and it is suitable for procedural training.

• Norway

o Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI), Kjeller

FFI is the prime institution responsible for defence related research in Norway. The FFI took part in the MSG-128 exercises focused on MTDS, providing operators and CRC simulation for surveillance and fighter control.

• UK

o Air Battlespace Training Center (ABTC), RAF Waddington

It is an Air Command unit within the Chief of Staff Operations (COS Ops) area of responsibility. The ABTC is a cutting edge synthetic training organisation. It provides a suite of networked synthetic training equipment to train UK Forces in demanding, operationally relevant environments and scenarios. It enables collaborative training across air, land and maritime domains for contingency operations. The synthetic exercises provided for pan Defence audiences offer a highly immersive but safe, credible and cost-effective environment for training. The provision of a 3-dimensional After Action Review is unique within UK Defence. The ABTC facility can be connected to other UK and NATO simulation facilities via the Joint Multinational Interoperability Assurance Network (JMNIAN).

o Maritime Composite Training System (MCTS), Fareham and Plymouth

MCTS is the Royal Navy’s (RN) shore training for Surface Warfare and has the following capabilities: Individual Career training for all warfare roles; Fleet Continuation Training for Ship’s Teams; Multiple instances of all platform types through reconfigurable systems; Interconnected facilities at HMS Collingwood (Fareham, UK) and HMNB

Devonport (Plymouth, UK) via the UK Ministry of Defence provided Joint Multinational Interoperability Assurance Network (JMNIAN);

The RN hub for Joint (RN/Army/RAF) and Multi-National Interoperability events).

• USA

o US Forces Europe Warrior Preparation Center (WPC), Einsiedlerhof (GE)

The WPC's primary mission is to train Air Operations Centers (AOC) at the operational level. The secondary mission is to provide tactical training via Distributed Mission Operations, with other bases throughout the world. These missions are accomplished with advanced simulation software.

o Joint Multinational Simulations Center (JMSC), Grafenwöhr (GE)

JMSC provides and facilitates mission command training at all echelons through the integration of established Training Environments (Live, Virtual, and Constructive). JMSC key capabilities include our Mission Command Program, Digital Mission Command System Training, support to small unit collective training and the development and execution of Command Post Exercises.

o Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC), Hohenfels (GE)

JMRC provides world-class opposing forces to training participants and trains all warfighting functions. JMRC employs Observer Coach Trainer (OCT) teams and

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



personnel to provide evaluation and lessons learned for a wide variety of military occupational specialties for each maneuver training rotation. Some of the OCT teams provide live, virtual, constructive and gaming training support to prepare units for the challenges of a complex and ever-changing environment and to create realistic multi-echelon and multinational training environments with near-peer enemy capabilities to increase the competitive nature of the training exercises.

E.3.2.3.3 Role of Legacy Simulation Centers

Existing Legacy Simulation Centers represent facilities originally developed to simulate the capability of a specific system or sub-system.

Legacy Simulation Centers should be part of the training audience since they have expert and qualified personnel operating training systems who could benefit from the integration in MTDS exercises, at the same time bringing into the MTDS environment their experience and knowledge of the systems present in the center.

On the other hand, the integration of a Legacy Simulation center into a MTDS network might be challenging in terms of technology and costs, if the center doesn’t have the following capabilities:

• System/Sub-system capability to interface with other Systems/Sub-systems. • This capability often depends on system/subsystem’s generation, and it is a

mandatory requirement for its integration in a distributed training environment. • Centers’ network connection to national training/simulation networks. • The center shall be able to connect to a secure network (i.e. CFBLNet, either directly

or through a National PoP) with a minimum bandwidth necessary to guarantee the Quality of Service for training.

• Support to simulation standards such as DIS/HLA. • MTDS relies on simulation standards for truth and tactical data.

Additionally, also existing Verification and Validation (V&V) Simulation Centers can play a role into MTDS.

The use of simulation as a component for Verification & Validation of a system or a system of systems is a common approach adopted by industries, NATO and the Nations. At NATO and Nations level, simulation is routinely used to integrate development, verification and (operational) validation of a system and/or an architecture as shown in Figure E.2, while at industrial level, simulation can support the different phases of a Product Life-Cycle (PLC).

Figure E. 2 – V approach to Product Life-Cycle

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



While still retaining their primary V&V role, such centers have proven to be effective also in supporting training while connected into NATO and/or National MTDS exercises.

An example of this approach is the NATO BMD Integration Test Bed (ITB), which was, and still is, used to verify and validate the BMD Target Architecture and to perform a first verification of technical and systems interoperability1. The ITB was constituted by Nations V&V centers linked together over the CFBLNet and participating to NATO Exercises (BMD Ensemble Tests) in which it was also possible to train the operators of real systems (i.e. GBAD C2) on BMD scenarios.

Several Nations linked their own V&V centers to the NATO ITB; Italy for example implemented a National ITB composed by three different V&V centers linked together and to the NATO ITB, in which different systems were integrated, and participated to NATO Exercises (BMD Ensemble Tests).

The national ITB centers routinely continue to be used as integral components of national MTDS exercises.

In conclusion, a common approach to MTDS should take into account the Legacy and the selected V&V Simulation Centers, that can play an active role in a common MTDS approach by:

• Identifying current capabilities

• Identifying gaps

• Providing baseline for capabilities in order to mitigate gaps

• Developing and implementing the national MTDS requirements

• Developing Test Beds for MTDS capabilities at: o National level o Multinational level

• Assuring the life cycle management of national MTDS capabilities

E.3.3 Survey Results

This paragraph summarises the answers to the questionnaire prepared by the team, and the feedback got from the visits performed. Completed questionnaires were provided by the national MoDs and Simulation/Training Centers listed in Table E. 5; additionally, with the occasion of the SG215 attendance to a NAFAG M&S topical workshop, visit and briefing were also provided by the USAFE WPC.

Nation Armed Force Center Canada Air Force Canadian Forces Aerospace Warfare Center (CFAWC) France Air Force MoD and FRA AWC Italy Air Force Integration Test Bed (ITB) CSV Netherlands Air Force Volkel AB Site Norway - Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) Site Spain Air Force MoD UK Air Force

Navy Air Battlespace Training Center (ABTC) Maritime Composite Training System (MCTS) shore training for Surface Warfare

UKR Air Force MoD USA USAFE

USAFE Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC) Warrior Preparation Center (WPC)

Table E. 5 – Simulation/Training Centers which provided feedbacks

1 Integration Test Bed - Way Ahead Paper - Volume I - 10 January 2005

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



The survey has demonstrated that MTDS is already used by different NATO and National Simulation/Training Centers which make use of a combination of LVC simulations to train the operators at different levels.

To note that, due to the somewhat limited replies, the situation provided below does not represent the full spectrum of what currently available within all NATO member Nations. However the SG215 considers that the summary indications provided can be extended to all the centers that support MTDS, since the replying centers represent a wide enough spectrum of training requirements and capabilties.

E.3.3.1 Training Centers primary audience

Depending on the National Training Center, the training audience is different and involves:

• Operators at tactical level such as flight crews, controllers, GBAD and JTAC operators

• Personnel of Control and Reporting Centers (CRC) and Air Operations Centers (AOC)

• Operational units who need to train on tactical use of their systems.

• Operators who need to be skilled on C2 function

• Joint Fires personnel.

E.3.3.2 MTDS in Distributed Exercises

Distributed exercises, either NATO or National, are the most natural application of MTDS, since they usually foresee the participation of different Armed Forces (Joint) and they offer the possibility to train the operators in quite complex scenarios. Most of the centers supports the following levels of training:

• Tactical for small units • Collective for large unit • Operational-level exercises

Only some centers currently supports Strategic-level exercises.

Almost all the centers support distributed exercises at Operational and Strategic levels, and the number per year ranges from 1 to 4. Most of Operational exercises are part of NATO exercises and played on NATO scenarios.

The usage of distributed exercise for Tactical and Collective training is not so spread, and ranges from daily use to 4-6 times per year.

Not all the centers participates in joint exercises in which air, land, maritime, special operations units/simulations and simulators are integrated at different levels.

Unit readiness is the most common type of exercise supported by the centers. In some cases the training centers supports also mission rehearsal exercises (i.e. exercises that prepare the unit for an identified operational mission), but the main activities are focused on unit readiness.

Not all the centers can support exercise at different security level. In case of support there are different solutions such as Data Filters or radiant mercury Cross Domain Solution (CDS).

Despite the significant differences in terms of type of exercise supported and and level of training, SG215 considers that, taking into account the different National and NATO exercises held every year, the Training Centers have a lot of opportunities for MTDS.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



E.3.3.3 Current capabilities

Current Simulation/Training Centers have different capabilities:

• Simulation Interoperability

Simulation interoperability is one of the key requirements for distributed exercises. Simulation standards, as DIS and HLA, are supported by almost all training centers. If willing to operate into a MTDS environment, Simulation/Training centers should support most common used simulation standards, such as DIS/HLA (more details about simulation interoperability requirements can be found in SG215 Annex G). It is worth noting that, despite of NATO recommendations about the use of HLA as the preferred simulation interoperability standard, DIS is still supported by all the training centers and in some cases, is the main protocol used, and the HLA connectivity relies on the use of COTS DIS/HLA gateways.

• Simulation tools

Significantly different Simulation tools, either Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) or Government-Off-The Shelf (GOTS), or proprietary are used for training support:

o COTS tools: Wireshark & Pitch Technologies Pitch Recorder and other proprietary tools

for logging of synthetic environmental data (DIS/HLA, OTH-T GOLD, SIMPLE etc) for engineering purposes.

Teamspeak for voice communications. Pitch Technologies Pitch Booster for management of HLA networks. GeoServer for terrain and database sharing. Computer Generated Forces (CGF) SW such as PLEXSYS Advanced

Simulation Combat Operations Trainer (ASCOT), Boeing Big Tac, MÄK VR-Forces.

MÄK VR-Stealth as 3D view SW. Tacview: flight data analysis tool which enables the recording and the the

analysis of recorder data . BISim Virtual Battlespace (VBS) as simulation training solution for

multiplayer scenario training and mission rehearsal. Redsim Logger for DIS PDU recording.

o GOTS tools: U.S. Naval Research SIMDIS 3-Dimensional Viewer, to support AAR. Air National Guard’s Expert Common Immersive Theater Environment

(XCITE) as training simulation system. Interactive Simulation Package (ISP) as simulation system for air exercises

into a CRC system.

o Proprietary tools: Scenario Generation. Logging. 2D/3D view. Brief/Debrief.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



Many factors influence Simulation/Training centers in choosing simulation tools (e.g. money, time, background), with the consequence that there is not a common approach; COTS, GOTS and proprietary tools are used for the same purposes. Maintenance is usually better for COTS rather than GOTS.

• Common Database

In most cases there is not a repository to share a common database and the database correlation is not guaranteed. This is also due to the fact that many training systems are legacy systems and the integration with a common database is not an easy task to accomplish in terms of time and money needed. The lack of centralized database and correlation has been assessed as possibly causing issues during the training sessions since different systems might “see” different things depending on the DB. For example, one DB can have cultural features (buildings, features, ...), the other DB no, so the results will be different. One proposed solution is that the database is agreed between all sites as part of exercise preparation to ensure each system databases is in alignment and consistent for the scenarios exercise area, e.g. Terrain Data (DTED level 1 or higher).

• After Action Review (AAR)

After Action Review (AAR) is performed in different ways:

o Local site AAR.

o Synchronised multi-site distributed AAR: it can be performed in dedicated debrief rooms supporting audio/visual and dual screen VTC. Participants are able to see and speak to each other whilst simultaneously viewing PowerPoint slides or on a proprietary AAR tool.

o Distributed AAR hosted by a site and to all sites using a dual screen VTC system, Adobe Connect (to enable a synchronised AAR between all sites) and proprietary tools. Participants are able to see and speak to each other whilst simultaneously viewing PowerPoint slides or AAR tool.

o Informal debriefing executed after the exercise and addressed to personnel (technicians, engineers and units) in order to compare exercise’s objectives with the effective results.

In most cases the AAR process foresees also the production of a written report.

Such a diversified approach to AAR, is considered normal, since the training audience and the background can be very different. Refer to previous A.3.2.2. Assessment for related recommendations on AAR process.

• Collaborative Working Environment

The management of a training centers capabilities and their development requires a collaborative working environment in which engineers and operators work together.

Also in this case there are different approaches from the different centers:

o Customer, end user (operators) and system developer (including engineers) work closely on daily basis to manage and develop training centers’ capabilities to reflect changes to the operational platforms and emerging requirements. Development of the capabilities is based on combat and command systems developments and other emerging requirement managed through a taught change process to ensure core contract outputs are

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



maintained. The change process ensures the engagement of all required stakeholders.

o The operators are constantly reporting any needs or bugs identified during exercises and training activities. These identified issues are analysed and prioritized from the qualified personnel and eventually addressed to the industries in order to solve them.

o Operators and engineers are always directly involved in every project, from the requirement specification (in this case, the simulator) and also participate in the test process. A final phase of operational validation is performed in a real Operational Unit or Squadron.

o Engineers provide support during the execution of an exercise.

• Simulation Life cycle

There is not a real-life cycle management of the simulations in order to manage changing simulations requirements, i.e. system or simulations upgrades, systems/simulations modernization, changing standards.

In some cases, the center has a contract with the industries which allows to have software and hardware updates; in other case the process is based on time (upgrade with minor changes every 3 to 5 years; implementation of new requirements of big impact on the systems every 15 years).

E.3.3.4 Connectivity

Training centers supporting MTDS are connected to other national or multinational training centers via different connections:

• The most used for joint NATO exercises is the connection to the multinational Combined Federated Battle Laboratories Network (CFBLNet). This connection is not direct but passes through the national Point-of-Presence (POP). The NATO BMD ITB for example relies on this network.

• In UK the training centers are connected via Joint Multinational Interoperability Assurance Network (JMNIAN). JMNIAN has the ability to interface to the US Joint Training & Experimentation Network (JTEN) and CFBLNet.In Canada the connection is through the Canadian Forces Training & Experimentation Network (CFXNet). Generally, each nation has its own network which it is used for different purposes (not only training or simulation). The important condition is that the national networks can be connected to other networks and that can support the security level needed.

• This hybrid Network of Networks (NoN) approach allows the establishment of a Joint and Multi-National Interoperability Network. Connections between CFXNet, the US Joint Training and Experimentation Network (JTEN), JMNIAN and the multinational CFBLNet have been already established in different NATO and multinational exercises.

E.3.3.5 End User Requirements

The Simulation/Training Centers provided different requirements to improve the MTDS:

• Connectivity

Not all the centers see the essential need for a persistent connection that will allow geographically distributed simulations centers to connect national or multinational exercises on short-notice. One of the reasons for that, belongs to the fact that some

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



of the centers were mainly designed/employed for development/validation activities, and are not used frequently for training, despite having a significant potential on that. Potential however is still present. For the centers which indicated that would like to have this capability, the main problems highlighted are the security accreditation process which takes weeks or months, thus making short notice exercises not possible and full MTDS potential not exploited, and the funding which could limit the use of the persistent connection. In order for MTDS to fully exploit its effectiveness of allowing short notice exercises, security accreditation issues should be properly addressed through a persistent connection able to support different security levels.

• Capabilities for persistent connection

In general, the specific capabilities that the Simulation/Training Centers indicated that should be included as part of a persistent connection are:

o Web platform allowing the communication and the planning of sessions between centers;

o Shared technical supervision services; o Synthetic Environment Data (DIS and/or HLA) exchange; o Tactical Voice Comms (DIS Radio) exchange; o Operational Information Exchange Systems Data:

Tactical Data Links (SIMPLE or JREAP-C); Common Operating Picture (OTH-T GOLD);

o Exercise Control Communications (VoIP); o Exercise Brief/Debrief Information (AAR and VTC); o Chat.

It is recognized that there isn’t a common view on this topic. SG215 considers this as the minimum set of capabilities required to support MTDS effectively. Each Simulation/Training Center should have them so that a common MTDS approach could be reached.

• Security Level

If not yet managed, the center should support exercises at different security levels.

• Lacking technologies

In general, the types of technologies that are lacking at the moment to improve the training value of the exercises are:

o Great mission editor; o Dedicated simulation network; o Cross Domain Server (CDS) to support the exchange of data between different

systems operating at Restricted and Secret protective markings for example. A common secure SharePoint facility to support the exchange of data during the planning and execution of the exercise between all sites;

o Ability to support the exchange of Full Motion Video (FMV) sensor downlinks e.g. UAV feed;

o Chat and e-mail between training centers in a secure environment; o Increased fidelity required for effective mission rehearsal along with increased

MTE;

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



o Direct satellite links; o Adaptability and re-configurability of training devices taking into account

different training audiences and needs; o An integrated weather/environments server to allow training events to be run

not only in blue-sky clear environments.

Again, no common view on that, due to fact that some centers already have some capabilities (e.g. CDS), while some don’t and think it would be useful. For some aspects, lacking technologies is similar to capabilities required for persistent connection (e.g. the full motion video could fit in both). SG215 considers the above as the minimum set of technologies required to support MTDS effectively. Each Sim/Training Center should have them, so that a common MTDS approach could be reached.

• Shared Approach

A shared approach to exercise planning, preparation, execution, and recovery could be built even though there are challenges to solve. There is no common view between centers on shared approach; below the feedback received:

o The use of common definitions for system performance (using common basic missile models).

o The respect for the concept of fair fight for coherent inter-allied work. o Different protocols, standards, Hardware and Software in the loop to

interoperate efficiently and effectively. o The preparation phase. o The emerging and increasing requirement and frequency of events as

synthetic training becomes more preferable to live. o The use of the shared approach should not bring an additional workload for

the training units.

SG215 considers this as one of the key pillars for achievement of a common NATO MTDS capability; several sequential steps would then be needed:

o Decisional involvement of National MoDs to define which are the National Simulation/Training Centers that will be allocated to National and NATO MTDS.

o Gathering of the different capabilities and needs at national level (e.g. with a questionnaire like the one adopted by SG215, pushed by the MoD).

o Start a discussion at NATO level, taking into account the National contributions, and organize workshops between industry and end user to come to a shared approach on MTDS (or at least the way to achieve a shared approach).

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



E.4 Mission Training Through Distributed Simulations (MTDS)

E.4.1 Introduction

MTDS started in the late 1990s as an internal training system, but with the years it has become a significant model for simulating various military capabilities in team play throughout NATO2.

In the past different terms have been used to identify what is commonly referred as MTDS:

• Collective Mission Training.

• Distributed Mission Training (DMT).

• Distributed Mission Operations (DMO).

• Distributed Tactical Training through Simulation (DTTS).

In all the above initiatives or capabilities, the basic concept was to train the systems operators with a mix of LVC simulations which are linked over a distributed network.

All training is simulation; even firing live ammunition during a training event is simulation of an operation. So, since all units train as they will fight/operate, all units can train as they will fight/operate using simulations.

Ideally, units will train in a live simulations environment to the greatest extent possible. Because of the nature of live simulations, training events conducted in a live simulations training environment result in a greater amount of uncertainty in exercises. Also, live simulations cannot be reset. Results caused by exercise variables such as weather, equipment failures, or the effects of decision-making by the training audience must be absorbed into exercise execution. Live simulations training events, however, are subject to limitations that prevent them from meeting their full potential. The limitations have to do with the cost of live simulation training events, air and land space availability, environmental impact/limitations and the availability of units.

Constructive and virtual simulations can mitigate the limitations of live simulations making them a credible substitute for live simulation training events. Constructive and virtual simulations can expand the number of units available to participate in training exercises. Simulations can reduce the costs of training by putting aircrews/operators in virtual simulators in which they can train their tactics, techniques, and procedures in support of live simulations provided that they offer to the aircrews/operators a coherent tactical environment. The use of virtual simulations for aircrew/operators training also reduces the negative environmental effects of training, i.e. noise pollution, CO2 emissions, the release of hazardous material and chemicals into the environment. The impact of national restrictions can also be mitigated by the use of constructive and virtual simulations. In the case of air training, virtual simulators can allow aircrews/operators to train around the clock without being limited in local flight times.

Distributed Training through Simulations addresses such restrictions as well as distance. MTDS allows units to train together which would otherwise not be able to train together for reasons of cost caused by distance. Distributed Training through Simulations also provides exercise planners with options to create additional complexity in a realistic manner with accurately replicated effects.

2 Preserving NATO’s C2 Edge - Capitalizing on MTDS/LVC Advanced Capabilities – JAPCC Journal Issue -

24 - 2017

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



E.4.2 Finding the right balance of LVC simulations/training

Though the Live training cannot be fully replaced with training with Virtual or Constructive simulations, the MTDS objectives can be achieved by mixing LVC simulations in training exercises.

During the planning phase of an exercise, planners should consider the integration of live simulations in MTDS exercises, weighing the advantages and disadvantages against exercise training objectives.

The right balance on the use of LVC simulations for MTDS depends on many factors such as:

• Available resources

o In recent years the reduction on personnel, materials acquisition and funding lead to a decrease of Live training opportunities. Virtual and Constructive simulation can represent a valid alternative to achieve and maintain the training level required.

• Training objectives

o Preferred use of Virtual and Constructive if the Live: is not needed since the training can be performed with same results

(i.e. train on a C2 component); is not affordable due to cost reduction (, reductions in personnel as well

as flying hours due to decreasing aircraft availability); is not possible due to security, safety, and environmental issues (i.e.

use of assets/weapons/countermeasures). o In all this cases MTDS can:

mitigate training losses/gaps and provide operators a complete set of training opportunities;

have a realistic representation of OPFOR (i.e. BMD, enemy pilots reacting to BLUFOR).

o LIVEX following a CAX is essential to train real assets and to develop/integrate TTPs.

• Training audience

o Flexibility for changes required by the training audience o Expertise level of trainees:

Novice or beginners can be trained more effectively with Constructive or Virtual Simulations, since they have the opportunity to train on basic procedures of the system

Experts can take advantages from Constructive or Virtual Simulations which can broaden their training in complex scenarios or on non-normal and emergency procedures

o For aircrew training the balance of virtual vs. live flying hours is important in order to take advantage of advances in fidelity of simulation.

• Training requirements

o Individual training requirements o Collective training requirements (also to train different teams on the same

scenario) o Operational level o Strategic level

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



• NATO/national training center capabilities

o The capabilities of a Simulation/Training Center might influence the choice of the amount of LVC simulations in a joint exercise. Consider the case when the center capabilities (i.e. BLUEFOR GBAD unit) are less than what is required from the operational scenario (i.e. two BLUEFOR GBAD units); in this case one unit could be Live and the other Virtual or Constructive (provided that it has the same level of representability of the Live one).

• Local regulations/restrictions/constraints

o Live mission training is subject to airspace restrictions also due to the increased competition from civilian users. Using Virtual simulations can guarantee more freedom of maneuver in the training scenarios.

o Firings of live ammunitions is possible only in military ranges and subjected to severe restrictions

• Weather

o Virtual and Constructive simulations can provide evidence on the system behavior when subjected to severe environmental and weather conditions (e.g. cross-winds, microburst, wind shear and turbulence) which represent a context that would not be practical or affordable or safe to have during a live exercise.

o Virtual and Constructive simulations can be considered as backup plan in case the LIVEX cannot be run due to weather conditions.

• Contested environments

o Virtual and Constructive simulations can be used to train the operators in contested environments (electromagnetic environment, cyber threats, Anti Area Access/Area Denial, Surface-/Air-Based Threats…).

o At the same time the advance of enemy technologies and capabilities will lead to highly contested combat environment which cannot be easily replicated during Live exercises.

o Current RPAS training missions are mainly conducted in a permissive environment3.

• Red Forces representativity

o Current aggressor/Red Air assets are inadequate and military resources are limited. Realistic Red Forces representation in Live exercises would require a Red component similar to the component undertaking training in terms of variety, capabilities, number of assets. Military forces cannot afford to dedicate a significant number of high technology assets to be used as Red Force, that, additionally, would require highly experienced crews specially trained in Red Force tactics.

• Cost reduction

o Live training events have high costs for preparation, certification, and rehearsal, which can be reduced with the use of Virtual and Constructive simulations.

o Training simulators are usually much cheaper to buy than real platforms/systems and have lower maintenance costs.

3 “Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems in Contested Environments”, JPACC – September 2014

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



• Increased training opportunities and efficiency

o MTDS through Virtual and Constructive Simulations can be available on daily basis, while the frequency of live exercises, at NATO and National level, has decreased due to budget constraints.

o Without replacing the essential live training, Virtual and Constructive simulations can train the operators on additional missions, increasing the training opportunities up to 30%4.

o The use of Live and Constructive Simulations to train the operators on basic qualifications leads to more efficiency in training, since saving time and spending less money could in turn allow for more time in Live training, where the operator can train on necessary procedures and missions (i.e. the US Navy’s DDG 1000 and Littoral Combat Ship classes training systems)5.

o Training through Virtual and Constructive simulations is not subject to environmental and real systems availability constraints and fills the need to maintain the systems up to date in terms of evolutions and new capabilities.

• Crisis situations

o Crisis situations cannot be adequately replicated by LIVEX (major number of sorties/day to address all related processes, e.g. targeting)

• Environmental benefits

The use of Virtual and Constructive Simulation leads to environmental benefits in terms of:

o Environmental impact of reduced fuel consumption Less fuel consumption leads to less emissions. For example, it has been estimated that at worst an hour in a flight simulator uses about 12% of the energy of flying6, without taking into account the additional fuel consumption of frequent take offs. Moreover, simulators can be operated for many hours per day, producing less emissions than the real platforms/systems7.

o Noise pollution The concept is the same of reduced fuel consumption. Less live activity, especially for airborne training, leads to less emissions in terms of noise.

o Use of live weapons for training The use of live weapons for training is very critical since it can be performed only in weapon ranges and is frequently subject to criticism from public/environmental organizations. Firing a real missile with armed warhead will result with the emission of dangerous/polluting substances and debris fallout. Taking into account that from the trainee point of view the useful phases are the pre-launch and the effect on the target and that both phases can be fully simulated, the use of live weapons for training should be demanded only to particular cases and could be replaced by simulations.

4 Preserving NATO’s C2 Edge - Capitalizing on MTDS/LVC Advanced Capabilities – JAPCC Journal Issue -

24 – 2017

5 Training Tomorrow’s Fleet – With Caution - Military Simulation & Training Magazine, Volume 34, Issue 5.2017

6 http://www.nexgensim.com/flight-simulators-reduce-environmental-footprint/

7 The impact of flight simulation in aerospace - Royal Aeronautical Society -

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



o Use/need for ranges of live weapons. As stated in the previous point, for training purposes, the use of weapon simulations represents an alternative to the use of live weapons. Use of ranges is often limited by their availability and restrictions, and gives no additional value for training.

• Limits of Live Simulations.

o Live instrumentation systems might have limits to the total number of entities processed. When integrated into an MTDS exercise, those limits can affect decisions concerning aggregation levels or the way in which the environment of the exercise scenario is replicated. Artificialities may result which reduce the realism of the exercise.

• Failures and not nominal conditions

o In distributed exercises involving Live simulations and focused on tactical training it can be difficult or too hazardous to check how system operators react to not nominal operating conditions. Virtual simulations can provide a safe environment to train the operators on not nominal conditions that might occur in a system.

• Uncertainty degree.

o The integration of Live Simulations into MTDS exercises brings uncertainty. Vehicles break or become mired. Units lose their way. Commanders and Officers take decisions that affect the outcome of the training event.

o Though some events like a failure of a systems can be simulated and replicated Virtual and Constructive simulations, events based on human decisions cannot be replicated in constructive or virtual environments. On the other hand, this uncertainty has the benefit is that unit leaders learn to deal with uncertainty and risk in a training environment.

• Increasing complexity in operational scenarios.

o Due to cost, restrictions and manning limited resources, the use of Live simulations can lead to the necessity to play on simple or limited operational scenarios. The use of Virtual and Constructive simulations can permit a realistic, complex scenario, bringing advantages also to Live simulations which can operate in more realistic scenarios, that would not be practical or affordable to replicate on a live basis.

• De-risk of the Exercise.

o During the planning phase Virtual and Constructive simulations can be used by the planners to develop and assess the exercise scenarios which will be used for the training.

o Depending on the level of fidelity of the Virtual and Constructive simulations, they can be used to assess the architecture and interoperability between all the systems which will take part to the exercise

• Training on new features/technologies

o Virtual and Constructive simulations with high level of fidelity can be used to train operators on new features and technologies that are not yet implemented in the real system. This kind of training could be useful to get end user feedback before the actual implementation.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



• 5th Generation Assets8

o Networked environment, long range sensors/weapon systems. 5th generation assets allow for a networked sensor to shooter capability; live training on a networked targeting scenario, cueing weapon systems with information coming from long range sensors can be complex and difficult to achieve. An example can be the Link 16 Network Enabled Weapon (NEW) capability in which an aircraft provides targeting information coming from its long-range sensors to a missile launched by another platform which can be very far from the aircraft.

o Security issues. Stealth aircrafts cannot be employed “as such” in Live exercises to avoid exposing their real characteristics in terms of stealth features and tactics. This also could strongly impact in a realistic training for “lower” generation platforms, since nowadays part of their operational use could require a covert 5th generation aircraft coordinated employment.

o Current training ranges are inadequate. In order to perform a realistic live training of (stealth/network capable) 5th generation aircrafts in full coordination with 4/4+ generation assets (e.g. in the use of long range sensors, deep strike weapon systems and networked targeting), training ranges should be much wider than current ones. Another aspect is related to the complexity of the electromagnetics scenarios which could be not easily replicated, specifically when also risking to interfere with the civilian user environment.

• Use of new technologies to improve realism

o Latest technologies (e.g. Virtual Reality, Mixed Reality, Augmented Reality) can provide immersive Virtual training with improved realism, reducing the need for Live Training.

• Psychological & physiological issues

o Though psychological and physiological issues are one of the aspects of Live exercises which might be difficult to replicate in a Virtual environment, it is important to include them, as exploited in studies9 which show the added value of replicating stress conditions also in Virtual Training environments.

o On the other hand, using Virtual simulations for training could be used to simulate extreme flight conditions without exposing trainees to physiological (i.e. up to incapacitation) or psychological (i.e. stress) risks.

8 The 5th Generation Fighter is the current standard naming convention for 'next-generation' fighter aircraft,

which often utilizes enhanced features of 4th/4th+ Generation Fighter designs and introduce all-new levels of performance, stealth profiles and advanced avionics with integrated all-digital flight systems

9 Stress effects on transfer from virtual environment flight training to stressful flight environments - Christopher K. McClernon – June 2009

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



E.5 Potential Employment

This paragraph considers the potential employments of Mission Training through Distributed Simulations (MTDS) taking into account:

• The active NATO and National exercises which are already using MTDS or could use it in the future

• The industry’s contributions to the development of a NATO capability.

E.5.1 NATO/National Exercises (not exhaustive)

• NATO: o UNIFIED VISION

It is a biennial exercise focused on the test of interoperability of Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (JISR) systems.

o COALITION WARRIOR INTEROPERABILITY EXERCISE (CWIX) CWIX is an event held at the Joint Forces Training Center (JFTC) aimed to test and improve the compatibility of information systems used by NATO forces. This exercise involves also LVC simulations.

o STEADFAST ALLIANCE (STAE) STAE it is an exercise aimed to train NATO BMD structure including planning and decision-making processes at all levels (from tactical to strategic). It is worth noticing that the STAE is perfomed on NATO Secret WAN (NSWAN).

o STEADFAST ARMOR (STAR) STAR is an exercise for BMD mission execution from the operational to the tactical unit level utilising existing plans and procedures in a simulated scenario defending NATO allied territory and population.

o SPARTAN WARRIOR It is a WPC planned and led LVC event open to NATO-29 nations on CFBL Net.

o SPARTAN ALLIANCE It is intended to be a unit led Virtual/Constructive Event where units can schedule and operate in a constructive training environment provided to them as scheduled to meet their specific unit training objectives in a NATO-29 collaborative training environment.

o STO MSG 165 The MSG 165, is a three year program starting in 2018 in which are foreseen distributed exercises focusing on achieving an incremental implementation of Mission Training through Distributed Simulation for Joint and Combined Air Operations.

o Connected Forces Initiative (CFI) Exercises TRIDENT JUNCTURE

Trident Juncture is an Exercise composed by a Live Exercise (LIVEX) and by a Command Post Exercise (CPX). The CPX is usually run at the Joint Warfare Center and involves also Virtual and Constructive simulations.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



• Multinational: o Bold Quest

Bold Quest is an exercise designed to test the interoperability of NATO forces’ command and control, communications and computer systems with a focus on combat identification and minimizing the risk of fratricide. One of the key strands of Bold Quest is MTDS at the coalition level.

o Red Kite Distributed synthetic training exercise involving the UK based Virtual Fury simulators and other coalition air force simulations hosted in the US and Canada via the ABTC at RAF Fleet Synthetic Training exercises with operational US Navy Units or Carrier Strike Groups alongside in US ports which can include Ops Room personnel from Type 23 Frigates &Type 45 Destoyers and UK Carrier Strike Group battle staff within the MCTS facilities at HMS Collingwood and HMNB Devonport.

o Coalition Virtual Flag It is a ‘RED FLAG’-type simulation event which involves worldwide coalition participants and higher C2 levels such as an Air Operations Center or Joint Force Air Component Commander supporting a wartime scenario with full Air Tasking Order cycles and other applicable operational directives. VIRTUAL FLAG exercises can replicate full-scale joint or coalition operations, within any Major Command, in any land or maritime environment

o Joint Project Optic Windmill (JPOW) The JPOW is a multinational training event organised held every 2 years and based on simulated activities dealing with the Integrated Air & Missile Defence (IAMD).

• France

o S-JADEX Simulator assisted joint air defence exercise, for GBAD, based on MTDS and aimed to maintain the units on their own base.

• Italy

o Virtual Flag Virtual Flag is an Italian Air Force (ItAF) exercise part of the Joint Stars exercise, having changed from its original focus on JFAC training to joint training with Army and Navy, through the use of simulations which allow the training of the personnel for planning and conduction of air operations without using real vehicles. The last Virtual Flag has also included the training for C2 operators in Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (TBMD)

• UK

o Virtual Fury Distributed synthetic training exercise held annually, involving the Operations Room team from a Type 45 Destroyer hosted in the MCTS facilities linked to Air Battlespace Training Center (ABTC) Typhoon & E-3D simulators at RAF and the Sea King Airborne Surveillance and Control trainer at RNAS Culdrose.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



E.5.2 Link with NATO Initiatives

E.5.2.1 Smart Defence Initiative (SDI)

The NATO efforts to strengthen its work with new multinational solutions, ranging from the capability area, to training, exercise, and education, led to the concept of ‘Smart Defence’, which should be perceived as a collect term for multinational solutions, which aims to render either more capacity for the same money or the same capacity for less money. NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) project represent an example of Smart Defence, aimed to develop a system able to perform all-weather, persistent wide-area terrestrial and maritime surveillance in near real-time. MTDS is already used in the AGS program. MTDS and its associated benefits are in line with Smart Defence concepts, since providing a way for the nations to pool and share capabilities to achieve a more effective training by reducing the costs. Currently there are some Smart Defence Initiatives (SDI) which are directly or indirectly linked to M&S such as:

• 1.4 - Immersive Training Environments

• 1.20 - MN Aviation Training Center

• 1.24 - MN Military Flight Crew Training

• 1.27 - MN Cyber Defence Capability Development Thus, a recommendation from SG-215 is for NATO to set up a Smart Defence Project in which all the nations involved could contribute to achieve a common MTDS approach and could take advantage of all the benefits that such approach could bring (see Annex K of the Main Body Report).

E.5.2.2 Connected Forces Initiative (CFI)

The Connected Forces Initiative (CFI) aims to enhance the high level of interconnectedness and interoperability that Allied forces have achieved on operations and with partners. CFI combines a comprehensive education, training, exercise, and evaluation programme with the use of cutting-edge technologies to ensure that Allied forces remain prepared to engage cooperatively in the future. Again, MTDS is in line with actions to implement the technological aspects of CFI such as to provide:

• “high quality training, based on the use of simulation and seamless connection with other tools such as command and control systems. In addition, the implementation of this concept will enable other NATO tasks including, for example, supporting operational commander’s assessment of courses of action during operations”.

• “high quality training to NATO, based on coherent use of simulation, use of novel but commercially mature technologies and seamless connections with other tools such as command and control systems”.

E.5.3 Industry Contributions

• The collaboration between Military Forces and the industry is a key factor in developing a NATO MTDS capability and it should involve different phases:

o Requirements definition; o Identification of the solutions; o Optimization of the training systems and simulations life cycle; o Technology refreshment for the existing systems;

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



o Capability development using a spiral approach;

• The industry contribution could cover different aspects of MTDS: o Support in the definition and management of MTDS architecture, infrastructure

and required capabilities. o Providing simulations of assets, platforms, or weapons in order to mitigate

security and safety issues deriving from live employment of them. o Providing Simulation as a Service (SaaS) according to the different training

audiences and requirements. Interoperability between the simulations is guaranteed using the most common standards for simulation (DIS, HLA, …) and tactical data links (Link 16 over SIMPLE or JREAP, …).

o Providing tools to support the planning and the scenario definition (i.e. a Joint Mission & Tactical Planning Tool/Editor, which has been identified as a gap in the survey), using new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, Deep Learning and Big Data.

o Providing support services for connectivity including: Cross-domain capability. Bandwidth efficiency. Data security. Network security.

o Support for the final assessment (AAR) of training exercises with: Improvement of data quality and availability; A suite of hardware & software tools to gather and analyse data

recorded during the execution phase. o Integration of new technologies (e.g. Virtual Reality, Mixed Reality, Augmented

Reality) which can provide immersive Virtual training with improved realism, reducing the need for Live Training.

o Providing an efficient simulator/training system Product Life Cycle (PLC). As a product, a training system has its own PLC, as shown in Figure E. 3.

Figure E. 3 – Training Systems PLC

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



Last trends in industrial PLC involve the use of simulations in almost all the stages: from concept development and demonstrator, simulations (e.g. simulators used for aircraft development, ship simulators, major components such as on-board electronics suites (incl. radars)) evolve, in terms of fidelity, to support the system development and validation and finally become part of the training system. This industrial approach could

Fill the gap which emerged from the survey performed by the SG, concerning the lack of a real-life cycle management of the simulations to manage changing simulations requirements, i.e. system or simulations upgrades, systems/simulations modernization, changing standards.

Fill the technology gap caused by long military procurement cycles and therefore the military unable to obtain the latest technologies by providing: - last generation (weapon) systems ready to be used in MTDS

environment; - simulated assets to support effectively Live exercises integrating

leading-edge technologies to provide cost-effective immersive training (e.g. Virtual Reality, Mixed Reality, Augmented Reality) with increased realism.

o Connecting industrial Simulation/Training centers to the NATO or National MTDS network allowing:

The increase of the number of available assets during training exercises.

The insertion in a MTDS environment of systems still under development, in order to assess and train operators on new features and technologies that could be implemented in the final configuration of the real systems.

o Expand the use of commercial or mixed commercial/military training sites for basic training of aircrews, operators, and maintainers, so that the nations can attain basic training without the need to invest in buying, employing and maintaining dedicated assets.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



E.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

MTDS is a concept which has been around for almost 20 years. The concept and the benefits of training the personnel through (distributed) simulations is well known and applies to both military and civilian domains. MTDS simulation exercises are required to stimulate the training audience in all mission phases, i.e. plan, prepare, and execute coordinated missions. Specifically when addressed to a joint audience, aspects like coordination and synchronization of information flow, assets employment/capabilities both in the battle space and in time, within parties with different military “cultural” background and adopting (significantly) diversified TTPs, would then become one of the main focuses of a MTDS exercise, together with a replication of capabilities and feedback that can provide the training audience with objective measures of mission success or failure. Given the wide variety of the potential scenarios, and under the above assumptions, Team A assessed several possible scenarios aimed to best identify areas of strength in NATO’s current MTDS capability as well as areas requiring improvements. The operational scenario selected by the Team A was a Personnel Recovery/Extraction vignette, which is considered one of the most complex and complete to address all aspects relevant to a Joint MTDS exercise; TTPs for joint time and space coordination, deconfliction, and synchronization between operating units/packages are properly covered for most of the mission assets/phases. Through interaction with National MODs (Ops side) and/or Simulation/Training Centers, this choice was confirmed as being extensively used also by them, for the same reasons, during LVC training. What appears to be lacking at NATO and National level is a common or at least a more shared approach to MTDS. The analysis of literature, the interviews and the questionnaire survey conducted have shown that there are some nations (Canada, UK, USA) which already make an extensive use of (joint) MTDS, at national or multinational level, with excellent results in terms of training objectives and benefits. These nations have dedicated networks (e.g. Joint Training and Experimentation Network (JTEN) for USA) which allow the exploitation of the MTDS concept. On the other hand, it appears that some of other NATO nations have also capabilities (national initiatives, Simulation Centers) but do not achieve the full exploitation of the MTDS potential, relegating it mainly to NATO or national exercises which usually involve the personnel only few times a year.

At national and NATO level there are many legacy centers and exercises where MTDS could be used effectively, by properly balancing the mix of LVC simulations, taking into account training needs, audience and constraints. A non-exhaustive list of national centers that have a MTDS potential and/or that could benefit from it are addressed in the Paragraphs E.3.2.3.1 and E.3.2.3.2; also “mainly Verification & Validation” (V&V) centers show a good MTDS potential, to be properly phased with their primary role.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



Legacy (to include selected V&V) Simulation Centers can play an active role in a common MTDS approach by identifying current capabilities and gaps, providing baseline for capabilities in order to mitigate gaps, developing and implementing the national MTDS requirements and Test Beds for MTDS capabilities at national and multinational level, assuring the life cycle management of national MTDS capabilities On the other hand, the integration of a legacy simulation center into a MTDS network might be challenging in terms of technology and costs, if the center doesn’t have capabilities such as System/Sub-system capability to interface with other Systems/Sub-systems, Centers network connection to national training/simulation networks and Support to simulation standards such as DIS/HLA. A survey performed on National Simulation/Training Centers shows that there isn’t yet a common and shared approach to MTDS in the nations. This is due to the fact that today:

• there is no shared approach and vision of what is missing and what would be needed to improve the efficiency of MTDS.

• there is not a homogenous level between the different centers. o Not all the centers have the same capabilities in terms of simulation

interoperability, simulation tools, connectivity, database management and AAR.

o The simulation life cycle is managed differently and sometimes it doesn’t take into account the change of simulation requirements

The survey results showed that:

• some centers make a more frequent and effective use of MTDS, while other centers make a limited use of MTDS even when they have potentially the capabilities to use it more efficiently;

• having a collaborative working environment where industry engineers work together with trainers and trainees is recognized as a need only by some centers;

• the lack of centralized database and correlation has been assessed as possibly causing issues during the training sessions since different system might “see” different things depending on the DB.

Having assessed the National Simulation/Training Centers survey results, Team A concluded that:

• first step in the establishment of an effective MTDS capability is to agree on a National and NATO common approach to MTDS. The national MoDs should have a primary role in this process, filling a gap in strategy and coordination of the simulation and training centers;

• though differences in MTDS use between centers might be considered normal since the different centers might have different operational uses and requirements, it is crucial to identify a minimum set of capabilities that each “MTDS enabled” center should meet in order to take part and support MTDS effectively;

• MTDS needs an improved life cycle management for the training systems since the advance in technologies lead to improvements in the simulations (fidelity level, bandwidth, …), thus providing a better training to the operators;

• a possible solution for the lack of centralized database is that the database is agreed between each site as part of exercise preparation to ensure each system database is in alignment and consistent for the scenarios exercise;

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



• a collaborative working environment where industry engineers work together with trainers and trainees is a fundamental requirement to reach an effective MTDS capability where:

o Stakeholders needs are collected and implemented by the industry all along the product life cycle.

o Military operators can report bugs or malfunctions in real time so that engineers can shorten the time needed to solve them.

o Industry can support military personnel during the execution of exercises.

• considering the range of training levels addressed and level of maturity demonstrated through the survey and interviews, the USAFE Warrior Preparation Center (WPC) appears to be making a more extensive use of MTDS to provide Joint and Combined warfighter training through live, synthetic and blended capabilities.

The distributed nature of MTDS makes security a primary factor to be taken into account:

• security accreditation is an important aspect that should be taken into account, since at the moment is a stopper for the participation of a center to short notice exercises;

• security accreditation issue might be mitigated through a persistent connection to an MTDS network, together with a site security accreditation (i.e. S-NAEC for CFBLNet).

Security issues such as level of exercises and accreditation should be addressed regularly, taking into account also the aspects related to cyber defence. Ideally, units will train in a live simulations environment to the greatest extent possible. However, training events conducted in a live simulations environment result in a greater amount of uncertainty in exercises and cannot be reset and are subject to limitations that prevent them from meeting their full potential, such as the cost, air and land space availability, environmental impact/limitations and the availability of units. Constructive and virtual simulations can mitigate the limitations of live simulations making them a credible substitute. Constructive and virtual simulations can expand the number of units available to participate in training exercises, can reduce the costs of training by putting aircrews/operators in virtual simulators in which they can train their TTPs in support of live simulations and can allow aircrews/operators to train around the clock without being limited in local flight times. MTDS allows units to address such restrictions as well as distance, which would otherwise not allow to train together for reasons of cost caused by distance. Additionally, the use of virtual simulations for training also would significantly reduce the negative environmental impact of training (e.g. noise pollution, CO2 emissions, release of hazardous material and chemicals into the environment). “We’re quickly reaching a point where we simply cannot train in the live domain to all the threats that are out there anymore, and we can’t always train live in the system-of-systems type of warfare, where multiple fighter aircraft interact”10 Choosing the right balance of Live, Virtual, & Constructive (LVC) simulations in training is not a simple task and should be performed taking into account a significant number of factors, as addressed in Paragraph E.4.2.

10 Capt. Craig Dorrans, program manager for US Naval Aviation Training Systems (PMA-205).

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



Though Virtual and Constructive simulations cannot fully replace Live simulations and exercises, SG215 recommendation is to increase the use of Virtual and Constructive simulations for training, since the ratio benefits vs costs is higher than those of Live simulations. Virtual and Constructive simulations allow aircrew to practice tactics and operations in a virtual airspace before the real flights. The collaboration between Military Forces and Industry would be a key factor in developing a NATO/National MTDS capability, involving different phases from requirement definition, solution technology identification to capability development. The industry contribution could cover different aspects of MTDS:

• Definition and management of MTDS architecture and infrastructure.

• Providing simulation services according to the different training audiences and requirements.

• Providing simulations of assets/platforms/weapons in order to overcome security and safety issues.

• Providing tools to support the planning and the scenario definition.

• Providing support services for connectivity (e.g. Cross-domain capability, Bandwidth efficiency, Data and network security).

• Support for the final assessment of a training exercises with improvement of data quality/availability and hardware & software tools to gather and analyse data recorded during the execution phase.

• Providing an efficient simulator/training system Product Life Cycle (PLC). The increasing component fidelity leads to a shift from Constructive to Live simulations which reflects the different needs in the different phases of a project; this industrial approach could fill the gap which emerged from the survey performed by Team A, concerning the lack of a real life cycle management of the simulations in order to manage changing simulations requirements (system or simulations upgrades, systems/simulations modernization, changing standards).

• Integrating leading-edge technologies to provide cost-effective immersive training (e.g. Virtual Reality, Mixed Reality, Augmented Reality).

• Connecting industrial Simulation/Training centers to the MTDS network initially at national level, then to the NATO one, allowing the insertion in a MTDS environment of systems still under development, to assess effectiveness and integration/human factor issues for new features and technologies that could be implemented, and concurrently start training operators.

A shared approach to exercise planning, preparation, execution, and recovery is considered as one of the key pillars for achievement of a common NATO MTDS capability; several sequential steps would then be needed:

• Decisional involvement of National MoDs, to define national M&S strategies and to identify which are the National Simulation/Training Centers that will have to be allocated/integrated into National and NATO MTDS.

• Gathering of the different capabilities and needs at national level (e.g. with a questionnaire like the one adopted by SG215, pushed by the MoD).

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



• Start a discussion at NATO level, taking into account the National contributions, and organize workshops between industry and end user to come to a shared approach on MTDS (or at least the way to achieve a shared approach).

A common MTDS approach can represent also one example of NATO Smart Defence Initiative, aimed to ensure “greater security, for less money, by working together with more flexibility”, where nations “pool and share capabilities, to set the right priorities, and to better coordinate our efforts” and “NATO can help nations to build greater security with fewer resources but more coordination and coherence” 11. Finally, it is important that NIAG outputs continue to be effectively distributed from NATO to National MoDs, and down to end users, in order to start the discussion for a NATO common approach to MTDS. The establishment of this capability should be supported by Simulation/Training Centers but cannot be demanded to them since they might have a limited vision focused on their training needs. Considering the time-range scale that the SG215 group adopted as more applicable to M&S issues (see Main Report, para 1.6), all the above conclusion and recommendations can also be grouped in terms of implementation roadmaps addressing the three specific Team A investigation areas:

• Mission rehearsal and operational assessment for Air and Joint tactical training

• Potential users and value of the approach

• Potential industry’s contributions

Figure E. 41- Roadmap to implement Mission Rehearsal and Operational Assessment

11 Keynote speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the 2011 Munich Security

Conference

NATO UNCLASSIFIED



Figure E. 52- Roadmap to identify/involve potential users

Figure E. 63- Roadmap to implement potential industry’s contributions


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX F

TEAM B

MTDS GUIDANCE & DOCTRINE

DOCUMENT

ON

NIAG SG215

FUTURE COMBINED / JOINT DISTRIBUTED TACTICAL

TRAINING THROUGH SIMULATION FOR JOINT AND

COMBINED TASKS AND OPERATIONS

The work described in this report was carried out under the provisions of the NIAG Study Order for Study Group 215. Disclosure, utilization, publication or reproduction of this report by industry is subject to pre-approval by NATO until such time as NATO may have released such work to the public


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

INDEX F.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

F.2 MTDS Exercise Organisation ........................................................................................ 1

F-2.1 NATO Exercise Process ......................................................................................... 1

F-2.2 NATO Exercise Process for a MTDS exercise ........................................................ 3

F-2.3 MTDS Infrastructure and Organization ................................................................... 4

F.3 MTDS Infrastructure Services ........................................................................................ 6

F-3.1 MEM functional services ......................................................................................... 6

F-3.2 NSC Roles .............................................................................................................. 6

F-3.3 MSU Roles .............................................................................................................. 7

F-3.4 Training branches ................................................................................................... 7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure F-1 MTDS Infrastructure and Organization ........................................................................... 5


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX CONTRIBUTORS Specifically, the SG215 expert who produced this Annex is:

• Mr. Jean Pierre Faye (Thales Air Operations) based on previous work produced by MSG-128


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

F-1

F.1 Introduction

This guidance & doctrine document is derived from the MTDS CONOPS document draft established by the MSG-128 study. The MTDS concept is based on the Bi-SC 75-3 than remain applicable for MTDS exercise, even if a MTDS infrastructure is add in support of the usual CAX organization for Strategic/Operational level training. Note than MTDS is focus on operational/tactic level training, but they have no clear separation between small CAX and large MTDS exercises. The chapter 2 on MTDS Exercise Organisation precise the Bi-SC 75-3 preliminary stages used as data inputs of MTDS Exercise Management (MEM) and define a MTDS infrastructure as support of the Bi-SC 75-3 exercise control (EXCON). The chapter 3 define the MTDS functional services for MTDS Exercise Management and the role of other MTDS infrastructure (National Simulation Centres, MTDS Simulation Units and the Training Branch) These MTDS functional services will be used as operational needs for the SG-215 annex on MTDS Exercise Management and Interoperability requirements.

F.2 MTDS Exercise Organisation

F-2.1 NATO Exercise Process

The Bi-SC 75-3 document on collective training and exercise directive (CT&ED) provides Bi-SC direction pertaining to the NATO military collective training and exercise process. It should be used as a comprehensive guideline on how to plan, execute and assess NATO collective training and military exercises. We summarize below key points of this document.

The exercise process comprises 4 main stages than we call “Operational organization”

1. Stage 1: Concept and Specification Development. Describes the required inputs, organizational responsibilities, and the flow of the key activities required to produce Exercise Specification (EXSPEC).

2. Stage 2: Planning and Product Development. The purpose of this stage is to determine specific planning requirements and to draft, coordinate, and promulgate the Exercise Plan (EXPLAN) as well as all required documents related to scenario and exercise play. Other deliveries are:

• The scenario data (than we call “Operational scenario “) will cover : i. Theatre of operations information, including

− Static information/data about the region to support strategic assessments and operations planning

− Exercise Map Datasets


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

F-2

− Theatre of Operations Country Information − Theatre of Operations ORBAT Data − Theatre of Operations Infrastructure Data − OPFOR Campaign Plan (for use by EXCON only during the

stage 3)

ii. Crisis Response Planning Information, including: − Intelligence dataset − Friend resources − Target Integrated Data Base (IDB) − Environmental Assessment/data

iii. Force Activation and Deployment Information such as: − Force Balancing Results. − Current Intelligence Summary (INTSUM)/ Intelligence Report

(INTREP) (as required). − Joint Target List. − Rules of Engagement

iv. Execution (STARTEX and MEL/MIL) information such as: − Current Intelligence Summary (INTSUM)/ Intelligence Report

(INTREP) − STARTEX Forces lay down − Current SITREPS for Land, Air, Navy, PAO, CIMIC, CIS,

METOC, Deployment, Logistics, etc − Area of Interest (AOI) Common Operating Picture (COP) data

and information − The Main Event List/ Main Incident List (MEL/MIL). The Main

Events for an exercise should be developed to reflect the Course of Action (COA) of the various actors and support achievement of Training Objectives (TOs). Those events taking place on the MEL/MIL should be synchronized with the simulation model.

• At the end of the stage 2, two main activities will be performed i. Develop M&S Theatre Data (from C2IS Data) ii. Develop and Test M&S Databases and Information Exchanges.

3. Stage 3: Operational Conduct.

• The operational conduct of the exercise is supported by the Exercise Control (EXCON) staff. EXCON has both direction and control functions which allow it to establish the conditions needed by the Training Audience to achieve the exercise aim and objectives and Training Objectives. As the Chief of EXCON, the Exercise Director (EXDIR) may steer exercise play – both in direction and tempo – as deemed necessary to enhance learning opportunities, reinforce key lessons and achieve objectives. Reliable communication means between EXCON elements is critical for their effectiveness and these may include telephones, radios, email and video-teleconferences.

• Response Cells support the EXCON in order to play the role of forces organization not present in the Training Audience.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

F-3

i. HICON: Higher control describes the Response Cells that represent the command levels/echelons that would normally be at the level above the Training Audience.

ii. LOCON: Lower Control describes describe the Response Cells that represent the command levels/echelons that would normally be at the level below the Training Audience.

• The response cells are usually staffed by officers actually from those units, formations and agencies

4. Stage 4: Analysis and Reporting.

This stage is unique in the sense that it begins early in the exercise planning process It includes during- and post-exercise observation, analysis and reporting in accordance with requirements and procedures established in the EXPLAN. There are three main categories of deliverables: Exercise Reports, Specific Analysis Reports and Performance Reports.

• Exercise reports address the adequacy of planning and execution of the exercise in the accomplishment of specific Exercise and Training Objectives and Experiment aims

• Specific Analysis Events and Reports include:

i. After Action Review. The findings presented in the post exercise After-Action Review represent the initial, first level of “analysis”. This includes the majority of the observations and initial impressions covered during this session.

ii. First Impression Reports (FIRs). FIRs are to be made by each participating HQ, agency and team upon completing a sub-phase, phase and/or an exercise as specified in the EXPLAN. FIRs contain the first assessment of the exercise or exercise sub-phase/phase.

iii. Training Analysis Report (TAR). The TAR addresses the question: “Are we training the right things?” and “Are we training them right?” Its purpose is to capture issues that will help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the training itself.

iv. And many other reports such as Post Exercise Discussion, Lesson Identified List, Lesson Identified Action Plan, Remedial Action Report, Consolidated Venue Experiments Report.

• Performance reports address the performance of organizations supporting the training event/exercise or accomplishment of specific performance objectives of the TA.

F-2.2 NATO Exercise Process for a MTDS exercise

MTDS (Mission Training via Distributed simulation) exercise is managed at Mission Level

• The 75-03 document is designed for Strategic/Operative level exercise (i.e. JHQ or NRF). MTDS Exercise Process should be designed Air and Joint tactical level for exercise. MTDS address the Mission Training level (i.e. only tactical level),

• In 75-03, the training audience can be distributed on several sites, but the simulation (ex: JTLS) is considered mainly centralized on 1 site. In MTDS the simulation is based


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

F-4

on a network of simulators. Several constructive simulations can be used as well C2 and instrumented real systems connected to simulation nodes.

• In 75-03, the considered simulation tool is mainly constructive, and the simulated entities can be aggregated, in particular for land units. In MTDS the simulation tools are multiple (LVC: Live, Virtual, Constructive) and use intensively Data links (not compatible with aggregation, as each data link track represent an individual platform/vehicle)

Consequences:

1. MTDS requires a permanent network infrastructure, including not deployable simulators. Such infrastructure is not identified in 75-03.

2. MTDS requires a preliminary integration phase of all simulation assets, including C2 and instrumented systems. This integration phase is not defined in 75-03.

3. MTDS requires centralized and local management of the simulation, not considered in 75-03 (mainly centralized).

4. MTDS could have a small number of participants, so the “Operational organization” should be smaller with shorter preparation than the process described in 75-03.

5. The “operational scenario” should be fit to the level of operation and command: o Campaign of operations for 75-03, for JHQ. o Operation(s) for large MTDS exercise, i.e. JFAC or JFMC level o Mission(s) for MTDS, i.e. tactical C2

6. The “operational scenario” for MTDS should be translated in “executable scenario” (specification of required data for preparation, initialization and execution of a simulation environment) for each simulation asset. Alternative is to enter the scenario manually in each simulation asset. Note: The AMSP-03 recommends to use “conceptual scenario” (translation of an operational scenario in engineering terms for the development of simulation data) in order to generate automatically the executable scenarios.

For all these reasons the SG-215 team recommended to add a specific MTDS Exercise Management organization providing technical support to the operational organization of the exercise defined in the 75-3 document. This technical support could have a common infrastructure for MTDS.

F-2.3 MTDS Infrastructure and Organization

• The MTDS infrastructure is the multi-national network supporting the distributed simulation.

• The “Technical director” manages the simulation in cooperation with Exercise Director managing the operational organization of the exercise. Note: this definition is compatible with 75-03 directives.

• The MEM (MTDS Exercise Management) is the central management of the MTDS infrastructure

• The NSC (NATO/National Simulation Center) manages a node of MTDS infrastructure:

o Any NSC could become a MEM.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

F-5

o All NSC nodes are connected through a WAN (Wide Area Network). o A NSC manages the MTDS Simulation Units (MSU) presents in the LAN (Local

Area Network)

• The MSU is an infrastructure and organization comprising a MTDS simulation unit (simulator, simulations environment, C2 or instrumented system).

• Training Branches are the different communities of instructor experts: C2, JISR, Pilots, Air Defense, etc. supporting the training at local level (i.e. MSU).

Figure F-1 MTDS Infrastructure and Organization

The key roles of the technical director are to support to exercise director for the stages defined in F.2-1 above:

• Stage 2- Planning and Product Development o Setting the MTDS infrastructure o Translating operational scenario in executable scenario for MSUs

• Stage 3- Operational Conduct: o Supervising the execution of the scenario in the MTDS network control o Collecting the results of the exercise

• Stage 4- Analysis and Reporting: o Processing the results of the exercise for Specific Analysis Reports and

Performance Reports requires by the EXCON


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

F-6

F.3 MTDS Infrastructure Services

F-3.1 MEM functional services

A - Facilitate operational support of the Exercise

1 - Be point of contact for MTDS participants

2 - Allocate the simulation entities (C2, Sensor or weapon simulators/ instrumented systems, constructive simulation) to the operational scenario of the exercise;

3 - Allocate the training objectives to the trainees per Training Branches (C2, Pilots, …);

4 - Translate the planning data pack (i.e.: SPINS, ACO/ATO, OPTASKLINK, ROEs, etc.) in executable scenario for each MSU;

5 - Provide support during the exercise for EXCON, HICON, LOCON; example: through collaborative tools between operational staff and technical support.

6 - Organize mass brief/debrief to all participants

B - Provide technical support of the MTDS infrastructure:

1 - Organize NSC/MSU. I.e.:

Identify participants to the exercise and request network access and bandwidth for the duration of the exercise.

Provide instructions, data pack and collaborative tools for information exchanges;

Prepare a test plan for the participants before the exercise if required

2 - Set-up and test the MTDS infrastructure

3 - Inform the Exercise Director about the MTDS system readiness

4 - Supervise the MTDS systems health (network stability, simulation unit crash, etc.)

5 - Record exercise execution and support replay for debrief

C - Synchronize the exercise in coordination with the EXCON and NATO/National Simulation Centers (NSC)

D - Monitor the simulation execution

1 - In coordination with NATO/National Simulation Center (NSC). 2 - In coordination with MTDS Simulation Units (C2, simulator / instrumented real

system, constructive simulation

E - Produce Post MTDS Exercise Report in close coordination with NSC.

F-3.2 NSC Roles

• Be a Focal point for the MEM

• Organize the local infrastructure of the simulation center:


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

F-7

o accreditation of the MSUs participating at the exercise, o connection to the MTDS infrastructure, o provide human resource from the raining branches

• Organize mass brief/debrief at the MTDS node level, in coordination with the MEM

• Collect and store at the node level o The executable scenario for all MSUs o Any record from MSUs (information exchange with other entities of the

scenario, action of the trainees, etc.) • Participate to the post exercise report.

F-3.3 MSU Roles

• Must have a CFBLNet accreditation

• Participate to the execution of the test plan when required

• Host the primary training audience

• Support the execution of the scenario

• Record useful information concerning the trainees

• Participate in the mass brief/debrief

• Complete the debrief by individual debrief if required

F-3.4 Training branches

The training branches are the military Instructors experts supporting MSUs for each domain of training (C2 training, Air warfare Training, Ground Air Defence, etc.).

Each training branch design a community of expertise across all simulation centres.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX G

TEAM B

EXERCISE

MANAGEMENT & INTEROPERABILITY

ON

NIAG SG215 FUTURE COMBINED / JOINT DISTRIBUTED TACTICAL



The work described in this Annex was carried out under the provisions of the NIAG Study

Order for Study Group 215.

Disclosure, utilization, publication or reproduction of this Annex by industry is subject to pre-

approval by NATO until such time as NATO may have released such work to the public


NATO UNCLASSIFIED G-i

INDEX

G1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

G2 MTDS Exercise Management .................................................................................... 2

G2.1 MTDS Exercise Management Requirement Analysis .......................................... 3

G2.2 Exercise Management issues and recommendations ....................................... 15

G3 MTDS Interoperability Analysis ................................................................................ 32

G3.1 Sim-C2 scenario definition language ................................................................. 32

G3.1.1 Requirement Identifications and Gaps .................................................................................... 33

G3.1.2 Sim-C2 Scenario Definition Language Issues and Recommendations ..................................... 38

G3.2 Dynamic Terrain solutions ................................................................................. 53

G3.2.1 SNE requirements for MTDS .................................................................................................... 54

G3.2.2 Issues from previous studies and current projects ................................................................. 57

G3.2.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 58

G3.2.4 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 65

G3.3 Datalink Interoperability ..................................................................................... 66

G3.3.1 Data Link requirements for MTDS ........................................................................................... 66

G3.3.2 Tactical Data Link Standards .................................................................................................... 68

G3.3.3 Data Link Interoperability analysis .......................................................................................... 71

G3.3.4 Current activities ..................................................................................................................... 90

G3.3.5 Data Link Interoperability Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................. 91

G3.4 Live-Virtual Interoperability ................................................................................ 92

G3.4.1 Requirement Identifications and Gaps .................................................................................... 92

G3.4.2 Interoperability issue ............................................................................................................... 94

G3.4.3 Recommendations & Roadmap ............................................................................................. 105

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure G.1 Roadmap Overview ......................................................................................... 65

LIST OF TABLES

Table G-1 Requirements for MTDS exercise management ................................................. 2

Table G-2 SNE issues from previous studies .................................................................... 57

Table G-3 Interoperability Issue Heat-Map ...................................................................... 106

Table G-4 Investigation Plan by Category ....................................................................... 107


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-ii

ANNEX CONTRIBUTORS

The present Annex was produced by a dedicated Team of SG215 experts, supported by members of the Sponsor and the QRT groups. Specifically, the SG215 experts contributing to the production of this Annex are:

• Mr. Canberì Haluk (STM) • Mr. Carrè Michel (DIGINEXT) • Mr. Faye Jean-Pierre (THALES Air Operations) • Mr. Gosling Austin (INSYEN) • Mr. Kalkan Mert B. (TUBITAK) • Mr. Lemmers Arjan (NLR) • Mr. Rother Martin (IABG) • Mr. Rovetti Fausto (LEONARDO) • Mr. Selbes Tunca (TUBITAK)


NATO UNCLASSIFIED G-1

G1 Introduction

The Study SG-215 on “future combined / joint distributed tactical training through simulation for joint and combined tasks and operations” addresses how technological innovations can be implemented to improve the capability to meet NATO and national training objectives in the context of joint and combined simulated operations. The study team has been divided over three sub-teams each dealing with specific areas of analysis, being: - Team A on Operational Employment of MTDS, - Team B on Interoperability aspects of MTDS, and - Team C on Implementation aspects of MTDS. The SG-215 group has identified 5 interoperability topics that should be addressed by Team-B. These topics are:

1. Exercise Management 2. Sim-C2 scenario definition language 3. Dynamic Terrain solutions 4. Datalink Interoperability 5. Live-Virtual Interoperability

To analyse the Annex G subjects of study, the Team B is divided in five sub-teams. Each sub-team analyses on of the topics. The following approach is taken by each sub-team:

1. Identify requirements and gaps - Describe requirements from available documentation - Identify known gaps with respect to requirements - Identify issues with respect to interoperability

2. Analysis - Group issues into categories - Analyse issue categories (including identifying current standards and activities)

3. Solutions and road mapping - Analyse current solutions per identified category - Propose short term, mid term, long term solutions to implement solution - Recommend activities how to achieve short term/mid term/long term solutions - Summarize Conclusions and Recommendations

This Annex G provides a consolidated summary of the information collected during the course of the NIAG SG-162 study with respect to the interoperability aspects. The team B discussed that the requirements and issues can be divided into two main groups: exercise management and technical interoperability. This annex describes first the exercise management and then details the 4 remaining technical interoperability areas. It provides a description of each aspect which was considered and points to already available solutions and standards where these already exists. It also identifies issues that are still open and offers a recommended course of action to close the gaps. Chapter G2 describes an analysis of the MTDS exercise management. Chapter G3 describes the exercise management issues and recommended actions. Chapter G4 describes the analysis of the four interoperability topics identified for MTDS. It analyses the requirements and gaps for the topics, identifies solution approaches and define recommendations and a roadmap.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-2

G2 MTDS Exercise Management

The following table contains all identified requirements for MTDS exercise management. Req ID Description Issues MEM R-A1-010 provide web portal with schedule of planned exercise and

point of contact for exercise registration NO

MEM R-A1-020 support administrative tasks for classified exercise NO MEM R-A2-010 support the allocation using a scenario generator tool MEM R-A3-010 provide a common training objective management tool NO MEM R-A3-020 Create Entity and Interaction model YES MEM R-A3-030 Develop a Conceptual Model YES MEM R-A3-040 Define Federation Agreement Specification YES MEM R-A3-050 Define and check consistency of Operational Scenario

Description YES

MEM R-A3-060 Define and check completeness of Application Domain NO MEM R-A4-010 provide a common training support management tool NO MEM R-A5-010 provide local and/or collective briefing tool to the

participants NO

MEM R-A5-020 organize collection of observations by trainers of training audience actions versus training objectives

YES

MEM R-B1-010 Organize sharing space based on standard office tools and data/ COTS repository with access rights associated to classification level

NO

MEM R-B1-020 Distribute an executable scenario to all MTDS Simulation Units (MSU)

YES

MEM R-B1-030 Distribute terrain dataset to all MTDS Simulation Units (MSU)

YES

MEM R-B1-040 Define and exchange Entity Performance Parameter MEM R-B1-050 Work with different levels of fidelity for Synthetic

Environment

MEM R-B1-060 Implement all identified Interactions MEM R-B2-010 Provide MTDS set up and technical supervision YES MEM R-B2-020 Provide a default simulation tool for testing and MTDS

failure tolerance NO

MEM R-B3-010 Provide a MTDS system health status board with several indicators

YES

MEM R-B5-010 organize collection of observations by trainers of trainees’ actions versus training objectives

YES

Table G-1 Requirements for MTDS exercise management

Each requirement is analysed in order to identify potential Gaps due to some issues and identified with a ReqID in order to have a cross reference into this document. Moreover, each requirement is classified into group and type. This section set up a list of draft requirements for the MEM functional services developed in the Annex F MTDS GUIDANCE & DOCTRINE DOCUMENT.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-3

G2.1 MTDS Exercise Management Requirement Analysis

A - Facilitate operational support of the Exercise

1 - Be point of Contact for MTDS participant

MEM R-A1-010 provide web portal with schedule of planned exercise and point of contact for exercise registration

GAP: YES. No such service available. ISSUE: NO. Organisation issue. Identify where this portal should be installed and how to administrate this portal.

MEM R-A1-020 support administrative tasks for classified exercise

• Establish the list of available simulation resources for each NSC (Simulators, constructive simulations, C2, instrumented system)

• Identify the classification of the overall exercise and the classification of each simulation asset.

• Estimate the network bandwidth resources. • Establish the CFBLNet Initiative Information Pack (CIIP) when using

CFBNet or equivalent network. • Identify the National Network booking and the Points of Presence between

national network and CFBLNet. • Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and Technical Assistance

Agreements (TAAs) • IT Security for Accreditation (Document I-NAEC and S-NAEC) • Exercise Software and Hardware configuration plan (RTI, Gateway,

Crypto, secure Video Telephone Conferencing tools, Chat)

GAP: YES Some forms exist; a central access to forms and shared folder to the exercise managers could help. ISSUE: NO Organisational issue. Administrative activities are already done using local PC


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-4

2 - Allocate the simulation entities to the operational scenario of the exercise;

MEM R-A2-010 support the allocation using a scenario generator tool

• Provide manual scenario edition (creation/ modification) for: o the ORBAT (ORder of BATtle) of the scenario (Blue side, Red Side,

Neutral) with for each scenario entity: an identifier, the entity type. o the planning of the missions (Blue/ Red/ Neutral sides) with identifier

and type of mission, contextual mission parameter such as list of participating entities defined in the ORBAT, their role.

o the missions should be organized in phases (or operations) following the Main Events of the MEL/MIL.

o Information on entities by each side (example: last detection and location, INTEL data, target assignment, etc.)

o the resources of each entities (ammunitions, fuel, etc.) o the communication capabilities or each entity (IFF, voice channel,

data link type and channel, etc.) • Provide automatic scenario creation/modification from C2 using import files

o Import C2 ORBAT o Import ACO/ATO to derive missions (note: allocation of the entity to

the missions should remain manually or from a file o Import INTEL data o Import OPTASKLINK for the communication networks planning o Note: import of MEL/MIL information should be desirable

• Allocate simulation resources (Simulators, constructive simulation, C2, or instrumented system) to the scenario entities.

GAP: YES Such tools do not yet exist. • The main issue concerns the formalisation of a conceptual scenario to

insure all scenario data should be provided to the MTDS Simulation Units. • MEL/MIL export standard do not exist. • Good news

o Similar tools already exist, even if no such tools are currently used for MTDS.

o AdatP3 standards exist for C2 export

ISSUE: YES


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-5

3 - Allocate the training objectives to the trainees

MEM R-A3-010 provide a common training objective management tool

• Set the training objectives per mission and per operation in coherency with the MEL/MIL. Identify the simulation resources involved in each incident of the MEL/MIL

• Identify training assessment indicators at individual level, mission level and “operations” level.

• Establish training audience manning list, including expertise, qualification level and individual training objective, NSC location.

• Allocate training audience to the simulation resources, missions and operations at NSC level

• Consolidate the trainees’ allocation at MEM level

GAP: YES Partial solutions already exist, but no complete solutions. ISSUE: No specific issues.

MEM R-A3-020 Create Entity and Interaction model

To fulfil requirements on fair-fight and fit-for-purpose and make simulators function together, the simulators requires more than data exchange definition. The simulators must act upon the exchanged data, as well as local data, in a way that provides the best possible training value. Therefore, in order to achieve training goals and achieve interoperability, the simulators shall agree on common physical behaviour such as on entity information/interactions, warfare, radios and emissions. (related work from SG162-29)

GAP: NO. Issue: YES.

MEM R-A3-030 Develop a Conceptual Model

In order to achieve the objective of the user/sponsor a conceptual model has to be developed explicitly. An incomplete and lacking conceptual model will lead the individuals to write and use their own conceptual model during the development of the simulation environment. A conceptual model is a crucial aspect during the development of the simulation environment because the conceptual model is the traceability link between the objectives and the eventual design implementation. Lack of conceptual model means that traceability link between the objectives and the eventual design does not exist. And lack of traceability will lead to errors and/or incomplete implementations. Therefore, conceptual model shall be developed


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-6

explicitly. Mission specific conceptual model shall be developed. Mission specific simulation environment requirements shall be developed. Mission specific simulation environment test criteria shall be developed (ref to MSG-86-1).


MEM R-A3-040 Define Federation Agreement Specification

Incomplete or incompatible specification of Federation Agreements can lead to a large variety of interoperability problems. Object identifier uniqueness and dead reckoning algorithms can be given as an example. If any federate leaves the federation and comes back later and register instances, problems arise in the unique object identifiers. When it comes to dead reckoning, usage of different algorithms for the same remote entity type results in placement errors in different applications which will lead to different decisions on the actions. And that will result in unfair fight. Therefore, federation agreements shall be defined completely. It shall be ensured that federation agreements are satisfied by federates. Also, appropriate tool implementation and verification method development shall be taken into consideration (ref to MSG-86-5).


MEM R-A3-050 Define and check consistency of Operational Scenario Description

To reach the exercise goal, objectives and requirements of a simulation environment have to be clear. Besides that, a detailed description of authoritative operational scenarios is also necessary. Incomplete and/or inconsistent descriptions of operational scenarios will be interpreted differently by the participants. And that will result in a simulation which is different from the intended purpose. Therefore, an operational scenario shall be developed and documented. Operational scenario shall contain all necessary information. Operational scenarios shall be consistent, useful and understandable (ref to MSG-86-21).


MEM R-A3-060 Define and check completeness of Application Domain

The application domain defines the purpose of the simulation system. If the application domain is not defined or incompletely defined, problems may arise. Missing or incomplete definition of the application domain will increase the risk of


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-7

selecting unsuitable/wrong operational scenarios. And eventually this will lead to an unsuitable/wrong conceptual model. Also, missing or incomplete definition of the application domain will result in inappropriate simulation system selections. Such systems will not be interoperable. A missing or incomplete definition of the application domain of a simulation system or simulation environment may be caused by a missing standardized way of defining the application domain. Therefore, defining the application domain shall be standardized and all simulation participants shall have a complete application domain definition (ref to MSG-86-25).

GAP: YES. Issue: NO.

4 - Provide support during the exercise for EXCON, HICON and LOCON.

MEM R-A4-010 provide a common training support management tool

• Reuse the scenario generator • Provide support aid to identify simulation resources not allocated to a

trainee • Based on the MEL/MIL, identify when this resource is required, the type of

resource required to support the scenario (Simulator, Constructive simulation or C2 role), the level of control by instructors (LOCON or HICON) and the expertise required for this support.

• Allocate first the training branch resource to required simulators and C2 role

GAP: YES Follow-on of the MEM-R A3-010. ISSUE: No specific issues.

5 - Organize mass brief/debrief to all participants

MEM R-A5-010 provide local and/or collective briefing tool to the participants

• Organise local briefing for aircrews trainees in the MSUs or in the NSC using scenario data of individual missions

• Organise collective briefing of all participants of a MTDS exercise from MEM with VTC relay in the NSC.

o Visualisation of the global scenario should be available at MEM level.

o VTC server should relay the display in the briefing rooms of each NSC for the training audience and trainers of concerned MSUs

GAP: YES


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-8

• Local briefing should be prepare as briefing in squadrons • Collective briefing should be prepared as briefing of operations at

command level. Visualisation tool of the global scenario should be used only as support.

ISSUE No issues

MEM R-A5-020 organize collection of observations by trainers of training audience actions versus training objectives

• Trainers should use PAD with dedicate application to assess the training audience in the scenario time frame and context

• Assessment of missions at command level for collective debriefing • Preparation of local briefing using observations and assessment • Preparation of collective briefing on observations and assessment

GAP: YES Classification of data could be an issue. Note: Support of debriefing using MTDS dataflow recording and replay requires solving interoperability issues. ISSUE: YES

B - Provide technical support of the MTDS infrastructure:

1 - Organize NSC/MSU.

MEM R-B1-010 Organize sharing space based on standard office tools and data/ COTS repository with access rights associated to classification level.

• Manage sharing space / repository access right of NSCs and MSUs human resources

o Available material provided by the EXDIR: EXSPEC, EXPLAN, Operational scenario documents

o Federation Object Model (FOM), Data Link (ex: J-Series), Voice channels and data flow, in accordance with the Reference Federation Agreement

o Mechanisms for dissemination of large data (ex: Terrain data) and common applications (ex: Chat, VTC, etc.). Cloud Mechanisms?

• Secured exercise information dissemination o Permanent network access or/and, o Periodic access (ex: night) with replication mechanisms of sharing

space/ repository between MEM repository and NSCs proxy of repository. Note: in this case MSUs access is managed at NSC level

GAP: NO


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-9

Sharing library already exist. ISSUE: NO Organisational issue

MEM R-B1-020 Distribute an executable scenario to all MTDS Simulation Units (MSU)

• Reuse the scenario generator tool • Export the data in a standard format • Note: the trajectories should be generated at the MSU level using the

mission data (build from ACO/ATO directives). Rational: In real operation the trajectories are generated by the mission preparation tools at squadron level.

GAP: YES. The identified issues are: • No method is currently formalized to generate an executable scenario (i.e.

scenario data ready for MSU) from operational scenario. See: interoperability issues: Sim-C2 scenario definition language.

• No standard exists for scenario data exchange applicable to the Air operation domain (Some initiatives exist for Land domain with MSDL and C-BML)

• Scenario transfer to mission planning system and to briefing system must be also considered

GAP: ISSUE:

MEM R-B1-030 Distribute terrain dataset to all MTDS Simulation Units (MSU)

• Alternative detail requirements: 1. Distribute terrain data source (elevation, texture and shape) and

models for DIS/HLA terrain entity in order than each simulator regenerate an executable terrain database. Note: terrain object will be part of the scenario entities

2. Generate at MEM level the different terrain data base format and let the MSU to download the correct format

3. Provide a dynamic terrain data base server with possible relay in NSC

GAP: YES. No satisfactory solutions due to the lack of terrain data base interoperability. The main issues are: • In the 1st case the terrain coherency is limited to the terrain entity defined

in the scenario and the data sources. • In the 2nd case the terrain data generation must cover all formats. The

usability and maintenance is heavy • In the 3rd case the interoperability is limited, as the modification of legacy

simulators are costly, and few simulator manufacturers should agree to modify their CGI solutions.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-10

GAP: ISSUE:

MEM R-B1-040 Define and exchange Entity Performance Parameter

Large scale distributed simulations at national and NATO wide level very likely requires participation of multiple CGF engines. This will create the need to harmonise, maintain and configure control the constructive platform and systems’ physical characteristics and performance across these multiple CGF engines. The goals are entering the data only once, to control and configure them from a single point, and to distribute the data electronically to all participating CGF engines. In order to do so; the characteristics and their level of details in a manner which is independent from simulation fidelity level shall be defined. The data model and data format that will allow the capture and extraction of the simulation data shall be defined. An export/import mechanism capable of supporting “full” as well as “selective” data export/import shall be defined, and data source/history track shall be kept (ref to SG162-25).


MEM R-B1-050 Work with different levels of fidelity for Synthetic Environment

Different simulation systems simulate the synthetic environment and the interactions going on within the environment at different levels of fidelity. This may be due to the domain of the simulators (land/air), the quality of the simulators (legacy/modern), the scope of the simulators (sensor/visual) etc. Therefore, common services shall be defined and developed in order to match the fidelities and increase the interoperability (ref to MSG86-27).


MEM R-B1-060 Implement all identified Interactions

Simulators shall cover all the functionalities/models/entities in the conceptual model of the federation (ref to MSG128-10).



NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-11

2 - Set-up and test the MTDS infrastructure

MEM R-B2-010 Provide MTDS set up and technical supervision

• Organization of Virtual Private Network setting for DIS/HLA, radio voice, exercise management, etc.

• Play /freeze/ Stop/ restart • Synchronization (Time and common picture) is a prerequisite • Start with simulation backbone • Late individual starting (joining the exercise already started) • Freeze? (potential issues for some simulators and C2) • Crash recovery • Stop current mission • Restart at agreed position and time • Simulator status management • Simulator connectivity • Degradation status (i.e.: participating device, voice or TDL communication) • Contingency measure • Security procedures prior start • Recording responsibility

GAP: YES Partial solutions already exist, but no complete solutions. ISSUES: YES A lot of specific issues must be addressed (see next paragraph Exercise Management issues and recommendations): • Zombie entities • Huge bandwidth consumption by voice communication • Network analysis • Time management coordination/ synchronisation mechanisms • Exercise control functionality (to be shared between MEM, NSC and

possible MSU trainers) o Simulation picture o Operational situation picture o MTDS infrastructure status picture

• Hot exercise joining/ re-joining • Run time re-allocation (Failure tolerance) • Ownership transfer • Data overflow (packet lost) • Temporal anomalies

MEM R-B2-020 Provide a default simulation tool for testing and MTDS failure tolerance

• The default simulation emulates all entities of a scenario • In case of entity presence due to MSU participant, the simulation of the

entity is not activated in the default simulation, other entities remain


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-12

• For late participants or re-starting participants joining the federation an ownership transfer is performed between the default simulation and the participants

• The entity state of all participants is maintained in case of failure of some participants. In this case the concerned entities are reactivated after a tempo.

• The default simulation can be activated in any NCS for local testing of the MSU(s) without requiring a wide area network set-up.

GAP: YES No such solution exists, even if constructive simulations already exist to generate large C2 environment for CAOC training. ISSUE: NO No specific issue is identified except the difficulty to integrate all models of MTDS exercise and to remain up to date.

3 - Inform the Exercise Director about the MTDS system readiness

MEM R-B3-010 Provide a MTDS system health status board with several indicators, examples:

• Network connectivity with all NSCs/MSUs • Execution status (execution started, execution not started or frozen, crash) • Scenario progression. • Etc.

GAP: YES Some solutions exist associated to the HLA products, ISSUE: YES Customized solutions are required due to the firewalls or information exchange gateways deployed for security and national confidentiality issues.

4 - Supervise the MTDS systems health (network stability, simulation unit crash, etc.)

MEM R B4-010 Provide to MEM technical support team additional information on the MTDS system health, such as:

• Number of packets sent by each NSCs/MSUs • Network bandwidth consumption/ saturation (could be subdivided in

several VPN, example to avoid DIS/HLA or LDT packet loss due to network saturation by voice packets).

• Simulation unit crash/ restart status • Etc.

GAP: NO.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-13

Several tools exist such as network analyser, but a customized solution will be required to provide a synthetic MTDS system supervision board in complement of the MTDS system status. ISSUE:NO

5 - Record exercise execution and support replay for debrief

MEM R-B5-010 organize collection of observations by trainers of trainees’ actions versus training objectives

• Recording of real time data exchange (DIS/HLA, Voice, Data Link) at MEM level and/or at NSC level

• When recording at NSC level upload the recording data file at MEM level and proceed to a fusion (duplicated data between the NSCs)

• Use recorded information at NSC level for local debriefing • Use recorded or uploaded information at MEM for collective briefing using

replay tools.

GAP: YES ISSUE: YES • Missing standard recording for debrief: interoperability issue • Missing standard Replay tool: interoperability issue • Missing concept/method for collective debriefing

C - Execute the exercise in coordination with the EXCON and NSC

- MEM-R C1-010 The MEM technical support team will receive the execution directives from the EXCON such as exercise start/ stop or individual activation/ deactivation of simulation units due to scenario phase transition or MEL/MIL impacts on the network topology. The MEM technical support will relay these directives to the local support teams in the NSCs and will provide the status of these support actions to the EXCON.

GAP: NO. These actions of coordination could be done by voice, chat or email on dedicated VPN to the exercise management.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-14

D - Monitor the simulation execution.

1 - In coordination with NATO/National Simulation Center (NSC).

MEM-R D1-010 Any Event/ Injection in the scenario produced through the MEL/MIL will be analysed by the MEM technical support team in coordination with the NSC to assess the scenario impacts for the MSUs: Mission change, trajectory change, etc.

GAP: NO As the previous point C

2 - In coordination with MTDS Simulation Units (C2, simulator / instrumented real system, constructive simulation

MEM-R D2-010 based on the scenario impact for the MSUs, NSCs will coordinate with their MSUs to execute the individual scenario change and report to the MEM. The MEM will report to the EXCON on the progress of the MEL/MIL application.


MEM-R D2-020 request specific trainee’s observations at MSUs level on the trainees’ reaction to the scenario changes.


E - Produce Post MTDS Exercise Report in close coordination with NSC.

MEM-R E1-010 MEM in coordination with NSC providing to EXCON all collected data during the exercise:

• MTDS system health status board • MTDS system supervision board • Exercise execution record • Collection of observations. • Individual Scenario change due to the MEL/MIL

GAP: NO


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-15

G2.2 Exercise Management issues and recommendations

Issue title Zombie entities (MSG128-5)

Issue description

The federation and all joined federate not remove any reflected objects owned by a not correctly left federate from the federation. Typically, it happens when a joined federate crashes or leaves the federation without removing all own published objects.

No updates are received by subscribed federates and they not remove the object that leave and move due to the presence of dead reckoning algorithm.

Referenced requirements

MEM R-B2-010

Analysis

The persistent info about zombie entities create false info within all joined federates and, moreover it seems, due to the dead reckoning work inside all reflected entities in subscriber federates that this zombie leaves.

This is not an RTI failure, since entities are only removed from a federation repository, if they are actively deleted (stop and remove federate), but not if a crash or lost connection to the federate just stops its updates. The persistence of entities after destruction generates false information on the AWACS Recognized Air Picture. France suspects false setting in entity state status.

The RTI knows for all created objects and published objects their owned federate and their subscribed federates.

Solution

The RTI can activate a “heartbeat” service for all joined federate, one dedicated heartbeat for a single federate; each joined federate shall response with a constant heartbeat to the RTI, the RTI can modify the default heartbeat period in order to manage a common heartbeat for all joined federates.

When a federate does not generate the heartbeat, the RTI shall remove from the federation all previously published objects by this federate and consequently notify to all subscribed federates the remove event.

Proposed planned activities

Short term 1. Implement the heartbeat service into RTI

2. Build RTI map containing object-owned federate

3. Add removal capability to RTI when heartbeat is lost

Mid term None

Long term None

Related work and documents and standards

MSG128-5


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-16

Issue title Huge bandwidth consumption by voice communication (MSG128-6)

Issue description

The operational voice via DIS showed huge peeks of bandwidth consumption


MEM R-B2-010

Analysis

Within DIS protocol there is a possibility to send/receive voice communication using a PDU while in a HLA framework cover voice communication (EncodedAudioRadioSignal interaction) but typically not used.

DIS protocol specifies for this type of communications only encode/decode algorithm but not which compression algorithm could be used to reduce the amount of data transferred from the speaker to the receiver. Using a commercial software-based encoder/decoder it is possible to reduce the bandwidth for the communication. Introducing a compression algorithm, the transmission becomes a data stream.

Solution

Compress the voice using faster SW voice compressor lossless algorithm between radio sim and architectural distribute layer; stream the compressed data; possible voice jitter but acceptable.

Use a separated LAN for voice communication and develop a splitter/joiner when voice communication is transported on common protocol (i.e. in DIS protocol it flows like all PDUs on the same layer) in order to separate voice from other data communication.


Short term 1. Select commercial software compressor

2. Implements the voice streaming communication substituting direct transmission with an interpose process that compress voice data provided by the speaker side and uncompressed voice data for receiver side

3. Implement HLA voice communication instead of DIS and extend EncodingTypeEnum32 including also compression algorithms

Mid term

Long term


MSG128-6

Issue title Missing recording for debrief (MSG128-9a)

Issue description

There was not a recording tool available to save all exchanged / relevant data, not able to replay parts of the tests/exercise; moreover, some legacy simulator hasn't this functionality


MEM R-A5-020

MEM R-B5-010

Analysis

We separate recording needs required for mass debriefing than detailed recording for individual debriefing.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-17

Issue title Missing recording for debrief (MSG128-9a)

The recording feature should be performed at different echelon levels or architecturally speaking at different layers in order to permit recording at simulation center or nation or whole involved simulators.

Echelon levels and layers must match security level and nation boundaries and the recording system shall take into account these issues.

System engineering shall design a common synchronization protocol/application layer to permit recording and replaying features for every needed level.

Solution

1 - Record at MEM level and possibly at NSC levels (not mandatory) for mass debrief and replay at MEM level

2 - Record and replay at MSU level for individual debriefing


Short term Identify a set of MSU assets already provided with record and replay local feature; design state machine and protocol for synchronize these assets; create bridge from common protocol and legacy commands/state machine MSU record feature

Mid term Create MEM level architecture/protocol/state machine to synchronize and command the whole MSU involved and record for MSU not legacy provided by the recording feature

Long term Create the previous feature at NSC level if necessary / applicable


MSG128-9a

Issue title Network analyzing (MSG128-9b)

Issue description

There was not a network analyzing tool available to save all exchanged / relevant data, not able to replay parts of the tests/exercise


MEM R-B2-010

MEM R-B3-010

Analysis

Typical network analyzer doesn't matter about the flux type of the packets and bandwidth; using a topic selection network analyzer (collection data info flux at each NSC in function of sent/receive IP or functional data flow use to/from other NSC) can help to provide supervisions of packet lost at MEM level and high-level analysis to solve issue

Solution

Search on COTS tools or develop a a network analyzer with the following features:

• Select flux in function of source IP / destination IP / type of flux

• Select flux in function of source site:app:ID touple or destination site:app:ID

• Select flux for entity name (marking) or object ID

• Aggregate selected data in different manner


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-18

Issue title Network analyzing (MSG128-9b)


Short term 1. Identify the network analyzer; deploy it at MSU level and NSC level

2. Conduct a recording campaign on different MSUs

3. Create a “lesson learned database” or best practice manual for network traffic tailoring

Mid term

Long term


MSG128-9b

Issue title Replay tool (MSG128-9c)

Issue description

There was not a tool available to replay all exchanged / relevant data, not able to replay parts of the tests/exercise


MEM R-B5-010

MEM R-A5-020

Analysis

There are a lot of available tools for a wide architecture variety, but it is necessary to synchronize them and maintain global state of these tools coherent to each other.

Moreover, a lot of tools are protocol centric they record and replay only messages within a single protocol.

Solution

Develop a common protocol and a state machine in order to command all tools (stop, pause, play, rewind, forward, etc.) and maintain aligned the state of all tools respect the state of the replay (stopped, replaying, etc.) .

Select a record and replay tool that has the following features:

• Must record and replay for a wide range of protocols

• Must replay a previously recorder exercise with all messages / packet synchronous to each other

• Must permit pluggable technology in order to extend the number of recorder and replayed protocols

• Can be connected with a commonly used RMDB servers and store and retrieve info from / to it

• Can be splittable into more than one machine in order to create a recorded/replayed network

• Can be record and replay using more than one hardware interface


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-19

Issue title Replay tool (MSG128-9c)

• Can be remotely used through a set of command


Short term Select a candidate tool that is comply with “Must” requirements; add remote command

Mid term Extend tool with a common used protocols

Long term


MSG128-9c

Issue title Scenario Transfer to Mission Planning System and to the Briefing System (SG162-08)

Issue description

The preparation of a mission is performed by pilots through the use of the aircraft Mission Planning System (MPS). The same activity is requested for a simulator environment for the whole entities included into the scenario. This means that for two times operators must insert same info with data insertion error and possibly de-correlation among systems.

MPS have rarely been designed to accept an external feed from a simulator scenario generation system, and vice-versa. MTDS exercises make the above problem larger as all participants need to have their MPS updated with the appropriate intelligence data.

A similar approach is needed when performing mission rehearsal, the data flow is however in the other direction, i.e., from the real-world intelligence data (MPS) to the simulation.


MEM R-A3-050

MEM R-B1-020

MEM R-B1-030

Analysis

MPS have rarely been designed to accept an external feed from a simulator scenario generation system, and vice-versa. This has resulted in the MPS tactical data either having to be manually updated by instructors, or worst, not being correlated at all with the obvious consequence on workload and quality / realism of training.

On the other hand, manual insertion of tactical data into the MPS has the advantage to allow the instructor to alter or “distort ad-hoc” the data provided to the MPS and therefore recreate divergences that exist between “intelligence data” (i.e., the data found in the MPS) and the “ground truth” (i.e., the scenario provided by the constructive simulation).

Solution

The key characteristics of a solution would therefore be:

• import/export of tactical scenario data from simulator to MPS, and vice-versa, ideally, in an ATO / ACO format.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-20


• Capability to modify “ground truth” (or simulation) data and provide a “controlled” divergence of the “intelligence data” (or the knowledge we have of the real world).

• Provide a record / audit of the divergences for use during debriefing and exercise result analysis.

• Put MPS system usage into the training activities: before the exercise, the trainee should use MPS to create own mission starting from common tactical data already inserted into MPS and simulator and ACO / ATO info; simulate briefing mission using MPS storage data; use MPS storage data into a simulator and record mission execution; debrief mission with the final storage data source

The mission planning system and briefing system shall be able to import ACO/ATO, SPINS, OPTASKLINK come from JFAC/CAOC center and generate the brief, the tasking order, the simulation datasets for all simulation assets


Short term Nonetheless, if we are to affect the specifications and standards applicable to simulator scenario generation systems and MPS and progressively eliminate this problem, it is imperative that actions be initiated that will influence the future procurement (or upgrades) of simulators and MPS in such direction.

Continue to manually manage and perform the transfer of the simulated tactical scenario data into the MPS of the participating simulators.

• Add to the exercise planning process the definition of “intelligence data” divergences to be inserted in the MPS.

• Set-up a workgroup with the following goals:

o Analyze the ARINC-610C Appendix E Mission Planning Systems, confirm or amend the design guidance material and make recommendations to the ARINC-610 committee for any further adjustments. Such adjustment shall also consider interface requirement for simulator scenario generation tools.

o Analyze the SISO-STD-007-2008 MSDL standard, confirm or amend as necessary to ensure that the standard can properly capture all “intelligence data” elements stored within MPS, and make recommendations to SISO. As a start, consider compatibility with ATO / ACO format. This recommendation shall be considered in conjunction with the activities recommended within DEX-06.

o Define requirements for tactical scenario generation tools to support standard import / export format and to manage selected / targeted data set modifications providing the equivalent to “intelligence data” errors.

Mid term • Future simulator and MPS procurement contracts to enforce compliance to ARINC-610C Appendix E and MSDL data representation format as a means to acquire / exchange intelligence data. Where opportunities exist, upgrade existing MPS to comply to the new requirements

• Use tactical scenario generation tools compliant with MSDL and supporting the definition / distribution of “intelligence data” errors.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-21


Long term • All operational simulators and MPS to have been updated / converted to fully comply with ARINC-610C Appendix E (or successor version) and MSDL data exchange format. It is expected that the MSDL format will have evolved to incorporate ATO / ACO syntax.

• Tactical scenario generation tools to be MSDL native.


SG128 DEX-08

Issue title DEX-09: Time Management / Coordination / Synchronization Mechanisms (SG162-09)

Issue description

Different simulators can have different time synchronization mechanisms. Some use centralized hardware or software time generator, others try to compute time differences between them and some do not use time synchronization and correct the latency through other methods.

Different time management raises an issue because it can lead to positional jitter of remote entity, co-ordinate time dependent event interactions within an exercise and, at the end, unexpected behavior in the synthetic environment and the exercise.


MEM R-B2-010

Analysis

It is assumed that all assets initially required to support MTDS exercises will be executing in real-time due to the fact that it is possible to have live or virtual assets within the exercises.

In HLA architecture it is possible to use also time control service and constrain the time advance in time-constrained and/or time-regulated ways.

In these last cases if wall clock time is aligned the HLA architecture guarantees to synchronize all participants within design required time step.

Solution

Include a time synchronization service within MTDS.

Reduce LAN communication latency avoiding using hubs or routers and preferring switches.

Prefer to use time-constraining and/or time-regulated federates and insert a federate that maintain aligned wall clock (real time advance) with simulation clock; in this case is useless to have synchronization service within all federates


Short term Use HLA and RPR-FOM representation and synchronization of time. Depending on the structure of the distributed simulation, a central time-server can be used for synchronization of system-clocks.

Mid term Require time-constraining and/or time-regulated federates.

Long term


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-22

Issue title DEX-09: Time Management / Coordination / Synchronization Mechanisms (SG162-09)


Issue title DEX-10: Exercise Start-up (SG162-10)

Issue description

Exercise data must be distributed, and the exercise must be initialized and coordinated in centralized way.

The system startup process needs to be performed in synchronized manner.


MEM R-B2-010

MEM R-A3-040

Analysis

Simulation control states must be identical and synchronized among all participating federates/simulators and. All federates/simulators must have a common start-up and shut-down control sequence, that is initialize, start, stop. It is also desirable to include common exercise execution controls such as pause, debug, playback or late join.

For this purpose, compliance to the RPR FOM control interactions offer the best approach to achieve consistency across multiple federates. This can either be coordinated manually or automatically based on knowledge of the federation constituents.

Moreover, it is possible to use a common HLA “synchronization point” within the federation definition or other similar feature for simulator with different architectures.

Solution

Implement common simulation states (state machine) or have common synchronization point for HLA federation.


Short term Use a supervisor tool to initialize all the simulation systems from a single workstation with shared parameters (scenario name, start time, restore point frequency save for re-joining, etc.)

Use a “controller federate” (e.g., HLA federate in charge of the time management) to start-up the exercise and synchronize the execution of all simulation systems (start, stop, freeze, resume) and register all required synchronization points.

Enable “controller federate” to check if all federates achieve requested synchronization point with correct sequence

Mid term Assuming that all the systems are able to share a common scenario (i.e., MSDL / C-BML compliant), all MTDS participants must be able to retrieve the selected scenario and start the exercise as specified and commanded by an external supervisory control tool. The supervisory control tool can either be a dedicated federate or one having an active role within the exercise.

Long term


SG162-09


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-23

Issue title DEX-11: Exercise Control Functionality (SG162-11)

Issue description

Training simulators provide controls such as exercise start / stop, freezes, repositions, etc. A subset of these functions has been built into the DIS and HLA RPR FOM control functions, but in themselves these do not ensure interoperability.


MEM R-B2-010

Analysis

Proper management of MTDS exercises demands that the participants, virtual and constructive, implement similar or compatible control responses and respond to a common interoperable protocol for invoking them.

The civilian simulator operators have developed following ARINC-610 and in the latest C version of these standard it contains also the behavior of their supporting Computer-Generated Forces (CGF).

Solution

1. Tools for simulated situation

2. Tools to display local operational picture (means Air Situation Picture of interest for Blue and for red side)

3. Tool for technical supervision MTDS involved systems


Short term • Work jointly with the ARINC Flight Simulation Engineering and Maintenance Committee (FSEMC) to review the ARINC-610 design document to include the requirements for MTDS network operation. In doing so, due consideration should be given to the CGF conformance criteria already defined by the CAF DMO TRCGF.

o The result is to be captured in a new revision to ARINC-610.

o An “MTDS profile” would be defined to specify which ARINC-610 functions and options are to be implemented to conform to MTDS operation.

• Add ARINC-610 to the list of standards recognized by the AMSP-01 NATO Modelling and Simulation Standards.

• Capture the above in the MTDS RFAD.

• Work jointly with the DIS and HLA SISO standardization group to develop recommendations for modifying the DIS standard and the RPR-FOM definition to incorporate the “MTDS profile” command set.

Mid term • Enforce compliance to the ARINC-610 “MTDS profile” for newly procured virtual and constructive systems.

o Consider retrofitting to legacy systems as needed and where affordable.

• Define an agreed set of behavior for live systems interacting with virtual and constructive simulation under the effect of an Exercise Control function.

Long term


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-24

Issue title DEX-11: Exercise Control Functionality (SG162-11)


Issue title DEX-12: “Hot” Exercise Joining / Re-Joining (SG162-12)

Issue description

In the context of MTDS, a simulation may need to join an already running exercise. Two different cases exist:

• A simulation did not start with the others and needs to join the exercise.

• A simulation crashed and needs to re-join the exercise


MEM R-B2-010

Analysis

Stand-alone simulation systems often make use of restore points to recover their system state following upset event such as a system crash. In a distributed environment, the management of these individual restore points needs to be coordinated so that each system save its restore points in a coherent manner.

This task can be performed by a “master tool” responsible for managing the saving of each systems’ context, states and global information (such as time). This “master tool” shall also be able to control simulator functions such as start, freeze, etc., to ensure correct synchronization of all systems at the time of a federate hot joining / re-joining.

After restoring its former state (re-joining case) or simply being initialized (joining case), the joining federate needs to gather the data exchanged through the federation, present and past. This can be done in two ways:

• The joining federate or the master tool request every federate to republish their data.

• The joining federate can access to the other federates’ logger, or a centralized logger, or a set of distributed network loggers, so that it can retrieve all federates’ data.

During this process the other simulation systems can either be put in pause mode or kept in the running mode, depending on the nature of the joining. That is, a “first joining” would likely be done on the fly, whereas a “re-joining” following a crash would more likely be performed from a periodic restore point and thus be done in pause mode.

This issue may be dealt with in the MSG-106 under the sub-topics “fault tolerance” and “transfer of modelling responsibilities” and the outcome will need to be integrated into future solutions.

Solution

Solution contained in the SG162; master tool shall update the rejoined federate with fresh update


Short term If a federate left the exercise, all simulation systems leave the exercise and then start again from the same restore point. Stateless systems, e.g., passive subscribers of simulation data may remain in the exercise.

• All the simulation systems shall be able to republish on HLA their data on demand in order to allow "hot joining".


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-25

Issue title DEX-12: “Hot” Exercise Joining / Re-Joining (SG162-12)

• Mid term

• Use the HLA built-in mechanism to trigger federation save and restore.

• Set up a “master tool” to coordinate all simulation system execution control.

Long term • Extend the save / restore mechanism to enable restoration to be done at the exact moment of the crash, and not only from the last restore point (e.g. by collecting additional data).


SG162-12

Issue title DEX-13: Run-Time Re-Allocation (Failure Tolerance) (SG162-13)

Issue description

An exercise involving many assets on various locations is vulnerable to failures from the components themselves and from communication links.


MEM R-B2-010

Analysis

In order to mitigate as much as possible, the consequences of these failures, some basic principles may be applied in the area of redundancy to allow temporary continuation of the exercise in alternate / standalone mode, such as:

• Duplicate some key elements (CGF, logger) on the different locations;

• Define alternate solutions for hosting the actors on the available federates.

Doing so does not require any special technical solution to be implemented or developed beyond the basic Ownership Transfer function described at DEX-14. The value of this “non-technical” issue was nonetheless judged important enough to justify keeping it here and highlighting it as a key strategy to achieve success when planning and operating large scale MTDS based exercises.

The resource duplications and alternates actors’ principles should be implemented as stated below:

• During Federation definition: redundancies have to be envisaged, assessed and selected in the concept of the exercise;

• During Exercise setup: redundancies have to be implemented in the federation with the default mode selected;

• During runtime: Exercise / Federation status need to be monitored and appropriate changes need to be selected and implemented via the Ownership transfer capability either as a result of instructor / operator actions or automatic health monitoring applications.

Solution


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-26

Issue title DEX-13: Run-Time Re-Allocation (Failure Tolerance) (SG162-13)

• Duplicate some key elements (CGF, logger) on the different locations;

• Define alternate solutions for hosting the actors on the available federates.

• Handover of functional responsibilities to a back-up system will make use of the Ownership transfer mechanism. When a unit comes back on-line, its re-integration into the exercise will require co-ordination to ensure that the federate ownership transfer back to the original federate is properly arbitrated with the back-up facility


Short term Without ownership transfer feature active all failures are “manually managed” (systems are restarted and re-join if possible) until it becomes unacceptable for the training objectives and the exercise must be stopped. A workaround is to use a bookmarked technique if the system is equipped with record feature.

Mid term As ownership transfer becomes available, a minimal redundancy plan should be foreseen, and manual actions may be performed by the ExCon Team to run in alternate mode.

Long term Redundancy plans are defined, and automatic actions may be done in the areas of supervision of the federation, assessment of solutions, and implementation of the best solution. This implies that the appropriate federation level tools are developed, the federates’ capabilities are captured, the federates’ status are accessible.


SG162-13

Issue title DEX-14: Ownership Transfer (SG162-14)

Issue description

During an exercise execution there is the requirement to transfer the ownership (means the data source device) of a simulation for mainly the following reasons:

• a better simulator can substitute the current one in the running simulation

• a “fake” initial simulator included into exercise execution shall be substituted with a real entity


MEM R-B2-010

Analysis

DIS protocol hasn’t the ownership transfer capability.

HLA supports the principle of entity ownership transfer from one federate to another but the mechanism to do so and even more so the capacity of federates to support the function, needs to be further formalised and standardised.

A general design pattern for negotiating transfer of modelling responsibility (ownership) will be developed by MSG-106.

Solution

The work of MSG-106 must first be completed



NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-27

Issue title DEX-14: Ownership Transfer (SG162-14)

Short term Support MSG-106’s effort to define the general design pattern for the negotiation of modelling responsibility, and wherever possible identify adaptations needed to meet MTDS specific needs, if any.

Mid term Progressively introduce through equipment upgrade or acquisition the agreed TMR functionality.

Long term


SG162-14

Issue title DEX-26: Common Standards for Distributed Logging Control and Synchronization to Support Debriefing (SG162-22)

Issue description

After Action Review or debrief activity has performed at three different levels:

• Technical level: did the training assets and network connectivity perform well;

• Training level: did the trainees (and trainers) achieve the pedagogic goals;

• Tactical level: how was the mission is performed.

In order to conduct these activities, it is necessary to have a distributed logging control and synchronization support.


MEM R-A3-020

MEM R-A3-030

Analysis

This requires the data - computed and/or exchanged between the various actors and assets - to be captured and provided to the analytical tools at the three levels above. This is inherent to all training activities involving simulation, but its complexity is compounded by the distributed nature of MTDS. The following highlights where the problems lie:

• Local vs. distributed actor interest: each trainee / simulation asset is normally associated with an instructor who is interested in drawing lessons from the exercise at the Training Media level and at the federation

• Availability of data: in order to limit the throughput and associated costs, the flow of data is optimized / reduced between the federates; level;

• Need to know: the data may also be unavailable for security reasons. Results of an interaction might be assessed without explanation by a federate;

• Data Structure: an exercise may produce large amounts of data making it difficult and time consuming to interpret by the various consumers if not stored according to an agreed data model.

In addition, distributed data logging may have to be done depending on security and/or capacity.

Solution

As MTDS exercises grow to larger events with large number of connected simulations systems and multiple levels of security, the problem of achieving individual and distributed / collective


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-28

Issue title DEX-26: Common Standards for Distributed Logging Control and Synchronization to Support Debriefing (SG162-22)

debrief will only grow bigger. A scalable and standardized logging capability and format for runtime data is thus required. Tools to support the replay of distributed recorded data are also required.

The problem of coordinating multiple instances of data recorders is addressed in the SISO Distributed Debrief Protocol (DDCP) Product Development Group (PDG).


Short term Fund simulator with DDCP feature included

Mid term Implement into legacy simulator DDCP feature

Long term


SG162-22

Issue title DEX-27: Access to Source Data Over a Common Area & Systems (SG162-23)

Issue description

Access, distribution and usage of source data can be limited by following several factors:

• Cost & IPR: Data is acquired for use in a specific domain (organizational, location or application). Extended use often leads to higher cost.

• Security: National or NATO classifications do not allow distribution to all users / sites due to lack of security clearance.

• Political constraints: Using real territory for invented conflicts may be politically sensitive


MEM R-B1-020

MEM R-B1-030

Analysis

The usage of common source data is a requirement in order to have geographical info coherence among all participants of the MTDS and in the meanwhile the design of the system shall take into account security, IPT and political constrain issues.

For above reason it is necessary to divide info into two groups:

• Unrestricted database: common info without any restriction to distribute to every participant

• Restricted database: info with restriction that a single participant has and wants to add for own simulators

In this way, the MTDS can create, update and distribute common info to everybody using an IT technology used for this purpose (all services and technologies used and defined by the OGC like WMS, WFS, WCS) while at national, local level any single participant can add in layered mode all info with restriction without distribute them to any other avoiding security or other issues.

At participant level, it is necessary to merge these two incoming data sources, verifying coherence between both sources and provide the merged data to the site or to the nation sites.

It is possible initially to use www geographical database services to reduce cost.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-29

Issue title DEX-27: Access to Source Data Over a Common Area & Systems (SG162-23)

Any site can cache data / database to reduce data feed runtime constrains that could generate temporary lack of data.

Solution

The issue can be solved by creating and making available a neutral / generic, but representative geographical database or use a www database services verifying the throughput of the sources.

Create a national level or site level a secondary source data for info with security, IPR or political constrain issues.

Merge these two sources into a single source to seem like a unique source database.

Check the coherence of the obtained database at national /site level.


Short term Create a process for legacy simulator to create runtime database starting from an external source database and implement it; divide legacy data into the two proposed categories and keep only restricted info database as source adding a www datasource instead of unrestricted database; regenerate newer runtime database and use it.

Fund simulators compliant with the restricted and unrestricted database sources architecture.

Mid term Create for all nations a restricted database.

Create unrestricted database and provide it to all participants; refine database creation process for all legacy simulators in order to optimize the generation.

Long term


SG162-23

MSG-071 Missionland

Issue title Data overflow (MSG-86-11)

Issue description

There are three type of data overflow sources:

• A receiver gets too much data to manage. The receiver cannot process all incoming data in a proper manner and this may affect the quality of the output data.

• The network load gets too high and there are packet losses. The receiver will not receive all addressed data, and this may affect the quality of the output data

• Data out of bounds. A member application cannot handle received data correctly because the expected/designed value range is exceeded.


MEM R-B2-010

Analysis


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-30

Issue title Data overflow (MSG-86-11)

In order to avoid the receiver data overflow, the receiver shall change internal architecture to elaborate incoming packets in time. These changes can be a software-level like multiprocessor or multithread receiver or system-level like to insert pipe or split computation consumption into more elaboration unit or simply increase hardware performance, but all solution require a design change of simulation environment. The change in this case impact only a single receiver.

In order to avoid packed loss on the network, it is possible to reduce the number of packed sent on the network with a tailoring of application subscription declaration or tailoring services like DDM in a HLA framework or reduce the frequencies or the transportation characteristic of data (reliable or best effort)

Solution

Redefine the Simulation Environment Design.

Use high performance hardware (computers and network equipment).

Redefine member applications subscription declarations

Split the simulation environment in sub-simulations and use filters (class and value).

In a HLA simulation environment, use Data Distribution Management (DDM).

In a HLA simulation environment, if data is sent with transportation Reliable, change to Best-Effort if it is possible.

In a HLA Evolved simulation environment, subscribe with Update Rate Reduction (CAVEAT: issues resulting from resampling may arise (e.g. aliasing))

Implement a bandwidth protected service mechanism that inform supervisor of potential overflow of involved simulators


Short term Realize bandwidth protected service

Mid term Create a test bed for the simulation environment to validate design

Long term


None

Issue title Temporal Anomalies (MSG-86-29)

Issue description

The temporal anomalies come from these issues:

• differences in precision of time representation

• differences in Precision of Time Resolution

• anomalies caused by unsynchronized time

• anomalies caused by network latency


MEM R-B2-010

Analysis

Differences in precision of time representation:


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-31

Issue title Temporal Anomalies (MSG-86-29)

the fidelity of a simulation is affected by the internal time representation and time management in member applications (federates) in a simulation environment (federation execution).

Differences in Precision of Time Resolution:

when the time resolution at member applications in a simulation environment differs some problems may arise, events from member applications with low resolution (large time step) may for member applications with high resolution (small time step) be regarded as delayed and not received in time

Anomalies caused by Unsynchronized Time:

A simulation environment executing with an unsynchronized perception of time among the member applications, may have problem with time stamped events.

Anomalies caused by Network Latency:

In simulation environments with member applications using high update rates can a high network latency cause problems for time stamped events sent between the member applications. In framed based applications may the events that were supposed to be received in a frame be delayed and delivered in a frame at a later time. This is more commonly in simulation environments with member applications communicating over WAN (Wide Area Network).

Solution

There is nothing that prevents an application from using its own internal time representation and then adapting to the requirements of the simulation environment where it participates. It is desirable that applications can support a number of different time representations used in simulation environments.

Applications should be configurable to use a time resolution that is acceptable for application itself and supports the purpose of the simulation environment (see ref. for an example where this solution is model-based).

A member application with a high time resolution can use Dead Reckoning to extrapolate spatial information of entities. A member application with a low time resolution can down sample the number of updates with Update Rate Reduction in HLA Evolved.

Use HLA Time Management to synchronize the time in the simulation environment, NTP, PTP, GPS Time Synchronization.


Short term Use HLA Time Management to synchronize the time

Mid term

Long term



NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-32

G3 MTDS Interoperability Analysis

Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS) can provide collective training using a network synthetic environment. 1) Air Force uses several different capabilities in order to conduct Air Operations. Currently it is difficult to train together in realistic conditions before going into operations. 2) The complexity of Air Operations does require a multitude of assets to simulate credible force engagement scenarios. For the reasons stated above the execution of live exercises in order to train adequately at the Operational/Tactical Level is increasingly difficult to fulfil. MTDS can fill this gap when it is implemented. The SG-215 is tasked by NAFAG to develop a roadmap for future Combined Joint Distributed Tactical Training through Simulation and the creation of a future C/J MTDS environment while leveraging existing simulation architectures, systems and standards. The SG-215 group has identified interoperability topics that should be addressed by Team-B to overcome interoperability gaps that hamper C/J MTDS to be efficiently exploited. These interoperability topics are:

1. Sim-C2 scenario definition language 2. Dynamic Terrain solutions 3. Datalink Interoperability 4. Live-Virtual Interoperability

To analyse the Annex-B subjects of study the Team B is divided in five sub-teams. One sub-team was looking into exercise management, the other sub-teams were analysing one of the interoperability topics. The following approach is taken by each sub=team:

1. Identify requirements and gaps - Describe requirements from available documentation - Identify known gaps from available documentation

2. Analysis - Group gaps into categories - Analyse gaps with respect to requirements - Identify current standards - Identify current activities

3. Solutions and road mapping - Analyse current solutions per identified category - Propose short term, mid term, long term solutions to implement solution - Recommend activities how to achieve short term/mid term/long term solutions - Summarize Conclusions and Recommendations

G3.1 Sim-C2 scenario definition language

In this study functional requirements for the Sim-C2 Scenario Definition Language have been developed. Furthermore, SG-162 (Distributed Simulation for Air and Joint Mission Training), MSG-086 (Simulation Interoperability) and MSG-128 (Incremental Implementation of NATO Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS)


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-33

Operations) studies has been reviewed and the interoperability gaps, that requires further investigation, related to Sim-C2 Scenario Definition Language has been identified. In this section the requirements and the interoperability gaps/issues will be identified. The discovered issues will be analysed; the issues will be categorised into groups and the current standards/activities will be investigated. Then the solutions and the road mapping will be suggested. Finally, the findings will be summarized, and the recommendations will be given.

G3.1.1 Requirement Identifications and Gaps

SG162-02 – Standard Design Patterns for Simulation Interplay SCN R-A-010 Standard design patterns for simulation interplay shall be developed. These design patterns shall be derived from operational procedures and also will help to implement a realistic and fair fight environment. These patterns will serve as a blueprint for the designs pattern described by the data model and its associated federation agreements.

GAP: YES. There are some patterns of interplay for some areas of interplay (e.g. the patterns for the implementation of logistics services in the NETN FOM). In general, these patterns need to be derived from operational procedures. This means that first there have to be accepted/agreed operational procedures to serve as a source for the derivation of simulation interplay patterns. It is clear that this also is highly domain specific but probably can be realized for some domains or sub-domains (“air combat”, “forward air controller”, …).

Issue: NO. SCN R-A-020 Conceptual model shall cover the dynamics and interaction patterns for the simulation interplay.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. The conceptual model has to capture all the relevant entities, their relationships and interactions or “interplay”. So, this is only a sub-requirement to the general requirement to specify a conceptual model before implementing a distributed simulation requirement as stated in standard processes like the DSEEP.

SG162-06 – Definition and Interchange of Initial Scenario Conditions SCN R-B-010 Initialization of C2 systems and simulation systems shall be done with consistent datasets.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. It is clear that consistency of initialization data is a fundamental requirement to ensure fair fight conditions. Consistency is required over all initialization datasets, especially the datasets for the simulation systems and the C2 systems. This is independent from the question of using a standardized initialization data format (CBML, MSDL, …) because the requirement is about the consistency of the data content (which implies the requirement of consistency of the data format).


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-34

SG162-07 – Computer Interpretable Mission Tasking and Interchange SCN R-B-020 Standardized language shall be developed so that M&S and C2IS can exchange information and can properly interpret the results.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. Standardized data interchange schemas have been developed for C2 systems as well as simulation systems. There also is a lot of progress to merge or at least ensure consistency among these data formats (e.g. CBML, MSDL, FOMs, MIP, …). So, this no longer is a gap but rather work in progress.

SG162-08 – Scenario Transfer to Mission Planning System and to the Briefing System: SCN R-C-010 defines a specific format for tactical scenario data in order to be able to send the tactical scenario generator data across various mission preparation systems and vice – versa.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. Several approaches exist to formally describe simulation relevant scenario data, e.g. CBML, MSDL, but also system domain specific data formats like certain FOMs (NETN, RPR) or MIP datasets. However, at least from the simulation systems side proprietary mission planning or briefing/debriefing systems are somewhat out of scope. However, there are some systems of this category emerging which are able to directly interact with simulation systems or simulation networks and to record and interpret directly the simulation specific data (in their standardized data formats) present on these networks or in these systems.

SG162-15 – Aggregation and De-Aggregation Coordination: SCN R-D-010 Simulator systems shall have the technical mechanisms and design patterns to aggregate / disaggregate the entities from one system to individual representations (and vice versa).

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. This capability is not implemented in all simulation systems typically used in synthetic environments. If this capability is required for some training objectives, then the process models (e.g. DSEEP) require that this is considered and captured in the conceptual model which is to be developed as a first step prior to implementation of the synthetic environment. In the next steps the necessary simulation systems need to be selected and this capability then simply becomes a selection criterion. There also are emerging standards (e.g. NETN-FOM) which standardize the dynamics and interaction patterns required for properly handling aggregation/de-aggregation.

SG162-25 – Definition and Interchange of Entity Performance Parameter: SCN R-B-030 The data model and data format that will allow the capture and extraction of the simulation data shall be defined.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-35

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. Even If all simulators have their own data model, they are different between them, therefore there is no way to standardize a format with the same detail and scope of MTDS.

SCN R-B-040 An export/import mechanism capable of supporting “full” as well as “selective” data export/import shall be defined.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. There is no common data model or mechanism to work with the CGF Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Knowledge Based (KB) engines to model the human behaviour and decision process of each simulator due to their differences.

SCN R-B-050 Data source/history track shall be kept.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. There is no track recorder available compatible to all simulators at the moment.

SG162-26 – Computer Interpretable Behaviour/Doctrine Description and Interchange: SCN R-B-060 Simulators shall have a meta-model (independent of the target AI/KB engine) that covers the behaviour and knowledge-based actions needed for constructive entities.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. There is no common data model or mechanism to work with the CGF Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Knowledge Based (KB) engines to model the human behaviour and decision process of each simulator due to their differences.

SG162-30 – Emissions and Weapons: SCN R-B-070 It shall be ensured that emissions and detection modelling are done coherently with the physical parameter representation of radars and IFF systems.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. There is no implemented solution to maintain the coherency of the dynamic behaviour of active artefacts. Every simulator has its own procedure for the behaviour of dynamic artefacts.

SCN R-B-080 Consistent ammunition representation (position, velocity, signature, etc.) shall be available to allow other simulation devices and participants to perform their detection and tracking function with necessary degree of fidelity.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-36

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. There is no implemented solution to maintain the coherency of the dynamic behaviour of active artefacts. Every simulator has its own procedure for the behaviour of dynamic artefacts.

MSG-86-7 – Lack of Formalized Description for Entity Aggregations: SCN R-D-020 Descriptions for entity aggregations shall be formalized to help the modellers to develop a standardized and consistent representation of the problem domain.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. This situation addressed by the NETN-FOM (MSG 106/134). The legacy systems have to be taken into consideration.

SCN R-D-030 Entity aggregation levels shall be clearly documented.


SCN R-D-040 If participating members has to operate on different entity aggregation levels, mapping logic shall be implemented to ensure successful interoperation.


MSG-86-8 – Lack of Agreed Levels for Entity Resolution and Capabilities: SCN R-D-050 Levels for entity resolutions shall be agreed to help the modellers to develop a standardized and consistent representation of the problem.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. This is closely related to conceptual modelling. Fair fight issues may arise when integrating simulation systems at different resolution/fidelity levels.

SCN R-D-060 Standardized entity resolution levels shall be clearly documented.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. This is closely related to conceptual modelling. Fair fight issues may arise when integrating simulation systems at different resolution/fidelity levels.

SCN R-D-070 If different participating members operate on different entity resolution levels, mapping logic shall be implemented to ensure successful interoperation.

GAP: NO.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-37

Issue: YES. This is closely related to conceptual modelling. Fair fight issues may arise when integrating simulation systems at different resolution/fidelity levels.

MSG-86-10 – Data Encoding: SCN R-D-080 Technical format/encoding of the any data that will be exchanged over simulation participants shall be fully specified in the Federation Object Model.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. MSG-86-22 – Missing Formal Scenario Specification: SCN R-B-090 Complete and consistent scenario specification shall be created.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. MSG-052 has an issue for this requirement. Also this requirement is partially represented in FEAT schema by the “fedagree:scenario”-element.

SCN R-B-100 Scenario documentation shall be unambiguous.


MSG-86-23 – Use of Different Formats for Executable Scenarios: SCN R-B-110 Common executable scenario format shall be developed.


SCN R-B-120 Common executable scenario formats shall use common conceptual models.


MSG-86-27 – Different Levels of Fidelity are Used for Synthetic Environment: SCN R-A-030 Common services shall be defined and developed in order to match the fidelities and increase the interoperability.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. MSG-136 group has an active objective to investigate, propose and evaluate standards, agreements, architectures, implementations, and cost-benefit analysis of Modelling and Simulation (M&S) as a Service (MSaaS) approaches.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-38

G3.1.2 Sim-C2 Scenario Definition Language Issues and Recommendations

Issue title Conceptual Model

Issue description

In general, a conceptual model in simulation captures the aspects of the real-world domain which need to be represented in the simulation to fulfil the objectives of the simulation, and how these aspects are to be represented. It therefore serves a as an agreement among the participants what has to be part of the simulation environment, what will not be part of the simulation environment and how the simulation will represent the real-world objects and their behavior, i.e. the models. A common characteristic of issues resulting from poor conceptual modelling as a prerequisite to successful implementation of a simulation environment which fulfills the objectives stated in the beginning of the effort is that often the symptoms of the issues are observed but the cause, i.e. poor conceptual modelling, is hidden and not immediately obvious. Typical observed issues related to the conceptual model are: SG162-02 – Standard Design Patterns for Simulation Interplay Initial federation agreements cover how data is exchanged between participants such as data types, interaction sequences and asset responsibilities of certain interactions. For example, specific air domain agreements may be needed. Examples are Air to Air refueling, troop transport, hand-off to missile simulator etc. However, before the design and development of interactions, a good understanding is needed of the type of interactions depending on the training objectives.

MSG-86-27 – Different Levels of Fidelity are Used for Synthetic Environment Different simulation systems simulate the synthetic environment and the interactions going on within the environment at different levels of fidelity. This may be due to the domain of the simulators (land/air), the quality of the simulators (legacy/modern), the scope of the simulators (Sensor/Visual) etc.


SCN R-A-010

SCN R-A-020

SCN R-A-030

Analysis

It is clear that the conceptual model plays a central role in simulation and its application areas because it forms the core requirements document for the simulation environment. It therefore sets the logical frame for the technical implementation of a simulation environment and ensures that the technical implementation fulfils the objectives of the simulation.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-39


From this crucial role of the conceptual model immediately follows:

• The objectives of the simulation (e.g. training objectives to be fulfilled using a synthetic environment) have to be stated clearly. They have to be analyzed properly to get a common understanding about the important aspects of the real-world domain that need to be represented in the simulation (and the models contained therein). This e. g. includes entity types, possible interaction and aspects of behavior.

• This analysis forms the basis for the development of the conceptual model. The conceptual model is the synthesis of functions needed to fulfil the derived requirements, it is a functional (not yet technical) specification of the (distributed) simulation system.

This means that conceptual modelling is not a technical problem and therefore issues related to the conceptual model cannot be solved by technology. Rather the following aspects are the source of issues in practice:

• A conceptual model has to be explicitly developed. This is an important part of the development process that has to be taken into account. It does not happen automatically “on the fly” and there is a lot of communication effort among the participants. This does not happen in many cases, so a common conceptual model is not developed, and the participants will use their implicit mental models and understanding of the problem domain to construct the parts and pieces they are contributing to the whole system. If this happens, the individual contribution might not fit together very well, and the objectives of the simulation environment might not be met.

• After a conceptual model has been developed it must be properly documented in order to be usable by all participants to serve its role as a common frame for the technical implementation of the system.

This implies that technology and systems that are to be used in the simulation environment cannot be neglected when developing the conceptual model. Rather the conceptual model provides the link between the objectives of the simulation environment and the technical implementation, influencing both sides and being influenced by both sides.

Solution

Possible and future solution approaches therefore need to concentrate on the procedural aspects (i.e. properly integrate the explicit development of the conceptual model into higher-level processes) and the documentation (i.e. write down the conceptual model and make it visible and accessible to the participants). The procedural aspects are properly addressed by the DSEEP development process model which addresses the development of the conceptual model explicitly in step 2.2. The documentation aspects are hampered in practice by the lack of adequate and generally accepted ways and tools to document conceptual models. Although numerous standards may be used for that purpose (NAF, UML, SysML, BOMs, MSDL, CBML, free


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-40


text …) there is no single standard for all purposes. Rather each of the documentation standard or schema has its advantages and disadvantages when used in a particular context or for a particular purpose. So, some important aspects of the conceptual model might remain undocumented, or not all participants are familiar with the particular documentation standard or documentation schema and might not be able to derive the information they require from the conceptual model. This clearly is an issue; however, it also seems questionable whether a “one-size-fits-all” documentation standard for conceptual models will ever be possible.


Short term No short term activities are known. For setting up a particular simulation environment a member of the corresponding team needs to be assigned responsibility for developing and disseminating the concrete conceptual model for this simulation environment.

Mid term No mid term activities are known. As an intermediate solution documenting best practices on conceptual modelling and successful approaches might be helpful.

Long term No active long term activities are known. The field of conceptual modelling has been addressed by a NMSG group and by a SISO group. No product of these activities seems to have reached a major impact on the field of conceptual modelling. As a general approach to conceptual modelling seems not to be feasible an approach which is more focused on a particular application domain might be more successful although the outputs then will be application domain specific and not generally applicable.


- MSG-106

- AMSP-03

- SG162

- MSG-86


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-41

Issue title Common Language


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-42

Issue description

SG162-06 – Definition and Interchange of Initial Scenario Conditions C2 systems and simulation systems must be initialized in consistent and coherent manner. Scenario ID, time definition, weather, terrain, friendly/enemy/neutral/unknown entity position, equipment status and initial tasking shall be shared across participants during initialization. SG162-07 – Computer Interpretable Mission Tasking and Interchange The interoperation between command & control information systems and simulation systems is a common theme in the transformation of modern military forces. In a complex distributed environment, the control of one system by another requires an unambiguous, automated mechanism wherein command & control and Modelling and Simulation concepts can be linked in an effective and open manner.

SG162-25 – Definition and Interchange of Entity Performance Parameter Large scale distributed simulations at national and NATO wide level very likely requires participation of multiple CGF engines. This will create the need to harmonise, maintain and configure control the constructive platform and systems’ physical characteristics and performance across these multiple CGF engines. The goals are entering the data only once, to control and configure them from a single point, and to distribute the data electronically to all participating CGF engines.

SG162-26 – Computer Interpretable Behaviour/Doctrine Description and Interchange: As constructive simulations become more powerful and pervasive within distributed simulation exercises, users of these tools will encounter the same problems with object characterisation. The situation may actually be worse if there are far more methods to describe knowledge and behaviour that there are ways to describe physical characteristics, and they are far more subjective. If no precaution is taken, instructing the same behaviour into different CGF engines will likely require different datasets. These differences, at best will make it very difficult to maintain these datasets, and at worst may cause behavioural differences where none should have existed.

SG162-30 – Emissions and Weapons: Emission representation and ammunition representation are particular interests due to their major role in entity interaction. Proper emissions representation for radars and IFF systems ensure a consistent and complete synthetic battle space. MSG-86-22 – Missing Formal Scenario Specification A missing formal scenario specification regardless of type (scenario, operational, conceptual or executable) may lead to interoperability problems as different persons and simulation sites may interpret a given scenario differently. One scenario can be represented in many ways. So interchanging scenarios may lead to problems due to different understanding of the scenario and the content of the scenario description. A missing formal specification for scenarios will lead to potential problems too. The scenario may be incomplete or inconsistent. This can lead to erroneous and/or inconsistent configuration of the simulation systems which in turn can lead to erroneous results and interoperability problems.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-43


MSG-86-23 – Use of Different Formats for Executable Scenarios Different simulation systems require executable scenario configurations in different file formats. Due to different resolution and fidelity supported by the different file formats, the usage of different scenario file formats may introduce interoperability issues. Due to different executable scenario formats, 2 problems may arise. The first 1 is availability of the executable scenario to all participating members. Due to inconsistent executable scenario file formats a scenario prepared for 1 system cannot be available to other systems. The second problem arises during the distribution of the scenario file. Conversion process of the executable scenario formats into different scenario file formats is erroneous.


SCN R-B-010

SCN R-B-020

SCN R-B-030

SCN R-B-040

SCN R-B-050

SCN R-B-060

SCN R-B-070

SCN R-B-080

SCN R-B-090

SCN R-B-100

SCN R-B-110

SCN R-B-120

Analysis

It is obvious that a common language (and more important a common understanding) of descriptions, parameters, relationships of entities and their meaning is required to successfully set up a simulation environment. In NATO context the first source for a common terminology would be the NATOTerm database. This database holds NATO-wide accepted terms and their definitions and is publicly available. However, NATOTerm is poorly populated with domain specific vocabulary, so other sources of terminology might be necessary for a particular application or simulation environment. The disadvantage then clearly is that other vocabularies or definition sections from official documents/sources from the operational domain or from the technical domain (IEEE, SISO, etc.) typically overlap and might have definitions with slightly differing meaning for individual terms. So again, it is more a procedural issue to agree on definitions or terminologies used for a particular simulation environment.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-44


The documentation of parameters etc. is governed by the standards typically applied in the context of simulation, e.g. DIS or HLA and their underlying data models. Also these standards at least partially cover the documentation of behavior e.g. by the definition of certain interaction patterns. This is extended beyond the HLA standard by certain reference documents, especially the RPR FOM and NETN FOM and their accompanying documents which provide a broader range of interaction patterns. However, these will not cover domain specific or operational behavior patterns and domain specific descriptions documents will have to be used and agreed upon by the participants in this way. A standardized or at least universal documentation schema for more complex behaviors or relationships is still missing. Again, it is questionable whether a “one-size-fits-all” standard is possible at all. For certain application areas however, emerging domain specific standards like the CBML/MSDL or standards for human behavior modelling are becoming available which include more complex ways to describe relationships and behavior. Opposed to domain specific standards and descriptions certain ontology related standards (RDF, OWL, etc.) serve as domain independent way to capture and describe entities and their relationships. They allow to generate a machine readable standardized description of a certain application domain. However, although the formal description then follows a standardized way and syntax, the content (semantics) described therein naturally is highly domain specific and again will be the source of interoperability issues when comparing ontologies for the same operational or application domain origination from different sources. The advantage however being that the strict formal description might lead to less ambiguity and easier alignment of different ontologies for the same application domain. All of this however is subject to research at the time of writing and has not yet found a wide usage in the simulation domain.

Solution

There are several aspects regarding this issue:

• A common vocabulary (or terminology) will give clear definitions of the meaning of terms and will allow a translation or comparison of similar terms or similar meanings originating from different (operational or technical) problem domains.

• If there is a common understanding of terms and definitions a standardized way of documenting descriptions, parameters etc. and their meaning in the concrete context of the simulation environment to be set up needs to be agreed on.

• More complex aspects like behaviors or relationships have to be documented in a standardized way.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-45



Short term The first approximation in order to achieve the operative working of the MTDS is to path each simulator in order to execute an exercise commanded from the MTDS. This imply:

1) Phase of specification of common languages to be required in the MTDS platform.

• Collect all data required by each simulator and define a complete data model needed to MTDS.

• In base on the data model defined by the conceptual model will be establish the format and data of common languages to used.

• Once finished the definition of the way to share and reproduce the behavioral of dynamic artifacts and its procedures, the common languages shall be defined to make possible to apply to each simulator and MTDS.

• Define a protocol of initialization for each simulator before starting the exercise whether manual or, if it is possible, automatic.

2) Adapt the existing configurations and simulators to a basic platform that will permit to run all together in specific exercises.

• Analyze all the data not compatible between the existing simulators and categorize which of them are fundamental to use and those that can be omitted in order to run an MTDS exercise.

• Define a required data and formats of files exchanged and used for the tools used by MTDS; DIS, HLA, CFG and others. Those standards resulting from this work and base on the already existing ones (MSDL, JTDS, C-BML, ...) shall demanded as mandatory for all simulator which want to operate with MTDS.

• All data and its structure will be based on the conceptual model of MTDS.

• Analysis about the differences of behavior for same conditions over each artifact between simulators in order to identify and categorized the limitation in the use of each simulator.

• Add through the FOM format the way to identify limitations of functionality and behavior in order to accept or reject depending on the purposes of the exercise to execute.

3) Each simulator will continue to use their CGF solutions and their associated proprietary tactics / doctrine description language / syntax, but they have to define a plan to migrate for the use of the referenced common language (SODL, C-BML)

4) To develop those needed gateways to translate those not compatible data in order to meet with the referenced define.

5) Assume some limitations in the behavior of some simulators that can be accepted its federation but with restrictions.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-46


Mid term 1) All documentation, standards shall be formalized and identify all issues of each simulator in order to meet the MTDS requirements. Specification of MTDS finished.

2) Implementation of most critical common services:

• Demand that CGF engine suppliers to provide export / import capabilities for their own database format.

• Develop and implement the plan to migrate each CGF solution to the referenced standard and procedures.

3) Develop the mechanism to keep the source/history track

Long term 1) Required as mandatory the use of the common language for all MTDS architecture.

2) Bug fixing of remained issues at the stage.


- SG162

- MSG-86

- MSG-085

- MSG-048

- MSG-136

- SISO-STD-007-2008

- SISO-STD-11-2012-draft


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-47

Issue title Procedures Dependencies

Issue description

SG162-08 – Scenario Transfer to Mission Planning System and to the Briefing System: The scenario prepared in the simulator environment has to be able to be transferred into the mission planning systems and briefing systems. Large distributed simulations make this problem larger as all participants’ mission planning system and briefing system will require data in different format.


SCN R-C-010

Analysis

The simulator environments require that the tactical scenario data from which the constructive simulation is driven be also inserted in the Mission Planning System(MPS) used by the training pilot. MPSs have rarely been designed to accept an external feed from a tactical scenario generator, and vice-versa, tactical scenario generators have rarely designed to produce MPS friendly export data. This situation results in the MPS data either having to be manually updated by the instructor, or worst, not being correlated at all. Also, the manual insertion of the tactical data into the MPS allows user to alter or distort the data provided to the MPS. Therefore, divergences may exist between the MPS data and the ground truth ("the scenario provided by the constructive simulation").

MTDS exercises make this problem even larger as all participants need to have their MPS updated with the related data. This multiplies the number of manual actions which gives chance to instructor to enter altered or distorted data.

Solution

Direct computer-to-computer distribution of the tactical scenario generator data from simulator to MPS, and vice-versa, has to be accomplished, in a common format. The capability of selectively modifying the tactical scenario generator data in order to provide a controlled divergence of the intelligence data has to be provided. This capability has to be able to be used by MPSs separately. Therefore, different participants have to be able to have a different knowledge of the expected tactical theatre. The divergences of the capability above have to be recorded in order to be used during the debriefing and the exercise result analysis.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-48

Issue title Procedures Dependencies


Short term 1) Continue to manually manage and perform the transfer of the tactical scenario generator data into the MPS of the participating simulator.

2) Add to the exercise planning process the definition of “intelligence data” divergences to be inserted in the MPS.

3) Set up a workgroup in order to define requirements for tactical scenario generation tools to support standard import/export format and to manage selected/targeted data set modifications providing the equivalent to "intelligence data" errors.

Mid term 1) Future simulator and MPS procurement contracts to enforce compliance to ARINC-610C Appendix E and MSDL data representation format as a means to acquire / exchange intelligence data. Where opportunities exist, upgrade existing MPS to comply to the new requirements

2) Use tactical scenario generation tools compliant with MSDL and supporting the definition / distribution of “intelligence data” errors.

Long term 1) All operational simulators and MPS to have been updated / converted to fully comply with ARINC-610C Appendix E (or successor version) and MSDL data exchange format. It is expected that the MSDL format will have evolved to incorporate ATO / ACO syntax.

2) Tactical scenario generation tools to be MSDL native.


- SG162

- SISO-STD-007-2008

- SISO-STD-011-2012-draft

- ARINC-610


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-49

Issue title Federation Agreements

Issue description

SG162-15 – Aggregation and De-Aggregation Coordination: In distributed simulation environment an aggregated level CGF application can be used to host the entire groups while a platform level CGF application can be used to zoom in on a particular area. Also, a CGF can be used to host the whole COMAO while some of its air platforms may be transferred to virtual simulators to handle interactive dogfights. Such decisions for using one system or another depending on the different phases of the scenario belongs to the federation definition.

MSG-86-7 – Lack of Formalized Description for Entity Aggregations There is lack of a formalized notation for description of aggregation levels. Due to the lack of such notation, simulation members cannot access the rules for aggregating or disaggregating simulation entities that are communicated within the simulation environment. That will lead into errors. For example; a simulation participant may define an aggregate of any number individuals, and another simulation participant may disaggregate the group and create wrong number of individuals.

MSG-86-8 – Lack of Agreed Levels for Entity Resolution and Capabilities In distributed simulation environments two semantically equivalent entities may be represented in different levels of details. For example; entity resolution can be represented with its attributes, such as the number of weapons held by each entity rather that assigning the battalion a net strength. And this will lean into interoperability issues.


SCN R-D-010

SCN R-D-020

SCN R-D-030

SCN R-D-040

SCN R-D-050

SCN R-D-060

SCN R-D-070

SCN R-D-080

Analysis


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-50


Federation agreements in some way serve to capture information required to successfully set up a simulation environment, which is not captured by any other of the applied standards or documents written during the specification and set up of a simulation environment. Again, issues mainly arise from not properly documenting agreements of from incomplete agreements documents. Aggregation and disaggregation of force structures is a common problem when coupling simulation systems which operate on different levels (e.g., single unit vs. battalion). Fair fight issues may arise when entities (e.g., single unit vs. battalion) are disaggregated in inconsistent ways. For example; a team that is defined to be an aggregate of nine members can be disaggregated into twelve individuals by the receiving simulation.

RPR FOM provides an entity class named “AggregateEntity” for representing entities with aggregations in a common way. It contains attributes of number, formation, dimensions, etc., that formalizes the description of aggregates. But it is not sufficient to be a universal solution for description of entity aggregates.

SISO MSDL (Military Scenario Definition Language) defines the hierarchy and also equipment at scenario units.

There is no standardized solution for using specification languages for formalizing aggregation levels.

Entity resolution can be represented with its attributes, such as the number of various weapons held by each battalion rather than assigning the battalion a net strength. Talking about the relative resolutions about two entities is meaningless, because the resolution relationships between them are likely to be complex and confusing, with one entity’s resolution being higher in some attributes, lower in others, and the same in still others.

Solution

Federation agreements often are documented in free text form, the Federation Engineering Agreements Template (FEAT) reference guide might serve as a check list and a more standardized way of documenting these agreements, although a lot of free text is still required due to the broad spectrum of agreements typically required.

In addition to the FEAT there are some federation agreements documents from successful simulation environments which might serve as templates or “best practice” in documenting federation agreements at least for certain application areas of simulation environments. Although it will be difficult to develop standardized federation agreements it might be a promising approach to collect and document these “best practice” federation agreements for the application areas where they have been successfully applied and used. RPR FOM includes an “AggregateEntity” Object Class for representing aggregates of entities. But it is not sufficient to be a universal solution for description of entity aggregates.



NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-51


Short term 1) The changes in the structure of the federation (active federates) may be performed off-line through the definition of dedicated vignettes following the main phases of the scenario. An operational event will be used to stop the runtime and allow resuming the exercise under the new federation conditions. 2) The Federation Engineering Agreements Template (FEAT) reference guide should be used as a reference.

3) SISO MSDL (Military Scenario Definition Language) should be used as a reference for the hierarchy and also equipment at scenario units.

4) RPR FOM “Aggregate Entity” Object Class for representing aggregates should be used as a reference

5) Description of aggregate entities with standardized specification languages. These languages can be used to specify the relations of attributes that effect the simulation execution at different aggregation levels. They provide validation of relation definitions, so inconsistencies between aggregation levels would be minimized.

6) Development of mediation functions to convert detail level of semantically equivalent entities.

7) Description of entities at different resolutions with standardized specification languages. These languages can be used to specify the relations of attributes that effect the simulation execution at different resolution levels. They provide validation of relation definitions, so inconsistencies between resolution levels would be minimized.

Mid term 1) Principles for Aggregation / Disaggregation need to be defined and implemented in the federates in order to provide full runtime versatility of the federation. 2) Development of documentation for domain specific standardized aggregation levels for common entities: Aggregation levels like team, battalion, etc., should be documented in a common standard and all relative properties should be described.

3) Development of documentation for domain specific standardized resolution levels for common entities: Resolution levels for different entities should be documented in a common standard and all relative properties should be described.

Long term 1) Standardization (or equivalent) activities performed in the community need to be investigated.



NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-52


- SG162

- MSG-86

- MSG-106

- MSG-134

- NETN-FOM

- RPR-FOM

- “P.K. Davis and J.H. Bigelow. Experiments in Multi-Resolution Modeling (MRM). RAND Corporation, 1998.”

- “J.R. Abrial. 1996. The B-book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge Univ Pr.”

- “J.R. Abrial. 2010. Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge Univ Pr.” - IEEE Std 1516-2010, IEEE Standard for Modeling and Simulation (M&S) High Level Architecture (HLA) Framework and Rules. - IEEE Std 1730-2010, IEEE Recommended Practice for Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process (DSEEP). - IEEE Std 1278.1-2012, IEEE Standard for Distributed Interactive Simulation--Application Protocols - SISO The Federation Engineering Agreements Template (FEAT) Reference Guide - “P. Davis and R. Hillestad, “Families of Models that Cross Levels of Resolution: Issues for Design, Calibration and Management”, in Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Winter Simulation, ACM, 1993, pp. 1003-1012.” - SISO-STD-007-2008: Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL)


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-53

G3.2 Dynamic Terrain solutions

This section addresses issues, gaps and solutions related to the problem of correlating the synthetic natural environment (SNE) presented to participants in an exercise that are using different connected simulators. A main driving requirement for the solutions to these issues is to ensure that the terrains, objects, weather, vegetation and their interaction with actors in the simulation is coherent enough across different simulation systems to allow proper coordination among friendly forces and “fair fight” conditions with regard to opposing forces. The simulated environment takes on even more importance for MTDS than it would for a stand-alone simulation facility because the focus of MTDS is the exercise, including coordination between units and operations. In a stand-alone simulation, the focus is often on a specific platform or equipment item, or a smaller personnel unit that does not require the exercise of complex command and control chains that is central to MTDS. Ensuring a level playing field for all participants (fair fight) is paramount. Additional requirements and recommendations address easing the currently heavy workload for each participating simulator to prepare for an exercise. The amount of data required to generate a terrain and the data processing and labour-intensive verification required to ensure that it is suited to support the exercise are high, and currently must be repeated in each participating simulation facility. Means to share this workload by providing data products and services that are more readily used by a variety of simulators are examined here. A common solution to the problem of ensuring that terrains are correlated across simulators is to choose the “lowest common denominator” as the baseline for all participants. While this does help to achieve a “fair fight” situation, it may in the future lead to sub-optimal simulation conditions for all participants. Therefore, these recommendations seek to “raise the bar” such that the quality of the simulated environment of the lowest common denominator improves over time, thus increasing fidelity and training value for all participants. In addition to static terrain issues facing current state of the art systems, much work is needed to improve dynamic terrain presentation. Weather has the capacity to drastically alter the execution and results of an exercise and requires new methods and systems to ensure that it is presented in the same way to all participants, both globally and locally. Interactions between the terrain, weather and actors in the simulation are also dynamic conditions that require implementation in real time by each simulator, as situations develop. Examples of such effects include emergence of muddy terrain during or after a rainstorm, snow accumulations, ice formation, tire tracks, craters, flooded waterways and building or vegetation damage. They also require correlation such that participants using different simulators perceive these effects in the same way. Throughout the considerations presented here, an underlying concept is to match the requirements and implementations to the type of exercise. Purely air operations have different requirements on terrains than ground unit or ground support operations. Rather than a one size fits all solution, what is being sought is a solution that allows exercise preparation to be optimized according to the training needs of the individual participants, while maintaining the overall correlation between all participants.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-54

G3.2.1 SNE requirements for MTDS

Most requirements on SNE that are specifically related to MTDS are concerned with commonality of SNE representation across participants. This impacts the datasets used and the way they are processed into each participant’s simulation. In addition, there are dynamic effects that must be taken into account that require exchange of information between participants. The source requirement for all of these is labelled “fair fight”. At the current level of technology, it is impossible to make a virtual world as detailed as the real world, so compromises must be made. With the addition of multiple participants at different locations, using different simulators, a match between the compromises made at each location must be ensured (at least for participants of similar type: air, ground, maritime), so that each participant has the same interaction with the environment, even if that is not the best one available. SNE A Fair Fight SNE R-A-010 The simulated natural environment shall be perceived equally by friendly and opposing forces. This affects how elevation models, texture and imagery overlays and vegetation are implemented on each simulator. It should not be possible for one participant to be invisible to another because of different placement of trees, clouds, buildings, etc. Issue: Current solutions are to select the “lowest common denominator”, leading to less than optimal experience for all participants. SNE R-A-020 Dynamic entities, whether controlled by human actors or computer generated, shall interact with the SNE in the same way across MTDS participants. This requirement is to ensure that when a SNE is implemented on different simulators, the situation is not created that a region becomes impassable by one participant, but accessible to another. For example, a bridge joining a road must be aligned such that vehicles can transition from the road to the bridge or vice versa in the same way on each simulator. Issue: The situation must be avoided in which a computer-generated actor (CGF or non-combatant) moves differently in the SNE as would be allowed for a participant. SNE R-A-030 The level of detail presented in the SNE shall match the type of operation supported by each participant. Significantly different requirements exist for the major categories: air operations, ground operations, air ground support operations and maritime operations. The SNE shall be adaptable to each of these types of operation. This is to acknowledge the different needs of different participants and to allow for reduced data volumes in individual simulators, depending on their scope and role in the exercise. For example, this will allow air operations simulations to ignore many terrain guidelines and rules applicable only to ground operations (precise tree placement, etc.). Gap: No current gap or issue, but relevant to efficient implementation. SNE B Preparation activities SNE R-B-010 Data products shall be provided in open standard formats designed to ease conversion to required participant specific formats.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-55

Gap: Data products are currently provided in a few standard formats but lack metadata information and coherence checking with overlay layers. SNE R-B-020 Data products shall include guidelines and instructions regarding conversion and customization that allow individual participants to incorporate the products into their specific systems while retaining overall coherence with the joint exercise. Gap: Data products are currently provided “as-is”, without additional information that can be used as guidance in incorporating it into a simulator. SNE R-B-030 MTDS exercise specifications shall clearly state requirements on correlation of perception of SNE required, based on the training targets for the exercise. Gap: Current planning stage information does include formal definition of requirements on correlation of SNE aspects between participants. SNE R-B-040 Data products used for SNE generation shall take into account standards used for geographical and other information used in operational tools or provide additional data that can be used to aid in their import into these tools. A standard example of this is moving map systems, which may show a greater or lesser level of detail with respect to roads, or other features. Differences in topographical maps and visual terrain due to DEM resolution could also contribute to lack of correlation between operational displays and simulated environment. Gap: Correlation with operational tools is not currently contemplated in exercise planning or implementation. No common standards for terrain models spanning simulations and operational tools exists. SNE R-B-050 A dataset for the SNE required for an exercise shall be provided in a vendor-neutral format for incorporation into individual participant simulators. Gap: This requires an evolution of the way simulators are developed, as described in the roadmap below, first establishing, then enforcing standards such that a large number of participants will be able to work with the provided SNE dataset. SNE C Common dynamic services SNE R-C-010 A real-time network service shall be established to provide dynamic global and local weather information to the participants’ simulation systems. This is to address the problem often faced in how weather patterns and local effects are implemented in different simulators. Local effects (rain showers, wind, dust, gusts, etc.) should be attached to global patterns (fronts, winds, etc.), but more importantly, must be the same for different participants. It should not be raining in one simulator and not in another at the same location, and it should not rain if there are no clouds. Gap: Service does not exist, and current simulators do not contemplate their use. SNE R-C-020 Deleted SNE R-C-030 A real-time network service shall be established to provide communications effects information to the participants’ simulation systems. One effect of both the static and dynamic terrain is propagation of radio signals. This requirement foresees a service that models the same terrain as used by all participants for the exercise, interacts with the other services in the same way to obtain global and local weather information and damage effects, offering a service to calculate radio signal


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-56

propagation properties as a function of frequency, modulation type, transmitter power and receiver sensitivity. Gap: Standardized service beyond prototyping does not exist SNE R-C-040 A real-time network service shall be established to provide weapon effects information to the participant’s simulation systems. This service would calculate significant changes to the SNE as a result of weapons effects including damage, coloration, usability of roads, building damage, etc. Small changes such as small arms fire could be simulated locally. Ideally, computer generated non-combatants would also be affected. Gap: Standardized service beyond prototyping does not exist SNE R-C-050 Common dynamic services information shall be divided into different categories applicable to air, ground, maritime or combined operations. Despite this division, the information shall be coherent across all categories. This is a modifier for previous requirements to establish new services, specifying that the services provided be differentiated according to the needs of different types of simulator systems. This could impact the definition of the services and how they are accessed. This allows for trade-offs to be made between parametric data provided by these services versus detailed calculations. There are circumstances in which the local simulators need to do detailed, compute-intensive calculations on some parameters provided by the service, and others in which the service can perform calculations for the participant simulator. These will vary according to the type of simulation (air, ground, ground support, maritime, etc.). SNE R-C-060 Common dynamic services information shall include information pertinent to non-visual sensors and parameters pertinent to equipment and platform simulators. This requirement addresses the need to correlate weather, atmosphere, terrain types, etc. for non-visual equipment (platform physics simulation, infrared, radar, SAR, sonar night vision, etc.). Gap: Service does not exist


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-57

G3.2.2 Issues from previous studies and current projects

Issues regarding the SNE were evaluated from the following projects: SG162 Distributed Simulation for Air and Joint Mission Training MSG128 Incremental Implementation of NATO MTDS Operations MSG086 Simulation Interoperability

Table G-2 SNE issues from previous studies

The category assignments group these issues for further discussion. Organization and planning These issues involve the specification of and preparation for the exercise. The key issues here are to provide the participating sites’ teams with a wider scope of information regarding the expected SNE for the exercise, including such aspects as required correlation between the environment perceived by the different units participating, expected configuration and behaviours of non-combatant entities, and guidelines for implementing terrain and object features to maximize the training effectiveness of the exercise. Terrain Availability This category addresses access to terrain databases, which can have widely varying properties (resolution, overlays, precision) and may have use restrictions imposed on them due to security or IPR constraints. This makes the distribution of terrain data among the exercise participants difficult. The use of terrain data from differing sources will reduce the correlation possible, thus it is important to resolve the availability issues mentioned above to ensure that all participants are using a common dataset or source data. Conversion Simulators participating in MTDS exercises have been developed independently and use many different image generation and modelling techniques. Each will require conversion of a new dataset to their own format, and each conversion will require manual verification and adjustment in its native environment. Such processes are labour intensive and error prone and scale up with the number of participants.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-58

[SISO RIEDP] contains a comprehensive description of how SNE databases should be structured and processed. Dynamics It is essential to introduce and maintain the concept of an SNE as a dynamic object in itself during the MTDS, allowing interactions between it and participants, computer generated forces, non-combatants and weather to be shown realistically. Such effects are not easily shared across simulation systems, and often not modelled at all. These issues were cross referenced with a list of issues and analysis provided by:

ET-045 Dynamic Synthetic Natural Environments for Distributed Simulation This study identified the following issues, also grouped into categories: Correlation

C.1 Synthetic environment in different simulation systems does not correlate C.2 Desired synthetic environment representation and correlation not specified well C.3 Synthetic environment cannot be updated quickly

Terrain T.1 Variations in the synthetic environment representation cannot be shown realistically T.2 The impact of an action on the synthetic environment is not the same on different simulation systems T.3 Interactions with the synthetic environment are not synchronized correctly among all simulation systems

Weather W.1 Weather variations in time and/or space are not represented realistically W.2 Weather not distributed accurately among different simulation systems W.3 Impact of weather not included in all models

These groups of issues have resulted in the following headings in the recommendations section:

• Commonality of representation of SNE in MTDS • Terrain data commonality with operational systems • Terrain quality and correlation • Dynamic interactions with SNE • MTDS exercise planning and preparation

G3.2.3 Recommendations

These recommendations are organized into short, medium and long term, taking into account the expected advances in technology over these time frames. The short and medium term recommendations are aimed at achieving the long term goal, while providing useful capability along the way. An umbrella concept for the long term goal is to “bring the simulators to the environment, rather than creating the environment in the simulator”. This means that over time the synthetic environment becomes a resource defined and managed by the exercise planners, rather than a lot of disparate resources that must be knitted together. From the standpoint of the participants (the different simulation facilities), the SNE would become a provided resource rather than modifications to be made to the existing system.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-59

Issue title Commonality of representation of SNE in MTDS

Issue description

Due to the large variety in synthetic environment implementations among the participants, significant differences arise in how the environment is perceived by the trainees, resulting in an unrealistic advantage or disadvantage to one or more trainees at a different site.

This issue applies equally to static terrain and object features and dynamic terrain interactions resulting from weather, damage and other interactions occurring in real-time during the exercise.


SNE R-A-010, SNE R-A-030, SNE R-B-010, SNE R-B-030, SNE R-C-040

Analysis

Differences in elevation model resolution between two simulators have the effect of masking more finely detailed terrain features such as ditches and small hills, joins between roads, embankments, etc. Such differences are of less importance to air operations than ground or ground support operations.

Differences in application of imagery, texture and vegetation layer data can also lead to significantly different perception by the trainees. Slight differences in terrain feature color and shading are not problematic, but there are a wide variety of ways to populate vegetation layers. In some cases, procedural generation is used, causing for example, the position of trees to be different for different participants.

Solution

The best solution to this issue is a long term one, in which all participants have access to a common source of data on which to base their visual representation and environmental data. Until such a long term goal can be reached, implementation guidelines and rules are needed so that the SNE methods and tools converge to the long term goal of a completely standardized SNE, accessed by all participants directly either locally or remotely.

A medium term measure leading toward this goal is application of standards designed to reduce the conversion activities necessary to incorporate terrain data sets from national sources, along with guidelines regarding how the data is to be converted and used. Parallel to this is an effort for national sources of terrain data to make it available in open standard formats and to provide the guidelines for conversion and use.

Short term activities in support of these medium and long term goals include the selection and/or definition of the standards to be used and continued investigation into the optimum composition and storage of the data.


Short term Select or define standards for shared SNE data

Mid term Apply standards to both generators and consumers of SNE data

Long term Converge to a common global SNE that can be used directly by participants



NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-60

Issue title Commonality of representation of SNE in MTDS

SISO RIEDP, MSG156, DSEEP

Issue title Terrain data commonality with operational systems

Issue description

In exercises that use both simulators and operational systems, such as moving map type applications, the terrains used in each must be correlated. This calls for additional conversion of SNE data to a format required by each operational tool.


SNE R-B-040, SNE R-B-050

Analysis

In order to accomplish this, SNE data should be kept as close to real data as possible. There is a trade-off between using a “geo-specific” terrain, representing a real place on Earth, versus a “geo-typical” terrain, which may have no corresponding real location.

Using only SNEs that have real-world counterparts will greatly increase the possibility of incorporating real operational tools into MTDS exercises, as no conversion process will be required to generate data sets that can be used by these tools. The closer the SNE corresponds to a real-world location, the better these tools can support operations during the exercise.

Solution

Use real world locations rather than synthetic ones and ensure that the SNE does not deviate substantially from the real world location it models.


Short term Investigate current environment data needs of operational tools.

Incorporate operational tool standards into SNE standards where possible.

Mid term Standardize mapping, terrain, modelling across both synthetic and real tools.

Long term Provide a SNE for use in participants’ simulators that reflects real world areas as closely as possible.

Use a common source to derive operational environment data and SNE.


SISO RIEDP, MSG128 issue SNE-02


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-61

Issue title Terrain quality and correlation

Issue description

These two issues must be treated together, as the level of detail required, and correlation across simulators depend greatly on the purpose of the exercise and the role of each participant. For air to air operations, detailed ground modelling, except in mountainous regions is not so important. Even the correlation requirements for purely air operations can be relaxed as compared to ground support and ground operations. Atmospheric modelling, affecting the visibility of the ground and local weather (clouds, dust, precipitation) are, however, important for air operations.

For ground support and ground operations, the highest levels of quality (detail) and correlation are required to ensure a fair fight. Maritime operations are considered to have requirements similar to air operations, unless they are in a ground support role.


SNE R-A-030, SNE R-B-020, SNE R-B-030, SNE R-B-050

Analysis

Currently available technology allows for very high resolution SNE models to be used. For MTDS, with many participants at various levels of past and current technology, it is often necessary to select the lowest common denominator as the standard for resolution and detail in order to ensure a fair fight. Thus, the goal of these recommendations is to establish a path towards a future in which the lowest common denominator is much better than today’s.

This is best achieved by basing SNEs of all participants on the same dataset formats and obtaining source data to be provided in this standard format. Testing the formats and workflows defined in [SISO RIEDP] as foreseen in MSG156, then applying these standards in national programs should drive the development of technical capabilities in new simulator development programmes, converging toward the long term goal of using a single dataset provided by the exercise organizer can be used to maximum potential by all participants.

Solution

Converge toward a common data set to be used by all simulators. Ensure that the data set is provided in a form that allows it to be processed in accordance with SISO RIEDP processes and incorporated into various image generators and modelling engines.


Short term Test implementation of SISO RIEDP

Definition and sourcing of standard SNE datasets

Mid term Widespread adoption of standardized SNE datasets

Long term One world model used widely enough to support a maximum number of participants


SISO RIEDP, MSG128, MSG156, CDB


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-62

Issue title Dynamic interactions with SNE

Issue description

Dynamic changes to the SNE during the exercise can be caused by weather, interaction of participants and CGF. Where these are handled by existing simulators, they are handled quite differently, and standard mechanisms for distributing the corresponding changes to the SNE to other simulators are not available.

A standard way of computing the impact of the SNE on simulated platform and equipment models is not available, leading to different implementation with uncorrelated results.


SNE R-C-010, SNE R-C-020, SNE R-C-030, SNE R-C-040, SNE R-C-050, SNE C-060

Analysis

These issues all point to a need to coordinate dynamic effects of the exercise on the SNE and effects of the SNE dynamics on the individual platform and equipment simulators. One solution is to standardize the interchange of this information between simulators. Another is to provide detailed information on the effects (atmospheric parameters, blast damage, weather effects) as a service. If the implementation of dynamic effects is left to each simulator, the difficulty in distributing and correlating their visualization across multiple systems increases geometrically. The preferred approach would be to develop standardized definitions of the dynamic effects with a network service that can be accessed by all participants.

Solution

Provide real-time network-based services for the following dynamic effects:

Global and local weather

Weather effects on terrain

Communications propagation effects

Weapons effects

The systems should be part of an overall structure that lets them interact to take into account the global environment of the exercise and should contemplate differing levels of detail depending on the type of exercise and participant being supported (air only, ground support, ground, maritime).


Short term R & D for an optimum set of parameters for description of the dynamic components of the SNE.

R & D for optimum methods of communicating terrain changes during a running exercise.

Mid term Establish standards and ICDs for the dynamic services


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-63

Issue title Dynamic interactions with SNE

Long term Implement dynamic service use across a wide enough range of participants to ensure a maximum number of possible participants in MTDS.


SISO RIEDP, MSG156, ET45

Issue title Exercise preparation and planning

Issue description

Guidelines for implementation of the SNE are not currently provided as inputs to preparation of the simulators participating in an exercise. Particularly, the correlation required between each type of participant, and background information on the behavior of non-combatant dynamic objects is left open.


SNE R-A-030, SNE R-B-020, SNE R-B-030

Analysis

As simulation environments become more realistic, many more details are required to ensure that all participants perceive the SNE in the same way. Correlation requirements are different for each type of participant (air, ground support, ground, maritime) and guidelines should be provided that allow the individual facilities to prepare correctly and efficiently.

Required dynamic interactions that could affect the exercise should also be specified.

Solution

In the long term, the roadmap calls for a global SNE that will obviate the need to specify detailed guidelines and requirements, as they will be implemented into a global SNE that can be used directly by the participants. In the short and medium term, however, it is important to include these specifications.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-64

Issue title Exercise preparation and planning


Short term Update federation agreement templates to formalize the language used for specifying SNE and dynamic behavior required.

Provide guidelines for the implementation of terrains in federation agreements.

Mid term Adopt emerging SNE features and technologies (common terrains, dynamic effects, etc.) into exercise specifications as they become available.

Long term Once a global SNE model is available, the specification of guidelines can be moved into the preparation of the SNE for each exercise.


DSEEP


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-65

G3.2.4 Summary

The recommendations made include short, medium and long term components designed to lead from the current situation to the desired long term solution, a single model that can be incorporated into a large number of simulators, and a set of network services for dynamic effects, so as to ensure “fair-fight” conditions across a maximum number of possible participants and potential scenarios in MTDS exercises. The recommendations are arranged in time to allow a gradual convergence towards this goal.

Figure G.1 Roadmap Overview

Long term Create a universally available, vendor-neutral synthetic environment covering the entire world, and standardize the interfaces used to work with it (practically, this would be developed in priority order based on short and medium term needs). The main idea is to invert the current model of “providing a terrain for simulator X” into “connect simulator X to the exercise environment”. Move ownership/responsibility for the SNE from the simulator to the exercise organizers by providing common databases and services that fit a design pattern of standards applied in the development or upgrade of simulators over the medium term. Medium term Provide services for parts of SNE based on currently ongoing standards development as TRL improves. Impose requirements to interface to SNE and dynamic terrain services for MTDS preparation and execution according to standards and interface control documents published for these new services. Implement requirements in new operational systems that contemplate their use in MTDS. Work with national procurement agencies to include these standards by providing cost/benefit information. Work with national agencies to use the same emerging standards for SNE data sets as are to be required for participation in MTDS. This will reduce preparation times and error rates and speed the convergence to compatibility with a global SNE in the long term. Short term Prototype SNE dynamic services such as damage, weather, etc. Promote the inclusion of fitness for MTDS requirements in new simulator procurements in member states. Define the standards and requirements. Keep working on standards to be applied in the medium term and test their viability through reference implementations and prototypes.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-66

G3.3 Datalink Interoperability

G3.3.1 Data Link requirements for MTDS

Two categories of requirements have been identified for tactical data link exchange in MTDS activities:

1. Requirements from MTDS Scenarios: all data link required by operational scenarios selected for MTDS

2. Requirements from previous studies: a collection of lesson learned about known gaps and issues related to Data link exchange in MTDS.

Requirements from MTDS Scenarios Data Link exchange is one of the fundamental data flows required by MTDS Federations. All federate shall be able to exchange many kinds of protocols in order to reproduce in simulated environment operational activities like:

• share a common surveillance picture of the exercise scenario • C2 functions like exchange orders and engagements, platform coordination • Communications between platforms and assets

All these data exchange shall be a faithful reproduction of real Data Link used in operation. Level of fidelity depends on the specific application and simulator. In the following the requirements are identified for TDL interoperability in MTDS TDL.R1. Links required for MTDS exercise. According to operational Scenarios defined

in Annex A as relevant for MTDS activities, the following data flows/protocols shall be required in MTDS activities:

1. Link 11 2. Link 16 (including JREAP) 3. Link 22 4. VMF 5. NFFI 6. FMV 7. AWCIES for Ground Sensor Data

In the following paragraph all standards related to the above data link will be listed and examined. TDL.R2. Tactical Data Link shall be exchanged through an IP network: most of the

selected TDL are usually exchanged over Radio Frequency (RF) communications. Since MTDS federation usually includes laboratories, simulators and training facilities connected through a “ground” network (Wide Area Network, WAN) TDL standards and protocols should be adapted to this kind of transport

TDL.R3. MTDS federation shall have capability to exchange TDL with real platforms: NATO MTDS exercises and experimentations carried out to date involved basically only simulators or training systems. Real platforms were never directly involved or connected to Federations. One of the topics of the present study is to investigate the capability to involve real platforms or assets in order to increase training capabilities also on board


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-67

real platforms. The basic connections that are required between simulators federation and real assets are voice communications and TDL exchange.

Requirements from gaps identified in previous studies Previous NATO studies and MSG Groups have identified some gaps that can affect data link exchange in MTDS federations. These gaps are mostly generated by the need to federate legacy simulation systems that use different standards or even proprietary protocols. Other gaps can come from incorrect implementation of standards or even from ambiguous specification of the federation. In the following paragraphs these gaps shall be analyzed, and solution proposed. These are the MTDS federation requirements derived from gaps categories identified in previous studies:

TDL R-A2-010. Standards for TDL specified in Federation Agreement. Federation agreement must detail as much as possible the identified standards, the solution proposed for gateways between standards, the specification of standards version and implementation, the baseline of common SW (like RTI)

TDL R-A2-020. Early Standard assessment activities. In the Federation Specification phase an assessment must be conducted to verify that simulator models and capabilities are at the same level. This assessment shall be focused on, but not restricted to, the data link capability of models and simulators.

TDL R-A2-030. Live assets integration constrains. Standards selection for Data Link and Voice Communication should be driven also by integration of live assets in MTDS federation. An accurate selection of standards and formats for TDL data exchange over MTDS WAN can ease integration of real platforms. In most case a gateway between MTDS WAN and real platforms will be required: feasibility of such gateways should be conducted in early phase of MTDS specification and Federation Agreement redaction.

TDL R-A2-040. Time Management Specification. Time management shall be carefully examined, especially if real assets are included in MTDS exercise


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-68

G3.3.2 Tactical Data Link Standards

These are the standards identified as relevant and applicable for Data Link exchange in DTTS activities.

G3.3.2.1 SIMPLE

SIMPLE (Standard Interface for Multiple Platform Link Evaluation) is the standard defined by NATO to integrate ground facilities (rigs, simulations, integration facilities) for the purpose of Tactical Data Link interoperability testing. SIMPLE defines a IP protocol for exchange of Tactical Data Link messages for most common NATO TDLs (LINK11, LINK16 and LINK22) that uses RF as transport layer.

SIMPLE standard is evolving to support more TDLs standards and functionalities and is specified by STANAG 5602.

Edition 1 has been promulgated in 2001


Edition 3 has been promulgated in 2006 and Specifies the restructuring of the STANAG to incorporate TCP/IP (Mandatory) and UDP/IP (Optional) protocols for a Wide Area Network (WAN)

Edition 4 has been promulgated in 2013 for Inclusion of VMF system data (MIL-STD-6017, MIL-STD-2045-47001, MIL-STD-188-220) Restructure of the node status message in order to add link 22 information tactical message Size Field in Link 22 Packet.

G3.3.2.2 LINK 11

LINK 11 is one of the Tactical Data Link protocols defined by NATO. It’s currently used mainly for Data Link exchange between Naval platforms. It is used for sharing common air and surface picture (setting of a common reference of track data, identification of cooperating units joined to the network, exchange of track data), for aircraft control, for weapon controls (engagements) and information exchange. LINK 11 is defined by STANAG 5511. Currently applicable Editions can range from Ed. 2 to Ed. 7. The preferred solution for LINK 11 data exchange in DTTS is LINK 11 over SIMPLE. Currently there are no other standard methods to exchange LINK11 messages over an IP network.

G3.3.2.3 LINK 16

LINK 16 is one of the Tactical Data Link protocols defined by NATO. It’s currently the most used TDL for military operations, especially for Air operations. LINK 16 messages derive from TADIL-J link and can cover almost all data exchange needed for military operations, from Tactical Picture sharing to orders and platform coordination, from threat engagements to information and data exchange, from intelligence to electronic warfare data. Link 16 is defined by STANAG 5516. Currently applicable Editions can range from Edition 2 to Edition 6. The preferred solutions for Link 16 exchange in DTTS are the following


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-69

1. LINK 16 over SIMPLE 2. JREAP, STANAG 5518, "Interoperability Standard for the Joint Range Extension

Applications Protocol (JREAP)." 3. LINK 16 over HLA, SISO SISO-STD-002-2006

G3.3.2.4 LINK 22

LINK 22 is one of the Tactical Data Link protocols defined by NATO. LINK 22 has been created as an improved version of LINK 11 (NATO Improved Link Eleven NILE) and to complement LINK 16. Link 22 is defined by STANAG 5522. Currently applicable Edition is Edition 4. The preferred solutions for Link 22 exchange in MTDS are the following

1. SIMPLE, STANAG 5602 Edition 3 2. SIMPLE STANAG 5602 Edition 4/ATDLP 6.02 when ratified

G3.3.2.5 VMF

Variable Message Format (VMF) is a protocol defined by standard documentation of US DoD (Military Standard, Mil STD). It is a protocol employed in joint operations and can be used for Common Picture sharing (track data exchange), to exchange reports and information about battlefield situation and to request fire support to air and naval units. It’s a protocol widely used for CAS operations and currently is supported by ground, air and some naval platform. As said above, VMF derives from USA standards and the definition of a NATO Standard is ongoing. VMF is defined by the following set of documents:

1. Mil STD 2045-47001 VMF Application Header 2. Mil STD 6017B 3. STANAG 5519 Ed. 1. (when finalized)

The preferred solution for VMF exchange in DTTS is exchange VMF messages as UDP or TCP/IP messages over the Federation WAN. Usage of multicast can be also evaluated if supported by WAN architecture. Edition 4 of STANAG 5602 has included VMF between protocols supported by Simple. Exchange of VMF through Simple protocol is indeed another solution to be examined in MTDS if any Federate can support it.

G3.3.2.6 NFFI

NATO Friendly Force Information (NFFI) is a protocol adopted for friendly force tracking. It has been used as the standard for interoperability of Force Tracking Systems (FTS) in Afgan Mission. The protocol supports exchange of data describing situation and position of ground units. NFFI is defined by the following document: STANAG 5527 defining NFFI version 1.3. NFFI is a IP protocol, for exchange in DTTS exercise there is no need to define a specific solution.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-70

G3.3.2.7 FMV

Full Motion Video (FMV) does not really have a formal definition in the video industry, but when used in military application is used to refer to temporally related video containing metadata at certain resolutions. The adopted standard in NATO application is usually STANAG 4609, which references several SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) and MISB (Motion Imagery Standards Board) standards. The last version of document is “STANAG 4609 EDITION 3 -NATO DIGITAL MOTION IMAGERY STANDARD”. Standard identified for VMF defines format for streaming video over an IP network, for DTTS exercise the video will be streamed over DTTS WAN.

G3.3.2.8 GROUND SENSORS DATA – AWCIES

Definition and roles of command post in production and dissemination of Recognized Air Picture (RAP) is specified by Concept of Operations for the NATO Common Operational Picture (COP) and NATO and by NATO Air Command and Control System (ACCS) programme. One of these command post is Sensor Fusion Post (SFP) that manages and fuses information from available sensors, both civilian and military. Following NATO guidance, the exchanges of information between the sensors and the SFP have been defined using an international standard: ASTERIX (All Purpose Structured Eurocontrol suRveillance Information Exchange) that is a part of the AWCIES (ACCS wide common information exchange standard). AWCIES uses standard messages to exchange information over an IP network. AWCIES is a grammatical collection of six harmonized standard messaging sets (ASTERIX, ADEXP, DIS, ADatP-3, LINK-16, XML). AWCIES protocol and rules is defined by STANAG 5535 Edition 1.0, while document ADatP-35 (Edition 1.0 and Erratum Edition 4.0) defines military AXTERIX categories reserved for NATO purpose. AWCIES is a IP protocol, for exchange in MTDS exercise there is no need to define a specific solution.



G3.3.3 Data Link Interoperability analysis

G3.3.3.1 Issues Categories

All Issues, both coming from previous studies or from previous National/International experiences and exercises, have been grouped into categories in order to define solutions and action plans for the categories. The following categories can comprise all issues examined in the following related to Data Link Interoperability subject:

1. MTDS Specification: all issues that can be related to organization and planning of MTDS activities, including issues derived by incomplete or wrong Federation Agreement.

2. Data Link Applicable Standards: issue related to the correct identification of the standards to be used for any interface (both physical and logical) between MTDS facilities and components.

3. Data Link Standards Implementation: the correct specification of Standards versions and all further agreement required to harmonize the standards implementations

4. MTDS setting to work: problems that can be solved or at least identified and managed during initial phase of MTDS activities. The early identification and management can drastically reduce impact (time and cost) on the core MTDS activities



Issue Reference number

Issue Title Issue Description MTDS Specification

Data Link Applicable Standards

Data Link Standards Implementation

MTDS setting to work

MSG128-7 Different TDL implementations Different simulators are using different TDL standards

X

SG162-03 DEX-03: Standardization of Voice and Communication Solutions

All federate shall implement a common solution for voice communications X X

SG162-37 CSI-01: Limitations on Throughput, Latency and Disruption on Network and/or Infrastructure Affecting Simulation

Network performance can deeply affect the live exercise X X

SG162-38 CSI-02: Protocols and Services Current simulation protocols and commonly used services are all IP based. We do not expect this to change in the near future.

X

MSG-86-2 Multi-Architecture Simulation Environments (same as MSG128-7)

Using more than one simulation architecture (e.g., DIS, HLA, TENA, etc.) within a single simulation environment often leads to interoperability problems.

X

MSG-86-4 Different FOM or SDEM versions

If systems that are required to exchange data do not comply with the same data exchange model, interoperability is severely limited.

X X

MSG-86-8 Lack of agreed levels for entity resolution and capabilities

Two semantically equivalent entities may be represented in different levels of detail and behavior. Simulation members may disagree on level of detail of shared entities in a simulation environment. Missing simulation details can be a strong issue for some Federates. This also applies to terrain resolution/representation and Link data representation.

X

MSG-86-10 Data encoding Incorrect data encoding/decoding, data marshalling

X


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-73

Issue Reference number

Issue Title Issue Description MTDS Specification



MTDS setting to work

MSG-86-15 Limitations in coupling simulations and live systems when using operational protocols of live systems

Live systems are primarily designed for use in real/operational environments. When coupling simulation and live systems limitations in the interoperability between these systems can exist due to restriction in the information exchange between the systems.

X X

MSG-86-29 Temporal Anomalies

This issue groups many issues types related to time management (Differences in Precision of Time Representation, Differences in Precision of Time Resolution, Anomalies caused by Unsynchronized Time, Anomalies caused by Network Latency)

X X


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-74

G3.3.3.2 Issues Analysis

Issue title Different TDL implementations

Issue description

Different simulators are using different TDL standards

Origin MSG128-issue n° 7


TDL.R1

Analysis :

There are different standards defined for Data Link Exchange through a IP Network. Even if exists many gateways that allows interoperability between some of these standards, the federation has a better performance and stability if all federates uses the same standards.

SIMPLE is the NATO standard activities that requires Data Link exchange over an IP network.

SIMPLE standard is evolving to support more TDLs standards and functionalities.



Edition 3 has been promulgated in 2006 and Specifies the restructuring of the STANAG to incorporate TCP/IP (Mandatory) and UDP/IP (Optional) protocols for a Wide Area Network (WAN)

Edition 4 has been promulgated in 2013 for Inclusion of VMF system data (MIL-STD-6017, MIL-STD-2045-47001, MIL-STD-188-220) Restructure of the node status message in order to add link 22 information tactical message Size Field in Link 22 Packet.

Another standard is L16 over DIS and HLA define by SISO for exercises that include nations that aren’t NATO members. Only one version of the standard exists but it is necessary for the interoperability to communicate with the compatibles RTI and use a common FOM.

Solution :

A solution shall be defined for the issue category that includes this issue.

Proposed planned activities:

An action plan shall be proposed for the issue category that includes this issue


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-75

Issue title Standards selection for Voice communication

Issue description

Lack of standardization of Voice and Communication Solutions

Origin SG162 - DEX-03


TDL R-A2-030

Analysis :

Voice communication among simulated assets can be done with Voice over DIS solution, with Voice over HLA solution or even through a multichannel VoIP solution.

There is no standards defined to exchange voice between simulation and Live assets

Solution :





NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-76

Issue title Limitations on Throughput, Latency and Disruption on Network and/or Infrastructure Affecting Simulation

Issue description

Network performance can deeply affect the live exercise

Referenced Documents

SG162 - CSI-02


TDL R-A2-020

Analysis :

The network that connects Federates is a critical component of the MTDS infrastructure. In the past existing networks, mainly the CFBL network, have been used as backbones of the MTDS. The MTDS Network also comprises National Networks that are connected to National CFBL PoP. In many case the integration of different and heterogeneous network has causes some performance issues. The network architecture must be accurately defined and testes in order to limit these issues

Solution :





NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-77

Issue title Protocols and Services

Issue description

Protocols used in data & voice exchange


SG162 - CSI-02


TDL.R2

Analysis :

Current simulation protocols and commonly used services are all IP based. We do not expect this to change in the near future.

Solution :

The issue doesn’t require any solution


No action plan shall be proposed


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-78

Issue title Multi-Architecture Simulation Environments

Issue description

Usage of different standards for simulated data exchange


MSG-86-2


TDL.R2

Analysis :

Using more than one simulation architecture (e.g., DIS, HLA, TENA, etc.) within a single simulation environment often leads to interoperability problems. Even if commercial gateways exist and can be used to translate data from a standard to another, it’s suggested to define single standard federations. Gateways in some case can have limits in translation and can generate additional stability issues.

Solution :





NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-79

Issue title Different FOM or SDEM versions

Issue description

Different Data Exchange Model across the federation


MSG-86-4


TDL.R2

Analysis :

If systems that are required to exchange data do not comply with the same data exchange model, interoperability is severely limited. Even if commercial gateways exist and can be used to translate data from a standard to another, it’s suggested to define single standard federations. Gateways in some case can have limits in translation and can generate additional stability issues.

Solution :





NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-80

Issue title Lack of agreed levels for entity resolution and capabilities

Issue description

Two semantically equivalent entities may be represented in different levels of detail and behavior.


MSG-86-8


TDL R-A2-020

Analysis: Simulation members may disagree on level of detail of shared entities in a simulation environment. Missing simulation details can be a strong issue for some Federates.

This also applies to terrain resolution/representation and Link data representation.

Solution:





NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-81

Issue title Data encoding

Issue description

Incorrect data encoding/decoding, data marshalling


MSG-86-10


TDL R-A2-020

Analysis:

Data models specify the data structure but not the encoding of actual values. Individual implementations may encode data differently. This will lead to strange data values read from the network and crashes of application.

Solution:





NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-82

Issue title Limitations in coupling simulations and live systems when using operational protocols of live systems

Issue description

Incorrect data encoding/decoding, data marshalling


MSG-86-15


TDL.R3

Analysis:

Live units and some legacy simulators: for NATO country that participate to the NATO TDL/CAT-ITS interoperability's issues and Gaps are known. The problem arises as live systems are primarily designed for use in real/operational environments. When coupling simulation and live systems limitations in the interoperability between these systems can exist due to restriction in the information exchange between the systems. These limitations can be caused by physical properties, available interfaces and available protocols.

Within a distributed simulation environment additional information may be required when exchanging information with virtual/constructive simulations. Making this additional information available is often not an easy task and might require changes to the existing operational interfaces

Simulators and CGFs: There is no guarantee that their implementation is compatible with TDL in Live assets. Therefore, there can be additional issue due since Live asset often doesn’t accept even minor errors or lack in TDL message implementations.

Solution:





NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-83

Issue title Temporal Anomalies

Issue description

This issue groups many issues types related to time management


MSG-86-29


TDL R-A2-030

TDL R-A2-040

Analysis:

This issue groups many issues types related to time management (Differences in Precision of Time Representation, Differences in Precision of Time Resolution, Anomalies caused by Unsynchronized Time, Anomalies caused by Network Latency).

Time management shall be carefully examined, especially if real assets are included in MTDS exercise. It may be necessary define a common external reference time for all assets included in the exercise. L16 Synchronization Issue When the virtual and constructive part simulate several L16 units connected to the real network through MIDS terminal a fine synchronization problem can occur. L16 Synchronization process has three phases: Net Entry / coarse synchronization / fine synchronization To enter in fine synchronization terminals listen PPLI messages (time and position quality) and then transmits Round Trip Timing (RTT) Interrogation to units with higher time/position qualities. Successful exchange of RTTs brings the terminal into Fine Synchronization. In Fine sync the terminal may transmit all message types. Fine synchronization is necessary to exchange data on link 16 Problem arise in MTDS because real MIDS terminal location can be very different to the simulated (Unit PPLI on PG 7) and when a live fighter terminal will try to fine sync it will fail, blocking the exchange of L16 Messages.

L11 and VMF are less impacted for synchronization due to their specificities.

L22 synchronization with simulations assets impact has to be determine when L22 shall be widely deployed.

Solution:





NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-84

G3.3.3.3 Issues Categories Analysis: Recommended solution and Action Plan

Issue Category

MTDS Specification

Detailed Category Description

This category groups all issues that can be related to organization and planning of MTDS activities, including issues derived by incomplete or wrong Federation Agreement. Any lack or insufficient details in specification of interfaces (standard used, data formats, supported interactions, dynamic behavior of interface) could have a strong impact in interoperability for Data Link exchange in MTDS Federation. This issue is strictly correlated with the kind of MTDS activities that has been carried out so far: almost all activities has been experimentation/trials in order to assess the feasibility of distributed simulation and the benefits, for training and integration, that such activity can bring. Since feasibility has been widely demonstrated and benefit are almost clear, we are now moving toward a more structured capacity. This requires that common Systems Engineering methodologies for specification and documentation of complex systems should be applied while designing a MTDS exercise.

Recommended Solution & Suggested Activities A methodology should be put in place in order to verify that the specification of the MTDS federation covers properly all the relevant items correlated with interoperability issues, in terms of federation agreement and specification of services and interfaces. This methodology or process can be a part of a more complex process that can be put in place to derive MTDS architecture and activities to be carried on from the operational needs that triggers the entire process. To concentrate on the specific issue of maximize the Interoperability of federates about Data link exchange, these could be the recommendation:

1. Consider that a complex MTDS exercise requires a long project phase in order to reduce interoperability issues discovered during execution phase, when a delay in activities can be hardly recovered.

2. Creation Interface Control Documents that describes all the protocols required for MTDS. This document should include all reference to standards (including versions), FOM and SW cots (i.e. HLA RTI) that should be used in the federation.

3. Creation of a shared of an Interface Dynamic Behavior document 4. Early definition of simulated operational scenario in order to verify that the Data Link

simulation level of each federate is sufficient to support the selected scenario 5. Preliminary analysis of Network requirements (starting from operational scenarios and

federate composition) in terms of bandwidth, latency to establish critical parameters and IP protocols that must be supported. Preliminary design of network composition and architecture (main backbone, architecture of national points of access, number and role of national nodes) in order to highlight network capacity and limitations (i.e. usability of multicast & broadcast)


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-85

Issue Category

MTDS Specification


Short term Develop a template for federation agreement that include all relevant protocol definitions and standards.

Develop Templates for Interface Control Document and Interface Dynamic Behavior

Mid term Create a library of federation agreement used during different exercises

Consolidate Federation Agreement and Interface Documents

Define certification process for main interfaces in MTDS

Long term Realize certification process and tools


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-86

Issue Category



Data link exchange are a central feature of MTDS data exchange and federation. MTDS focuses on training of operative people in a synthetic environment and training of modern combat equipment and systems cannot disregard the reproduction of operational data exchange. The challenge in Data Link exchange in MTDS activities is reproducing over an IP network data flows that is normally done through radio communications. This is easier for modern data link, that apart from the different transport layer, actually are messages exchanged over an IP network. It is a bit more complex in case of “old” data link (like Link11). Another level of complexity derives from evolutions occurred during time in Link definition, evolutions that caused the publication of different versions of link standards. Unfortunately, implementation of these evolutions of Data Link standards in operational systems and platforms has not been straightforward: unless the evolution brought a key functionality, usually systems has kept the original version of Data Link. Last but not least, when implementing these data flows in simulators, emulators and trainers, Nations and Companies has often ignored the presence of some standards for Data Link Exchange in synthetic environment and decided to use proprietary solutions and implementations.

All these circumstances lead to the current situation in which creating a MTDS federation by using legacy systems and simulators requires a complex architecture filled with gateways and translators necessary to guarantee a minimum level of interoperability between federates.

Recommended Solution & Suggested Activities Two kinds of solutions can be identified to reduce the impact of the above issue:

1. A short term solution to reduce interoperability issue for future federations, based the experience made in previous experimentations:

a. A collection of well-established gateways and translators solutions that can be used to translate different protocols (possibly with known suggestions on how to use them and well proved configurations of parameters)

b. An analysis of known issue in moving from one standard to another. A sort of compliance matrix between standards, in order identify strong interoperability issues in the early project phase and verify the impact of these issues on the MTDS activities

2. A long term solutions that can start from the definition of a suite of standards that are applicable in MTDS activities for the most relevant data flows. These baselines should be considered mandatory in development of new simulators and for old simulators refit. Considering the Data Link exchange, we can summarize here the suite of standards that can be identified for the protocols required by MTDS exercise:

a. Link 11: i. LINK11 over Simple

b. Link 16 i. LINK 16 over SIMPLE ii. JREAP iii. LINK 16 over HLA

c. Link 22 i. Link 22 over Simple

d. VMF: i. VMF messages over IP


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-87

Issue Category


e. NFFI i. NFFI messages over IP

f. FMV i. Streaming of FMV with “real” format over IP

g. AWCIES: i. AWCIES messages over IP

h. Voice Communications: i. VoIP for Management Communications ii. Multichannel VoIP for Operational Communications iii. Voice over DIS for Operational Communications iv. Voice over HLA for Operational Communications


Short term Define a suite of gateways to be used in case of different standards and develop missing gateways

Define matrix of known issue that limits translations from a standard to another

Start definition process of a common baseline of standards to be used for TDL exchange in MTDS

Mid term Consolidate the TDL for MTDS standards baseline and verify if the existing STANAG needs to be updated to fully meet the baseline requirements

Define a Standard for Voice communications between Live assets and Simulation Labs

Long term Realize certification process and tools in order to perform off-line verification of compliance to TDL for MTDS baseline for each MTDS Federate


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-88

Issue Category



Usage of standards is very useful but doesn’t guarantee that integration will be just plug and play. For many reasons that can vary from an incomplete definition of some details to different versions of standards, it could happen that selecting a standard is only the first step of an integration process. It’s always required to conduct some tests, focused on data exchange that are relevant for the activities, in order to verify that all federates, and systems can really exchange data. Usually these kinds of tests are very time consuming and require that both systems and MTDS network are available. Another solution could be the usage of tools, stubs and other components that allows to run test offline, a short of “certification” suite that can reduce the number of interoperability issue discovered during live test session or even during training sessions.

Recommended Solution & Suggested Activities Identify some relevant standards (HLA, Simple, Jreap, VMF, Voice communications) for which a certification process could be defined and put in place Verify the availability of any tool that can be used to certify the correct implementation of standards.

Include, if possible, off-line test in order to verify standard implementation


Short term Identify interfaces that can be subjected to certification process

Mid term Define Certification process

Long term Realize certification process and tools in order to perform off-line verification of compliance for each MTDS Federate


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-89

Issue Category

MTDS setting to work:


This category groups problems that can be solved or at least identified and managed during initial phase of MTDS activities. The early identification and management can drastically reduce impact (time and cost) on the core MTDS activities.

The solution to this type of problem (or at least mitigation of it) lies in the definition of a proper methodology for testing and setting up the distributed systems outlined for MTDS activity. This process is obviously very complex since the system is distributed (usually connected through a very complex network) and made of many components (simulators, training systems, real systems, network) selected between available ones (i.e. system made without/with few/with proprietary MTDS requirements).

Anyway, the experimentations of MTDS activities (like MSG-128) has been useful to identify principal issues categories and this can help in defining some methodologies to address and solve these issues

Recommended Solution & Suggested Activities Standardize test process for distributed systems

Define checklist containing relevant test for main issue categories (network, interoperability, simulation levels)

Verify that all know issue related to integration are covered by setting to work activity

Use any tool available to conduct interoperability test on single federates in off line mode.


Short term Identify standard test list to be performed foe each federate

Perform time synchronization trials to gather data

Verify availability of test tool to perform off-line tests

Mid term Define a shared Setting to Work Procedure

Define Certification process

Long term Realize certification process and tools in order to perform off-line verification of compliance for each MTDS Federate


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-90

G3.3.4 Current activities

The most relevant between current activities are the exercises executed in the MSG-128 RTG “Incremental Implementation of NATO Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS) Operations”. Objective of the MSG-128 activities are:

• establish essential elements for a NATO MTDS environment, including: • Concept, Standards and agreements, Legal and Security framework, • Services infrastructure, Standing operating procedures • validate these elements through initial operational test and evaluation • support a Smart Defence project on NATO MTDS

In MSG-128 four exercises were conducted and in last exercise also Data Link Link16 were exchanged between participants. In that case the presence of different legacy simulations forced to a “mixed” architecture, i.e. all the above-mentioned solution (Simple, Jreap and L16 over HLA) where used and two gateways were used to translate standards.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-91

G3.3.5 Data Link Interoperability Conclusions and Recommendations

The analysis of the subject Data Link Interoperability in MTDS lead to the definition of categories that can describe interoperability issues that usually need to be solved in MTDS activities:

1. MTDS Specification: a careful attention must be used in Specification Process of an MTDS exercise. During this phase it’s important to share among Federates through the Federation Agreement detailed information regarding any kind of data exchange and synchronization that will be required during the exercise. This will include not only specification od protocols and interfaces but also details about other features, like the level of fidelity required to the simulators involved in MTDS and Time Management

2. Data Link Applicable Standards: an important part of Federation Agreement should be the correct identification of standards to be used for Data exchange foe Data Link. Some gateways exist that can act as translator between different standards, but they can add some instability to the federation. The preferred solution should be the implementation of a single standard.

3. Data Link Standards Implementation: Standards can ease the integration process but often they don’t guarantee plug and play. Once the standard is selected it could be helpful to define an ICD document that specifies details about the standard implementation.

4. MTDS setting to work: the setting to work phase should become a standard process in order to discover in the initial phase critical issue that affects interoperability. The early identification and management can drastically reduce impact (time and cost) on the core MTDS activities. One of the most critical issues in this phase are the network availability and performances.

Data Link Interoperability with Live assets is also a topic that must be analysed in detail. It’s not include in this paragraph since there is a specific subject dedicated to interoperability Live-Virtual The following Action Plan summarizes the solutions proposed above for the issues categories Short Term Actions

• Use suite of gateways to integrate Federates Implementing Different Standards; missing gateways should be developed

• Create templates of TDL service capabilities covering entity resolution and messaging capabilities (ICD)

• Refine the process of Federation Agreement definition in order to be sure that covers all relevant details

• Refine the Setting to Work process of MTDS Federation, also by using Test Tools, in order to evaluate in early phase, the Federate Interoperability

Medium Term Actions:

• Create a Library of Federation Agreement and a shared Setting to work Procedure to standardize definition and setup of MTDS Federation.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-92

• Define a Certification Process in order to evaluate off-line the interoperability of systems

• Define a Standard for Voice communications between Live assets and Simulation Labs

Long Term Actions:

• Implement the Certification Process & Tools suite in order to evaluate off-line the interoperability of systems

G3.4 Live-Virtual Interoperability

This section addresses issues, gaps and solutions related to the blending of MTDS associated with Live-Virtual Interoperability (LVI). The analysis is based around outputs from SG162 and MSG-86. These outputs have been considered for interoperability between Live, Virtual and Constructive (LVC) systems.

G3.4.1 Requirement Identifications and Gaps

SG162-04 - Integration of Operational Systems LVI-R-B5-010 Connectivity method(s) between Cx and simulation systems should be defined and standardised.

GAP: YES. There is a lack of standardisation. Issue: NO.

SG162-05 - Live Aircraft Interface LVI-R-B5-020 Target position should be retrieved from weapon model (A/A, S/A, A/S missile model or bomb model) with a Real-Time Kill output.

GAP: YES. Insufficient information is exchanged to determine an accurate kill. Issue: NO.

MSG-86-2 - Interoperability of Multi-Architecture Simulation Environments LVI-R-B5-030 Simulation architecture should be able to support the interoperation of all member applications.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. Member applications are using a wide variety of incompatible standards.

MSG-86-8 - Lack of agreed levels for entity resolution and capabilities LVI-R-B5-040 Details, resolution, fidelity, behaviour should be represented in the same level.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. Varying levels of detail

MSG-86-10 - Data Encoding Consistency LVI-R-B5-050 At the end of data encoding/decoding, the new data should be correct/same with the actual values.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-93

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. Implementations of standards do not always realise exactly the same result.

MSG-86-12 - Limitations due to integration of live systems LVI-R-B5-060 Live systems should have simulation support or simulations should have live system integration capabilities.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. Embedded simulation / stimulation is not considered at the outset for the development of new equipment.

MSG-86-13 - Live system position LVI-R-B5-070 Live system position should be determined correctly.

GAP: YES. Live data is subject to systematic and random errors. Issue: NO.

MSG-86-14 - Information Exchange Issues LVI-R-B5-080 Changes in live systems should be reflected correctly to virtual or constructive simulations and vice versa.

GAP: YES. No standard. This is detailed further under SNE. Issue: YES. Changes in real environment are not easily reflected between systems.

MSG-86-15 - Limitations of coupling simulations and live systems LVI-R-B5-090 Live systems should be designed with an interface to support information required for distributed training.

GAP: YES. No clear route for which standards to be employed. Issue: YES. Space, Weight, Power for embedding additional equipment on live air platforms can impact performance.

MSG-86-29 - Temporal Anomalies LVI-R-B5-100 Time representation of live and simulation systems should be synchronized.

GAP: NO. Issue: YES. Differences in precision and synchronisation of time affect representation of federates.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-94

G3.4.2 Interoperability issue

Issue title Integration of Operational Systems

Issue description

A large variety of Cx interconnection protocols exist.


LVI-R-B5-010

Analysis

As indicated in SG162 it was determined that a large variety of Cx systems are operational and that additionally, a variety of Cx interconnection protocols exist. There is an increase in the use of ‘Open Standards’ but many legacy systems employ their own proprietary standards. There is limited connectivity to date of Live systems to distributed synthetic environments.

Issues / gaps associated with bearers e.g. frequency bands, bandwidth and security e.g. cryptology, protective markings and national caveats are further discussed in Annex C1.

Solution

Ideally all equipment should employ the same interconnection protocols / standards. This is something that can be progressively achieved over many years through the identification of best practice. This will lead to a more efficient exercise control. Provide or nominate an existing system as a central Simulation system with required Cx Interfaces.

Consideration needs to be given to the art of the possible of having a ‘Synthetic Wrap’ on board platforms that stimulates operational systems locally based on a common distributed synthetic environment.


Short term Integrate existing proxies / gateways per simulation exercise to centralise the needed information for all Cx Systems with different C2 Protocols to realise a coherent single point of truth for the exercise

Assess the use of on-board simulations / stimulations connected to a centralised, distributed synthetic environment.

Mid term Required information for the Cx assets should be gathered and allocated at the network operation centre to define a Cx specific FOM extension for common services. This should also consider any extensions or impacts on existing MSDL and C-BML standards.

Long term Development of a common Cx system and / or harmonize the Cx Interfaces.


SG162 (DEX-04) Distributed Simulation for Air and Joint Mission Training (2012), SINCE Experiments, MSG 128

Category: Simulation Architecture, Live System Integration, Live-Simulation Interoperability


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-95

Issue title Live Aircraft Interface

Issue description

Live aircraft can be stimulated with synthetic tracks via tactical data links but there is a lack of an open interface protocol for a ground based synthetic environment to provide training cues via an embedded simulator.


LVI-R-B5-020

Analysis

The pace of progress in having live aircraft confederated into a synthetic exercise has not advanced at the same rate as interoperability improvements in other sectors such as ground.

SG-162 suggested that the datalinks for Autonomous Air Combat Manoeuvring Instrumentation (AACMI) systems could be the mechanism for ground to combat air communications.

Solution

A ground to air protocol needs to be defined that identifies as a minimum:

• Target position(s).

• Weapon model e.g. an A/A, S/A, A/S missile or bomb.

• Real-Time Kill Notification (RTKN).


Short term Clarify / capture the interface requirements to further elaborate simulation architectures to facilitate model distribution options and information exchange. Identification of standardised approaches for integrating / evolving existing protocols.

Mid term Implementation of standardised approaches using a common synthetic environment.

Long term None


SG162 (DEX-04) Distributed Simulation for Air and Joint Mission Training (2012)

Category: Simulation Architecture, Live System Integration, Live-Simulation Interoperability Issue


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-96

Issue title Interoperability of Multi-Architecture Simulation Environments

Issue description

Interoperability problems occur when using more than one simulation architecture within a single simulation environment.


LVI-R-B5-030

Analysis

Using more than one simulation architecture (e.g. DIS, HLA, TENA, etc.) within a single simulation environment often leads to interoperability problems. This is due to different underlying assumptions (e.g. real-time simulation vs. time-managed simulation), different protocols and supported fidelities, and many other issues.

Usually, the implementation of a specific simulation environment is based on just one simulation architecture (e.g. HLA, DIS, or TENA) that is able to support the interoperation of all member applications. But sometimes it is necessary to mix several simulation architectures. This is because the required member applications do not obey just one simulation architecture. Additionally, there is a lack of best practice available to support addressing / overcoming issues.

Solution

Simulation architecture should be able to support the interoperation of all member applications. There are a number of approaches that could be adopted to define a solution, such as a change in requirements, the selection / mandate of member applications.

Additionally, the use of adapters or gateways to overcome differences in protocol and transmission would [functionally] facilitate interoperability between applications but could introduce performance [time] latencies. For example, the German AFV PUMA offers a connector to simulation systems in a way that the operator is able to train with the original equipment in a simulated environment that is shown on the display of the AFV.

Further solution approaches are defined within the scope of MSG-86 STO Technical Report: Simulation Interoperability (LC-01).


Short term Develop common gateway(s) applications to support interoperability of systems and mandate there use.

Mid term Investigate the use of commercially available gateways and appropriate security considerations.

Mandate common standards and associated FOM(s).

Long term Newly developed systems mandated to use common standards.


MSG-86 STO Technical Report: Simulation Interoperability (LC-01)

Category: Simulation Architecture


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-97

Issue title Lack of agreed levels for entity resolution and capabilities

Issue description

Correlation of details, resolution, fidelity and behaviours of entities are misrepresented by different applications.


LVI-R-B5-040

Analysis

Two semantically equivalent entities may be represented in different levels of detail and behaviour (accuracy, fidelity, precision), for example, a human may be defined with less or more properties. Simulation members may disagree on level of detail of shared entities in a simulation environment, such as one entity’s resolution being higher in some attributes, lower in others, and the same in still others.

Entity resolution can be represented with its attributes, such as the number of various weapons held by each battalion rather than assigning the battalion a net strength.

This issue also applies to terrain resolution/representation and data link representation and is closely related to conceptual modelling.

Fair fight issues may also be presented when integrating simulations representing systems at different resolution/fidelity levels.

Solution

Details, resolution, fidelity and behaviours should be represented in the same level. Potential solution approaches include;

• Development of documentation for domain specific standardised resolution levels for common entities: Resolution levels for different entities should be documented in a common standard and all relative properties should be described;

• Development of mediation functions to convert detail level of semantically equivalent entities; and

• Description of entities at different resolutions with standardized specification languages: B Method and Event-B are specification languages that allow representation of different entities and their refinements (high-resolution entity) with a well-defined specification language. These languages can be used to specify the relations of attributes that effect the simulation execution at different resolution levels. They provide validation of relation definitions, so inconsistencies between resolution levels would be minimized.


Short term Create mediation functions

Mid term Develop documentation for standardized resolution levels (common entities) and disclose models

Long term Use shared services instead of implementing models or properties


MSG-86 STO Technical Report: Simulation Interoperability (FI-02)

Category: Simulation Architecture


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-98

Issue title Data Encoding Consistency

Issue description

Inconsistency with member applications in the encoding and decoding of data.


LVI-R-B5-050

Analysis

Individual implementations may encode data differently. Data models specify the data structure but not the encoding of actual values. This will lead to anomalous data values being read from the source and potential crashes of applications. This issue occurs in runtime when data is exchanged between member applications. However, the root cause can usually be found in process-steps pre-runtime. Identified causes include:

• Misinterpretation of specification;

• Different implementations caused by ambiguous or unclear specification; and

• Bug (erroneous implementation).

For example, simulation environments that use the Simulation Execution Control State Transition pattern (MSG-052), this issue can be shown during transition between Ready to Initialise and Initialised for member applications when instances get an initial update in the simulation environment.

Solution

At the end of data encoding/decoding, new data should be correct/same with the actual values. Ensuring that runtime analysis tools are available for checking compliance with federation agreements including data encoding will enable early detection of this issue.

Approaches could include:

• Clarification of applicable federation agreements to members;

• Maximize the use of existing federation resources, such as:

o Knowledge Network for Federation Architecture and Design (MSG-52);

o Federation Engineering Agreements Template (FEAT);

• The use of bridging methods to separate out erroneous applications and apply conversion and/or adaptations to comply with agreements;

• Use capabilities of underlying infrastructure to apply runtime receiver and/or sender side data modification (requires the infrastructure can support this method);

• Adapting member application including extensive (re)test and (re)integration;

• Improve verification of data marshalling functions.


Short term Clarification of federation agreements relating to data encoding, decoding and marshalling.

Maximize the use of existing federation resources to inform design and development.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-99

Issue title Data Encoding Consistency

Mid term Create common specification database, monitor evolving requirements and standards.

Long term None


MSG-86 STO Technical Report: Simulation Interoperability (IN-001),

MSG-52: Knowledge Network for Federation Architecture and Design.

MSG-134: NATO Distributed Simulation Architecture and Design, Compliance Testing and Certification.

Simulation Interoperability Standards Organisation (SISO) SISO-STD-012-2013



NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-100

Issue title Limitations due to integration of live systems

Issue description

Capability limitations of Live system integration with Simulation and Simulation systems to Live


LVI-R-B5-060

Analysis

Live systems without existing external interfaces are hard to integrate without major changes in the system itself. Proprietary protocols require the involvement of the owner of the protocol to make any changes and/or solutions to adapt the system to the distributed environment.

In some cases, external interfaces are defined but not accessible due to security constraints, e.g. causing a live system to crash due to inappropriate use of interfaces or accessing secure information through an external interface. Historically, most current live systems have not been designed for simulation integration (present or future).

Solution

Live systems should have simulation support or simulations should have live system integration capabilities.

Some current live systems implement simulation support and can be said to be simulation-aware. The level of simulation-awareness and simulation capabilities of the live system determines the level of interoperability that can be achieved in a distributed simulation environment.

However, potential solutions could be to influence requirements for future live systems to accommodate the integration of simulations during design, the use of adapters and/or gateways to overcome differences in protocol and transmission with appropriate security levels.


Short term • Design all future live systems with simulation in mind i.e. make them 'simulation aware' from the beginning.

• Use adapters/gateways to overcome differences in protocol and transmission.

• Run current simulations in real time.

Mid term • Facilitate the exchange of member applications between systems.

• Update existing Virtual/Constructive-Simulations with real-time dynamics e.g., acceleration, speed, g-forces.

Long term • Develop Cross Domain Security (CDS) solutions to enable the simulation network to be approved for the necessary security levels.

• Develop a future policy that is then mandated by future requirements.

• Make sure that inputs/changes from Virtual/Constructive Simulation are represented in the real word.


MSG-86 STO Technical Report: Simulation Interoperability (LC-01)



NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-101

Issue title Live system position

Issue description

The position of a live system within a synthetic environment is often incorrectly represented.


LVI-R-B5-070

Analysis

A live system position typically comes from GPS. This data is often prone to error. When combining live and virtual/constructive systems, the position of the live system is subject to systematic and random (space and time) errors. Therefore Virtual/Constructive systems may experience Live-entities “jumping around”.

For example, live systems often use GPS for measuring their position. The accuracy of GPS can be several meters and may differ at different locations in space and time. Virtual and Constructive systems do not have this problem when positioning simulated entities (Ground Truth position). Live entities can also pull off complex manoeuvres that cannot be accurately represented in the synthetic environment due to limited data [sample period] availability.

Solution

There are a number of potential solutions that could improve the accuracy of live positional data; ideally there should be one master position source for each live entity that is derived, then communicated to each confederate in the exercise. The techniques that could be considered include:

• Use sensor data fusion.

• Use additional position systems (inertial navigation, fix point navigation).

• Use velocity measurement by wheel rotation.

• Incorporate additional knowledge on position information, for example by ground clamping or Kalman-Filtering.

The host location of the above techniques requires further consideration e.g. on-board the platform or ground station.


Short term Conduct an analysis of available positional information sources [both on-board and off-board] that could be fused to better report live positions.

Mid term Develop a configurable an application that can take in multiple positional data sources to produce a fused position.

Long term Develop dedicated high bandwidth datalink [new or existing bearer] to communicate high accuracy position to a ground station for broadcast to the distributed synthetic environment.


MSG-86 STO Technical Report: Simulation Interoperability



NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-102

Issue title Information Exchange Issues

Issue description

Information exchange issues between real and simulated systems.


LVI-R-B5-080

Analysis

Changes in the real environment are not easily reflected in virtual or constructive simulation systems and vice versa.

Environmental conditions which are changed in virtual or constructive simulation systems are not easily reflected in live systems and vice versa. There are various examples of this problem, e.g. if a munition explodes in a constructive simulation system it is hard to notify a live player that a crater now exists. This has terrain implications for ‘travers-ability’ or indicating areas which now could be used for cover (fair fight).

Additional, if damage is created in a constructive simulation system (environment) it is hard to realistically reflect that damage in a live player environment.

Solution

Ideally, changes in live systems should be reflected correctly to virtual or constructive simulations and vice versa (as far as practicable).

• Use displays (optronics) to broadcast changes in the simulated environment

• Use additional sensors to detect changes in real world and transfer those changes to the simulated environment (e.g. gate state, rain/fog sensors).

However, this issue is vast, so training priorities should be investigated and the impact of correlation issues / trade-offs. Annex B.2 (Terrain) further investigates some of these issues, including ‘fair fight’.


Short term Review current use of displays and sensors in LVC environments.

Review of training priorities to determine level of fidelity in LVC feedback correlation.

Mid term Investigation of the application of ‘broadcasting’ mechanisms via display / optronics solutions and technologies.

Long term None


MSG-86 STO Technical Report: Simulation Interoperability (LC-03). Annex B.2 Terrain



NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-103

Issue title Limitations of coupling simulations and live systems

Issue description

Limitations in coupling simulations and live systems when using operational protocols of live systems.


LVI-R-B5-090

Analysis

When coupling simulation and live systems limitations in the interoperability between these systems can exist due to restriction in the information exchange between the systems. These limitations can be caused by physical properties, available interfaces and available protocols. In the most extreme conditions this might even result in non-existent interoperability between the systems.

Live systems are primarily designed for use in real/operational environments. In general, the interfaces to other systems are also designed for the specific operational environment and its specific requirements. However, within a distributed simulation environment additional information may be required when exchanging information with virtual/constructive simulations. Making this additional information available is often not an easy task and might require changes to the existing operational interfaces.

Solution

In the conceptual model for the simulation environment there has to be a clear separation between tactical information of the live system (perceived truth) and the state of simulated objects (ground truth).

This may require enhancing the available interfaces so that all required information can be exchanged. However, making such changes to operational systems is often costly, might require involvement from the manufacturer of the system and certification of the system might restrict the changes that can be made

Special adapters may provide a connection between simulation systems and C2-systems. Adapters that work with standardized protocols can be reused and reduce the cost and make it easier to use in different simulation environments


Short term The application of adapters to provide connectivity.

Determine standardised protocols.

Mid term Enhancing available interfaces for required information exchange.

Implementation of standardised protocols for federation members.

Long term None


MSG-86 STO Technical Report: Simulation Interoperability



NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-104


Issue description

Synchronisation issues with time representation of live and simulation systems.


LVI-R-B5-100

Analysis

Differences in Precision of Time Representation: The fidelity of a simulation is affected by the internal time representation and time management in member applications (federates) in a simulation environment (federation execution).

Differences in Precision of Time Resolution: When the time resolution at member applications in a simulation environment differs, some problems may arise, events from member applications with low resolution (large time step) may for member applications with high resolution (small time step) be regarded as delayed and not received in time

Anomalies caused by Unsynchronised Time: A simulation environment executing with an unsynchronised perception of time among the member applications, may have problem with time stamped events.

Anomalies caused by Network Latency: In simulation environments with member applications using high update rates can a high network latency cause problems for time stamped events sent between the member applications. In framed based applications, the events that were supposed to be received in a frame may be delayed and delivered in a frame at a later time. This is more commonly in simulation environments with member applications communicating over WAN (Wide Area Network).

Solution

Time representation of live and simulation systems should be synchronized. There is nothing that prevents an application from using its own internal time representation and then adapting to the requirements of the simulation environment where it participates. It is desirable that applications can support a number of different time representations used in simulation environments.

Applications should be configurable to use a time resolution that is acceptable for application itself and supports the purpose of the simulation environment

A member application with a high time resolution can use Dead Reckoning to extrapolate spatial information of entities. A member application with a low time resolution can ‘down-sample’ the number of updates with Update Rate Reduction in HLA Evolved.

The HLA Time Management can be used to synchronise the time in the simulation environment, NTP, PTP, and GPS Time Synchronisation.


Short term Applications to use its internal time representation and adapting to requirements of the participating simulation environment.

Determine which applications can support a number of different time representations used in simulation environments.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-105


Mid term Investigate the application of HLA time management tools; NTP, PTP, GPS Time Synchronisation.

Applications should be configurable to use a time resolution that is acceptable for application itself and supports the purpose of the simulation environment.

Long term None


MSG-86 STO Technical Report: Simulation Interoperability (TM-01)


G3.4.3 Recommendations & Roadmap

The above identified issues crossed a number of common areas relating to interoperability of live, virtual and constructed systems. A ‘heat map’ was developed, which indicates how the issues may fall into one of more of the following categories:

• Simulation Architecture - Live platforms have no specific interfaces dedicated to receiving simulation data.

• Encoding & Decoding - Accuracy of simulations must be high in order to supply live platforms with high quality data

• Live System Integration - Implementation(s) of communications protocols in simulations must be adapted to support live platforms implementations since live platforms are not flexible or adaptable to partial or wrong implementations.

• Live-Simulation Interoperability - There are security issues related to connection of live platforms to simulation network.

• Time Management & Synchronisation - Time management: simulation must be run in real time and a common time synchronization source must be defined.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-106

Reference

Number Title

Simulation

Architecture Encoding & Decoding

Live System

Integration Live-Simulation

Interoperability Time Management &

Synchronisation

LVI-R-B5-010 Integration of Operational Systems

LVI-R-B5-

020 Live Aircraft Interface

LVI-R-B5-

030 Interoperability of Multi-Architecture

Simulation Environments

LVI-R-B5-

040 Lack of agreed levels for entity resolution

and capabilities

LVI-R-B5-

050 Data Encoding Consistency

LVI-R-B5-

060 Limitations due to integration of live systems

LVI-R-B5-

070 Live system position

LVI-R-B5-

080 Information Exchange Issues

LVI-R-B5-

090 Limitations of coupling simulations and live

systems

LVI-R-B5-

100 Temporal Anomalies

Table G-3 Interoperability Issue Heat-Map


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

G-107

This approach enabled us to develop an ‘investigation plan by category’ to support the detailed analysis which was conducted within this study. Simulation Architecture

• Investigate the applicability of commercially available gateways • Document and disclose models, conduct proper conceptual modelling • Use of shared services instead of implementing models or properties

individually Encoding & Decoding

• Identify Federation Agreements; agreement on encoding/decoding/marshalling

• Extensive testing (MSG-134 IVCT tool) • Develop transcoding gateways

Live System Integration

• Run simulations in real time • Extend VC-Simulation with real-time dynamic. e.g. (acceleration,

speed, g-forces...) • Ensure inputs/changes from virtual/constructive simulation are

represented in the real word • Use adapters/gateways to overcome differences in protocol and

transmission • Use a simulation network which is approved for the necessary security

level Live-Simulation Interoperability

• Design live systems with simulation in mind & vice versa • The use of sensors and displays to detect and broadcast changes (real

& simulated)

Time Management & Synchronisation

• Investigate the application of HLA time management tools; NTP, PTP, GPS Time Synchronization

• Determine the use of applications which can support a number of different time representations used in simulation environments

Table G-4 Investigation Plan by Category

In order manage and solve the above issues the following roadmap should be considered:

• Short term: o Take into account that integration of legacy live platform with simulations can

have some limitations. o Use adapters/gateways to overcome differences in protocol and transmission. o Run current simulations in real time. o Define a common policy for integration of live platforms. o Use GPS as time source for simulations.

• Medium Term o Update existing Virtual/Constructive simulations with real time dynamics. o Develop Cross Domain Security (CDS) solutions to enable the simulation

network to be approved for the necessary security levels. o Develop specific gateways to adapt and filter data exchanged between

simulation and live platforms. o Define specific standards for data exchange between simulation and live

platforms. • Long Term

o Design live systems with simulation in mind and vice versa. o Develop Dedicated data link for integration of live platform with simulation

federations.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED H-i

ANNEX H

TEAM C

IMPLEMENTATION

ON

NIAG SG215




The work described in this report was carried out under the provisions of the NIAG Study Order for Study Group 215. Disclosure, utilization, publication or reproduction of this report by industry is subject to pre-approval by NATO until such time as NATO may have released such work to the public.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED H-ii

INDEX H.1 Introduction 1

H.2 Analysis approach 2

H.3 Security Aspects 3

H3.1 Introduction 3

H3.2 Requirements 5

H3.3 Status Quo / State of the Art Solutions 6

H3.4 Analysis and Road Mapping 11

Appendix 1 Request for Information 13

H4 Common M&S repository and collaboration toolset 15

H4.1 Introduction 15

H4.2 Requirements 15

H4.3 Status Quo / State of the art solutions 17

H4.4 Analysis and Road Mapping 19

H5 MTDS Implementation plan 21

H5.1. Introduction and requirements 21

H5.2. Requirements 22

H5.3. Status Quo / State of the art 29

H5.4. Analysis and Road Mapping 41

H6 Conclusions and Recommendations 46

LIST OF FIGURES Figure H 3.1 : Typical Multi-Domain Security Architectures (MDSA) ......................................................... 3 Figure H 3-2 : Security Solutions ................................................................................................................. 13 Figure H 6-1 : Implementation Roadmap 3.................................................................................................. 46

LIST OF TABLES

Table H 3-1 : High Level Security Requirements .......................................................................................... 6 Table H 3-2 : MDSA Solution Assessment .................................................................................................... 8 Table H 3-3 : NATO Certified IP Encryption Products ............................................................................... 11 Table H 3-4 : NATO Certified Data Diodes................................................................................................... 11 Table H 3-5 : Implementation Roadmap for Identified Security Gaps ...................................................... 12 Table H 4-1 : MTDS Repository and Collaboration Toolset Requirements ............................................. 16 Table H 4-2 : MTDS Repository and Collaboration tools - State of the Art and Identified Gaps ........... 18 Table H 4-3 : Identified Gaps on MTDS Repository and Collaboration Tools ID ..................................... 20 Table H 5-1 : Requirements on MTDS Exercise Planning, Development and Delivery .......................... 25 Table H 5-2 : Requirements on MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance ............ 28 Table H 5-3 : Solutions and Gaps for MTDS Exercise Planning, Development and Delivery ................ 32 Table H 5-4 : Solutions and Gaps for MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance .. 40 Table H 5-5 : Implementation Roadmap for Identified Implementation Gaps.13 .................................... 45


NATO UNCLASSIFIED H-iii

ANNEX CONTRIBUTORS

The present Annex was produced by a dedicated Team of SG215 experts, supported by members of the Sponsor and the QRT groups. Specifically, the SG215 experts contributing to the production of this Annex are:

• Mr. Henk Janssen (TNO)

• Mr. Michael Jebautzke (ROCKWELL COLLINS GE)

• Mr. Robert Siegfried (ADITERNA)


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H.1 Introduction

The Study SG-215 on “future combined / joint distributed tactical training through simulation for joint and combined tasks and operations” addresses the next phase towards a persistent MTDS capability for NATO and Nations. This next phase will consist of two concurrent tracks: address how the current MTDS research results can be implemented and offered as a persistent, initial MTDS capability and address how technological innovations can be developed and implemented to further improve initial capability to meet NATO and national training objectives in the medium and long-term context of joint and combined simulated operations. This annex H deals with the results of the implementation aspects analysis for both tracks. Chapter H.2 describes the approach taken by the Team C for the performance of the study. Chapter H.3 describes the analysis and recommendations of Team C for the studied aspects on Security, focusing at the joint and combined MTDS mission domain and including live training assets. The objective for security architectures is to provide concurrently data interoperability and data protection. Chapter H.4 describes the analysis and recommendations of Team C for the studied aspects on the Repository. Chapter H.5 describes the analysis and recommendations of Team C for the studied aspects on the Implementation Plan, Chapter H.6 finally provides a general conclusion and recommendation with respect to the results of this study.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-2

H.2 Analysis approach

To analyse the Team C subjects of study, i.e. security, repository and implementation, the following approach is taken, and activities are performed:

1. Requirements analysis - Identify documents describing issues and requirements for MTDS subject

studied. - Analyse issues on security, repository and implementation and generate

requirements from available documentation

2. Status Quo / State of the Art solutions - Identify documents on state of the art solutions - Identify current state of the art solutions in relation to the identified requirements

3. Analysis and road mapping

- Analyse current solutions and identify gaps with respect to the requirements - Propose short term, mid-term and long-term solutions to fill gaps. - Recommend activities how to achieve short-term/mid-term/long-term solutions

4. Conclusions and recommendations - Derive and document conclusions and recommendations


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-3

H.3 Security Aspects

H3.1 Introduction

Information security is key to deliver realistic mission training via distributed simulation and is increasingly important as a necessity for future distributed tactical training through simulation. With current-day missions being joint and combined, in peacetime and wartime, coalition operations are foremost and essential. Thus, we need to train together, within and between nations. However, in any such scenario it is likely that some or all the information may be classified at a specific (national) classification level and need to be protected, be it scenarios, weapon and sensor capabilities or doctrines. Therefore, even between nations or participating organizations, access to sensitive data should be regulated with the proper privileges as agreed. This implies that adequate security measures are needed to deal with different security levels, which requires one or more of the Multi-Domain Security Architectures (MDSA) to be in place, as illustrated in Figure H 3.1 below:

• Multi Single Levels of Security (MSL)

• System High (SH)

• Multiple Independent Levels of Security (MILS)

• Multi-Level Security (MLS)

Figure H 3.1 : Typical Multi-Domain Security Architectures (MDSA)

Combined and joint training exercises often use the Multi Single Levels of Security (MSL) approach when two or more operational data networks which are in different security domains. These networks are electrically separated. An individual person may manually transfer dedicated information from one security domain to another security domain in


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-4

accordance with applicable IA security policy. MSL is used for example at NATO Trident Juncture which is one of largest annual exercises with 36.000 soldiers from 30 Nations. The National and NATO operational and training networks are kept separate without any direct connectivity and only “operators on a swivel chair” may exchange information. Very often the System High (SH) security approach is utilized for Mission Training with Distributed Simulations (MTDS). In a network with differently classified simulators, all connected simulators have to be re-classified to the highest classification level in the network. This approach is practiced for example by all NATO MSG-128 exercises using the NATO CFBLNet as common network, which is classified at NATO Secret. All connected simulators are thus classified NATO Secret. If two separate networks within different security domains are connect together, it is typically called a Multiple Independent Levels of Security (MILS) architecture. The connection between the two networks can be established by a simple Data Diode or a programmable Information Exchange Gateway (IXG). The Data Diode will only allow data flow from the lower classified security domain to the higher classified security domain, in accordance with the security policy, and will block any data flow from high to low. An IXG will selectively block or forward data flow bi-directionally between the security domains in accordance with the provided security policy. MILS has been demonstrated in experiments but is not often practiced in real MTDS exercises. The most flexible security architecture would be a real Multi-Level Security (MLS) solution for joint and combined training and operations. MLS enables full connectivity between Live, Virtual and Constructive (LVC) network participants. In a MLS domain all information is stored in a secured enterprise network that is trusted to contain sensitive data at various classification levels. The trusted system can release data to each system (or user) based on “need-to-know” permissions in accordance with pre-registered identity management policies. The release mechanism, often referred to as Trusted Guard, may be based on the classification and information content. Encryption/decryption may also be implemented in accordance with the data classification, but this is not considered to be part of the Trusted Guard. Distributed training centres equipped with a MDSA are connected through a secure classified Wide Area Network (WAN), some of the current implementations are presented below:

• Joint Training & Experimentation Network (JTEN) o Classification: US SECRET o Owner: USA

• Distributed Mission Operations Network (DMON) o Classification: US SECRET o Owner: USA

• Combined Federated Battle Laboratories Network (CFBLNet) o Classification: up to NATO SECRET o Owner: NATO


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-5

H3.2 Requirements

Table H3.1 provides an overview of the high-level security requirements. The column “Req. ID” provides a unique identifier for each High-Level Security Requirement starting with SG-215-SR-01 and counting up the last 2 digits. In the column “High Level Requirements” each entry has an underlined topic and a short requirements statement. The column “Examples” provides typical examples for each requirement. The columns “References” lists the ID reference number of issues as identified by Teams A and B.

Req. ID High Level Requirements Reference Detailed explanation

SG215-

SR-01

IA Design Compliance

The design, structure and

installation of the MDSA shall be

compliant with the National and

NATO IA Security

Requirements.

SG162-21

SG162-40

These IA security requirements could be based on

national or international guidelines or standards, e.g. the

Common Criteria for Information Technology Security

Evaluation (CC).

SG215-

SR-02

IA Policy Compliance

The data storage and data flow

within the MDSA shall be

compliant with the IA Security

Policy as provided by the data

owner.

SG162-40

MSG-86-16

MSG-86-17

The IA Security Policy shall define the classification level

of data e.g. Unclassified, National Restricted, National

Secret, NATO Restricted, or NATO Secret. Furthermore,

the data owner shall define which participant is allowed

to receive which data on a need to know basis.

Configurable MDSA’s like Multiple Independent Levels of

Security (MILS) with Information Exchange Guard (IXG)

and Multi-Level Security (MLS) require a sophisticated

IA Security Policy.

SG215-

SR-03

IA Accreditation

The MDSA and its environment

shall be verified, certified and

accredited by the responsible

National or NATO IA authorities.

SG162-40

MSG-86-16

Any MDSA typically has to be certified and accredited by

multiple IA authorities which requires a faithful

cooperation between the different IA authorities, e.g.

NCIA (NATO), CESG (UK), ANSSI (France), BSI

(Germany), MIVD (Netherlands), or NSA (USA).

If the MDSA is configurable re-certification and re-

accreditation might be required, each time the setup is

changed.

SG215-

SR-04

International Interoperability

The MDSA shall provide

connectivity between MTDS

assets to enable bi-directional

data transfer in accordance with

given security policies.

SG162-21

SG162-39

The MDSA shall provide connectivity and interoperability

between (inter)national MTDS assets. Information flow

shall be from and to any participating asset. Data could

be differently classified, e.g. National Restricted,

National Secret, NATO Restricted or NATO Secret, or

Unclassified. Classified data shall be transferred

between the connected assets only as permitted by the

given IA Security Policy.

SG215-

SR-05

Performance Limitations

The MDSA shall not limit the

performance of the MTDS

network so that realistic and fair

fight training won’t be

jeopardized

SG162-39 The MDSA shall not limit the performance of the MTDS

network so that the functionality, realistic and fair fight

training won’t be jeopardized. There could be technical

reasons for a performance limitation, like network

bandwidth reductions or increase of latency. Other

performance limitations could be caused by missing data

at one of the MTDS participants as result of the given

and applied security policy.

SG215-

SR-06

Interface Compliance SG162-39 The MDSA shall connect different MTDS assets as they

could be Live, Virtual or Constructive (LVC) types, as


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-6

Req. ID High Level Requirements Reference Detailed explanation

The MDSA shall connect to the

different MTDS assets and

networks and handle data

formats.

they could be provided by different suppliers, as they

could use different data formats, protocols, and

languages like TCP/IP, DIS, HLA, HLA-e, TDL, audio,

video etc. The MDSA shall be flexible to deal with any

kind of existing and future data formats.

SG215-

SR-07

Management and Operation

The MTDS shall be managed

and operated by a dedicated

organization.

SG162-21

MSG-86-19

The MTDS shall be managed and operated by an

appropriate organization. MTDS’s require close

international cooperation in the planning, preparation,

execution and post-processing when utilized in

international MTDS exercises. A dedicated MTDS

organisation coordinating the security aspects shall be

nominated by each participating nation.

Table H 3-1 : High Level Security Requirements

H3.3 Status Quo / State of the Art Solutions

To date, mainly the Multi Single Levels of Security (MSL), the System High (SH), and the Multiple Independent Levels of Security with Data Diodes (MILS/DD) approaches are practiced. All of them cause some dedicated challenges or issues which will be elaborated in this chapter. More sophisticated Multi Domain Security Architectures (MDSA) like Multi Independent Levels of Security with Information Exchange Gateways (MILS/IXG) or Multi Level Security (MLS) solutions are as of recently available but not yet utilized for MTDS. The employability of MILS or MLS for MTDS still has to be investigated. In this chapter the different MDSAs and the current compliance with the High Level Security Requirements are compared and evaluated. In Table H3.2 the compliance of each security approach and current availability is compared with each High Level Requirement. The columns “Req. ID” and High Level Requirements” are the same as in Table H3.2. The columns “MSL”, “SH”, “MILS/DD”, MILS/IXG, and “MLS” represent the different MDSAs. The assessment in Table H3.2 is categorised as follows:

Colour Marking

Category Meaning

Exists Today High Level Security Requirement currently is met without requiring any further work

Feasible with minor issues

High Level Security Requirement can be generally achieved with a little effort

Feasible with major issues

High Level Security Requirement can be achieved only with extraordinary efforts

Not supported High Level Security Requirement cannot be achieved


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-7

Req. ID High Level Requirements

State of the Art

Gap ID Gap identified MSL SH

MILS

/DD

MILS

/IXG MLS

SG215-

SR-01

IA Design Compliance

The design, structure and installation of the

MDSA shall be compliant with the National

and NATO IA Security Requirements.

SG215-

SGP-01

SG215-

SGP-02

SH requires extraordinary efforts for setup and

dismounting of re-classified equipment

Some Nations currently don’t allow MILS/IXG

or MLS security architectures for MTDS

SG215-

SR-02

IA Policy Compliance

The data storage and data flow of the

MDSA shall be compliant with the IA

Security Policy provided by the owner of

the data.

SG215-

SGP-03

Nations currently don’t have a Security Policy

for MILS/IXG or MLS

SG215-

SR-03

IA Accreditation

The MDSA shall be verified, certified and

accredited by the responsible National or

NATO IA authorities.

SG215-

SGP-04

SG215-

SGP-05

IA Authorities currently can’t approve MILS/IXG

or MLS because of missing national policies

Each time a SH of MILS/DD is set up a full

certification/accreditation has to be performed

SG215-

SR-04

International Interoperability

The MDSA shall provide connectivity

between MTDS assets to enable bi-

directional data transfer IAW given security

policies.

SG215-

SGP-06

MSL and MILS/DD don’t provide bi-directional

international interoperability

SG215-

SR-05-

Performance Limitations

The MDSA shall not limit the performance

of the MTDS network so that realistic and

fair fight training won’t be jeopardized

SG-215-

SGP-07

MSL and MILS/DD don’t support bi-directional

data and transfer preventing fair fight training

SG215-

SR-06

Interface Compliance

SG-215-

SGP-08

MSL doesn’t support a real-time interface


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-8

Req. ID High Level Requirements

State of the Art

Gap ID Gap identified MSL SH

MILS

/DD

MILS

/IXG MLS

The MDSA shall connect to the different

MTDS assets and networks and handle

data formats.

SGP215-

SGP-09

SH and MILS can handle most data formats

but have limited access to live assets

SG215-

SR-07

Management and Operation

The MDSA implemented for MTDS shall be

managed and operated by an (NATO)

authorized organisation

SG215-

SGP-10

No dedicated (NATO) authorized organisation

exists for MDSA management and operation.

Table H 3-2 : MDSA Solution Assessment


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-9

For each MDSA the gaps are analysed and further detailed. The following section provides, for each MDSA, an analysis and detail explanation on the gaps identified. This information is used for roadmapping and the recommendations provided in the next subchapter.

Multi Single Levels of Security (MLS) Although Multi Single Levels of Security (MSL) is often applied for joint and combined operations this Multi Domain Security Architecture (MDSA) is not practicable for Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS). MSL doesn’t support electrical interfaces between different security domains which prevents real-time data exchange as required for real-time simulations. These issues can’t be solved, either administratively or technically, therefore MSL is not an option for MTDS today.

System High (SH) The SH approach is mainly utilized for current international MTDS setups. However, it is often impractical, costly and time consuming to bring lower classified assets up to a higher classification level or vice versa. The design an asset might not be compliant with the IA security requirements for the required classification level. The IA policy might not allow at all to connect the lower classified asset to the SH network. Usually the administrative efforts to achieve an IA accreditation for this equipment are quite laborious. In most cases the equipment needs to be reconfigured to the original classification level after the performance of the MTDS. If a lower classified IT system has connected to a higher classification level IT system, it might be required to securely erase all data storage systems of that IT system. All these efforts have to be repeated for each time the SH approach will be applied. SH is currently the first choice for MTDS, but alternative permanent solutions are preferred.

Multiple Independent Levels of Security with Data Diode (MILS/DD) A MILS/DD setup allows only data flow from lower to higher classification levels but not vice versa. The lower classified domain will not get any information from the high classified domain thereby preventing realistic and fair fight training: the lower classified simulator cannot ‘’see’’ the higher classified level target, but it can only fire a shot blindly which may kill the target. For different national classification levels which have no clear higher or lower classification level equivalences, common classification levels need to be defined at the coalition level to obtain realistic training. Although NATO certified Data Diodes exist, see Table C3.4, this MDSA is rarely utilized because of these constraints.

Multiple Independent Levels of Security with Information Exchange Gateway (MILS/IXG) The concept of MILS/IXG architecture is a smart and flexible solution for MTDS. The design of MILS/ IXG is certainly not trivial as it needs to comply with IA Security Requirements and Policies of different Nations, as well as meet performance requirements for realistic training. Currently MILS/IXG is not utilized for MTDS as there is no applicable IA Security Policy provided by the dedicated Authorities. MILS/ IXG could be permanently installed supporting fast setup of MTDS, providing an appropriate interface to all connected training assets and performing all the administrative work to prepare a MTDS with MILS/IXG would still be a remarkable effort.

Multi-Level Security (MLS) True MLS would allow flexible access to all data of connected assets with full consideration of all applicable IA Security Policies and Requirements. The MTDS setup can even be extended to Live, Virtual and Constructive (LVC) training elements in a single network backbone comprising of Live and Synthetic entities. Principally the same constraints as for MILS/ IXG apply but this approach would allow highest flexibility and enable future LVC concepts. Although MLS solutions already exist lack of IA Security Policies are preventing


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-10

further employment. Verification of the performance of the proposed MLS solutions in an MTDS context is also required before further recommendations for full operational deployment can be developed.

State of Art solutions Currently the following NATO certified products supporting MDSA for MTDS exist and are listed in the NATO Information Assurance Product Catalogue (NIAPC) IP Encryption could be part of the Multi Domain Security Architecture (MDSA) or could be part of the classified network. A list of NATO certified IP Encryption is provided in Table H3.3. Data Diodes could be utilized in Multi Independent Levels of Security (MILS) solutions. A list of NATO certified Data Diodes is provided in Table H3.4.

Product Classification Manufacturer Country

TCE 621/N COSMIC TOP SECRET Thales Norway Norway

KG-175 COSMIC TOP SECRET General Dynamics United States

CM 109 IP COSMIC TOP SECRET Selex ES Italy

CM 2000 IP COSMIC TOP SECRET Selex ES Italy

TCE 621/B COSMIC TOP SECRET Thales Norway Norway

TCE 621/C COSMIC TOP SECRET Thales Norway Norway

AltaSec KG-250 COSMIC TOP SECRET ViaSat United States

SINA-Box H NATO SECRET SECUNET Germany

SINA-Box S / byp NATO CONFIDENTIAL SECUNET Germany

SINA-Client H NATO SECRET SECUNET Germany

SINA-Client S NATO CONFIDENTIAL SECUNET Germany

Datacryptor AP NATO CONFIDENTIAL Thales United Kingdom

TCE 621/B DUAL COSMIC TOP SECRET Thales Norway Norway

TCE 621/B AES NATO SECRET Thales Norway Norway

TCE 621/C DUAL COSMIC TOP SECRET Thales Norway Norway

TCE 621/C AES NATO SECRET Thales Norway Norway

TCE 671 COSMIC TOP SECRET Thales Norway Norway

TCE 621/M NATO SECRET Thales Norway Norway

MISTRAL IP Corporate/Gigabit

NATO RESTRICTED Thales France

SITLine ETH Encryptor NATO RESTRICTED Rohde & Schwarz Germany

KG 250X Release 2.0 COSMIC TOP SECRET ViaSat United States

IPS 250 NATO SECRET ViaSat United States

TCE 621/C BLACK NATO SECRET Thales Norway Norway

TCE 621/V NATO SECRET Thales Norway Norway

TCE 621/V AES NATO SECRET Thales Norway Norway


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-11

Product Classification Manufacturer Country

ECHINOPS TRC7530-n-C

NATO SECRET Thales France

EP430GN NATO SECRET DF EPICOM Spain

Mini-CATAPAN Suite A - BID/2420/1

COSMIC TOP SECRET L3 TRL Technology United Kingdom

Mini-CATAPAN Suite B - BID/2490/1

NATO SECRET L3 TRL Technology United Kingdom

SITLine ETH NATO RESTRICTED Rohde & Schwarz Germany

SITLine ETH 50 NATO RESTRICTED Rohde & Schwarz Germany

Table H 3-3 : NATO Certified IP Encryption Products

Product Manufacturer Country

BAE System Data Diode - EAL 7 BAE Systems United Kingdom

Speed Data Diode (HSDD) NCIA NATO

Fox DataDiode EAL 7+ 1Gbps Fox-IT Netherlands

ELIPS-SD Thales France

BAE System Data Diode - EAL 7 1Gbps BAE Systems United Kingdom

SyBard Data Diode Version 3 QinetiQ United Kingdom

Owl Perimeter Defence Solution Multi Purpose cross-domain Data Diode (Version 4)

4 Secure United States

Owl 2500 DualDiode data diode cross-domain Communication Cards (Version 6)

4 Secure United States

Table H 3-4 : NATO Certified Data Diodes

In order to identify additional state of the art solutions, a Request for Information (RFI) was developed (see Appendix). However, due to possible competitive information releasability concerns, it was estimated that provided response would not be sufficient to allow a proper comparison of the industry technologies. Therefore, the decision was made not to distribute the RFI. Instead, NATO approved security solutions were used as a benchmark for the state of the art solutions.

H3.4 Analysis and Road Mapping

A gap analysis has been performed and solutions to address the gaps have been determined. Implementation of solutions on a timescale (short-term, mid-term and long-term) is estimated based on complexity of technology and knowledge/experience on NATO and national processes on common developments and agreements. The following table provides the overview of the identified gaps, the solution foreseen and estimated timescale for implementation. Furthermore, identified gaps which belong to an overarching recommendation are clustered within that recommendation. For each of the corresponding sub-recommendations however, a different implementation timeframe can be applicable.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-12

Gap ID Gap Description Reco ID

Recommendation Implementation

SG215-SGP-01

SH requires

extraordinary efforts for

setup and dismounting of

re-classified equipment

SG215-SR-01

SH should be considered only as interim MDSA. This architecture may be utilized as long as permanent MILS/IXG or MLS solutions will be available.

Short-term

SG215-SGP-05

For each time a SH or MILS/DD is set up a full certification/accreditation has to be performed

SG215-SR-02

For recurring MTDS training events, pre-certify and pre-accredit the MDSA. Manage and operate the MDSA during training delivery.

Short-term

SG215-SGP-02

Some Nations currently don’t allow MILS/IXG or MLS security architectures for MTDS

SG215-SR-03

NATO and nations should request from industry to demonstrated MILS/IXG and MLS solutions to evaluate the compliance with operational and training needs. Furthermore, NATO and national IA Authorities should be involved to assess IA compliance.

Short-term

SG215-SGP-03

Nations currently don’t have a Security Policy for MILS/IXG or MLS

SG215-SR-04

Nations should define Security Policies based on the latest IA technologies like MILS/IXG and MLS enabling IA Authorities to certify these architectures

Mid-term

SG215-SGP-04

IA Authorities currently can’t approve MILS/IXG or MLS because of missing national policies

SG215-SR-05

Design, Develop and demonstrate MDSA solutions for MTDS and develop, together with national security authorities, required policies

Mid-term

SG215-SGP-06

MSL and MILS/DD don’t

provide bi-directional

international

interoperability

SG215-SR-06

Do not use MSL and MILS/DD for MTDS.

SG215-SGP-09

SH and MILS can handle most data formats but have limited access to live assets

SG215-SR-07

Take MLS as long term solution for full LVC interoperability

Long-term

SG215-SGP-10

No dedicated (NATO) authorized organisation exists for MDSA management and operation.

SG215-SR-08

Establish an (NATO) MDSA Management Organisation capable of managing and operation of security related aspects of the MTDS infrastructure.

Short-term

Table H 3-5 : Implementation Roadmap for Identified Security Gaps


NATO UNCLASSIFIED H-13

Appendix 1 Request for Information

The NIAG Study SG-215 on “future combined / joint distributed tactical training through simulation for joint and combined tasks and operations” addresses how technological innovations can be implemented to improve the capability to meet NATO and national training objectives in the context of joint and combined simulated operations. It is likely this capability will utilise simulation and live training systems operating at different protective markings (NATO and National) within a coalition environment. However, National simulation and training models exist within different security domains and, as such, these National models will need to be protected while releasable information needs to be shared between the different live and simulated training systems. Therefore, interoperability between these simulation and training systems will require information exchange between them across different security boundaries. Supporting multi security domain information sharing requirements may require the use of a mix of cross domain security solutions, which will also require to be accredited for use at NATO Coalition and National Levels. Two potential approaches to provide such solutions are provided below (Figure H3-2).

Figure H 3-2 : Security Solutions

1. Multiple Independent Levels of Security (MILS) - In this approach data is separated into

different domains, depending on the classification. An Information Exchange Gateway

(IEG) is required, typically between two or more different security domains, to achieve

cross domain information sharing.

2. Multi-Level Security (MLS) - In a Multi-Level Security (MLS) approach all information is

stored in a single trusted environment trusted to contain data at various levels of security.

The trusted environment can release data to each system (or user) based on “need-to-

know”. The release mechanism, often referred to as Trusted Guard, may be based on

the classification and information content.

Any security solution for the above must comply with an accredited Multi-Domain Security Architecture (MDSA). In this context, the MDSA provides all necessary hardware and software components required to connect distributed synthetic and live training environments with different classification domains/networks. This Request for Information (RFI) invites organisations to provide information, ideas and views in relation approaches outlined above and in particular information on or descriptions of products and solutions they may have to satisfy the MDSA.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-14

Relevant information may include, but should not limited to, the following key attributes:

• Current TRL and planned TRL,

• Maximum throughput / latency,

• Size, Weight and Power Requirements of the guard/product/solution,

• To which security classification level(s) or standard has the solution been certified and by which Nation/Agency,

• Bi-directional information exchange capability of guard/product/solution,

• Export Control / Releasable to NATO Nations, Partner nations, Others

• Support for simulation and training (e.g. DIS/HLA interface, VOIP)


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-15

H4 Common M&S repository and collaboration toolset

H4.1 Introduction

Efficient and effective MTDS requires a common modelling and simulation repository and collaboration toolset to enable interoperability between NATO and National Training centres and to support the MTDS network. The common M&S repository should give users access to information about available simulators and tools (e.g., middleware, analysis tools), and together with a collaboration toolset it should support the whole MTDS exercise lifecycle (i.e. planning, development, execution and analysis). In alignment with the definitions of NATO MSG-136 “M&S as a Service”, the following terms are used:

A registry stores information about simulation resources and provides capabilities for discovering simulation resources (e.g., browse resources, search for resources). A repository stores the actual simulation resources and provides user access to the resources. Metadata are used to describe simulation resources to enable decisions to be made if a specific simulation resource satisfies a requirement and how to acquire it.

Unfortunately, the terms registry and repository are often used ambiguously and depending on the actual implementation a user may be unable to distinguish between both. Unless mentioned otherwise the “common M&S repository” described by this Study Group includes both, a registry and a repository. In cases where this distinction is important, it will be explicitly mentioned. The metadata is typically used to populate the registry and enables queries for resources.

H4.2 Requirements

The high-level requirement for a common M&S repository is already defined in the NATO M&S Master Plan (NMSMP). Among the objectives of the NMSMP is the establishment of a common technical framework to advance and promote interoperability and reuse. A recognized central catalogue of M&S resources is essential in achieving these goals and objectives. The following high-level requirements for a common M&S repository and collaboration toolset are identified:

ID Description Reference SG215-MR-01

Common Repository A common repository shall be implemented to efficiently support the whole MTDS life cycle.

NMSMP

SG215-MR02

Types of Simulation Resources The following types of simulation resources shall be managed in a common repository (but are not limited to):

MSG-042


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-16

ID Description Reference - Object models - Terrain models and data sets - Simulators (information about capabilities, interfaces, availability,

etc.) - Simulation systems (LVC) - Simulation tools (runtime infrastructure components, recording

and analysis tools, document templates, …) - scenarios, settings, handbooks - Configuration files (e.g., initialization files for simulators etc. that

would allow repetition of exercises with low effort) SG215-MR03

Registry The common repository shall provide controlled access to metadata (like classification, distribution limitations, technical information like resolution, etc.) of simulation resources and services.

MSG-136

SG215-MR04

Repository access The repository shall provide controlled access to the actual individual resources (e.g., data sets, configuration file) whenever possible.

MSG-136

SG215-MR05

User Interface Access to the repository shall be available in a user-friendly way providing capabilities like searching or browsing for models, etc.

MSG-136

SG215-MR06

Identity and Access Management The repository shall use state-of-the-art identity and access management functions. User access to the repository shall be managed, monitored and controlled.

MSG-136, MSG-042

SG215-MR07

Exercise Management Services The repository shall provide services for managing MTDS exercises and shall be able to store exercise management information. The exercise management functions shall support the whole exercise lifecycle, i.e. Preparation, Execution and Evaluation of Exercises, e.g. - Exercise Preparation

o Definition of Objectives o Definition of Scenarios o Test Plan

- Exercise Execution - Exercise Evaluation

o Distributed Debriefing / AAR (Common Debriefing, Individual Debriefing)

o Common debriefing requires data exchange (video, etc.) o Evaluation of “high-level” training objectives

- Technical Debriefing / AAR Sim Performance

MSG-128 SG162

SG215-MR08

Collaboration Tool services The repository shall provide (standard) services for collaboration. This includes especially: - Voice Communication for administrative and management issues

(i.e., separated voice communication from operational/tactical voice communication that is used by the training audience)

- VTC - Chat - File share - Email

Table H 4-1 : MTDS Repository and Collaboration Toolset Requirements


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-17

H4.3 Status Quo / State of the art solutions

The NATO Modelling & Simulation Group (NMSG) Exploratory Team 047 (“Federated Approach towards NATO Simulation Resource Management”) was tasked to investigate existing approaches for M&S resource description, discovery, and reuse. One of the topics to be addressed by ET-47 was to develop an overview of existing catalogue, repository, and metadata management solutions (government furnished, commercial, etc.) and ongoing/upcoming activities. The following solutions were identified: Repository

- NATO: o NATO Simulation Resource Library (NSRL) (discontinued)

- National o CAN: Synthetic Environment Resource Registry (SERR) o FRA: Diedres (prototype R&D tool) o GBR: DTEC Catalogue o USA: US DoD M&S Catalogue

- COTS o Aditerna SRP o Envitia Horizon

Collaboration Tools

- NATO o DNBL (NCIA) including VoIP, VTC, Chat o NATO STO: ScienceConnect, webex

- COTS/National o Envitia Horizon o Aditerna SRP o VoIP and VTC solutions (Cisco, Skype, …) o Fileshare (Sharepoint, …)

Based on these solutions, the following table lists the identified gaps.

MTDS Repository and Collaboration Tools Req ID Requirement State of Art Gap ID Gap identified SG215- MR-01

Common Repository

Several repositories are available, maturity of the repositories varies a lot. Most repositories are still under research & development. Policies for using repositories (e.g. covering access, maintenance and IP restrictions) are missing in most nations.

SG215-MR-G-01

Lack of common registry/repository.

SG215-MR-G-02

Lack of common policies and mandate for using registry/repositories (i.e., sharing of information, regularly updating metadata etc.)

SG215- MR-02

Types of Simulation Resources

Various metadata exist for basic description of simulation resources (e.g., MSC-DMS). Latest advancements (e.g. M&S services) are not properly captured by existing metadata specifications. Mappings between different metadata specifications are

SG215-MR-G-03

Lack of agreed metadata specifications for M&S services etc.

SG215-MR-G-04

Lack of mappings between different existing metadata specifications to improve interoperability.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-18

MTDS Repository and Collaboration Tools Req ID Requirement State of Art Gap ID Gap identified

missing. No NATO-wide Agreement on preferred metadata specification schema.

SG215-MR-G-05

Lack of STANREC/STANAG for a preferred metadata specification.

SG215- MR-03

Registry Several registries/repositories are available, maturity varies a lot. Most are still under research & development. Policies for using registries are missing in most nations.

SG215-MR-G-01


SG215-MR-G-02


SG215- MR-04

Repository access

Several registries/repositories are available, maturity varies a lot. Most are still under research & development. Policies for using registries are missing in most nations.

SG215-MR-G-01


SG215-MR-G-02


SG215- MR-05

User Interface

All existing tools have a graphical user interface. MTDS-specific user interfaces are not available at the moment.

SG215-MR-G-06

Lack of MTDS-specific requirements for registry/repository user interface (e.g., required roles, actions, views, reports, etc.)

SG215- MR-06

Identity and Access Management

All existing repositories provide Identity and Access Management.

SG215-MR-G-01


SG215- MR-07

Exercise Management Services

Exercise Management Services are not provided by most repositories. Basic functions are provided by some systems (e.g., Aditerna SRP).

SG215-MR-G-07

Lack of detailed requirements regarding MTDS exercise management services.

SG215- MR-08

Collaboration Tool services

Collaboration tools are in general available at NATO-level and in the Nations.

SG215-MR-G-08

Lack of detailed requirements regarding MTDS-specific tools and services (e.g., required roles, actions, views, reports, etc.).

Table H 4-2 : MTDS Repository and Collaboration tools - State of the Art and Identified Gaps


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-19

H4.4 Analysis and Road Mapping

A central repository of M&S resources and a common set of collaboration tools are essential in achieving the MTDS goals and objectives. The table below recommends actions to address the current gaps.

Gap ID Gap Description Reco ID Recommendation Implementation

SG215-MR-G-01


SG215-RR-01

Transition existing repositories into operational use with minor modifications and adaptations. Data exchange between various systems (of different nations) through manual data export.

Short-term

SG215-RR-02

Address Identity and Access Management. Replace generic solutions (Fileshare etc.) by comprehensive systems (GOTS/COTS). Permanently connect national repositories and allow specific data exchange (i.e. metadata about simulation resources).

Medium-term

SG215-RR-03

Start development of common MTDS repository. Identify requirements, analyse requirements and design repository. Define roadmap for repository development

Medium-term

SG215-RR-03

Implement, test and operationalize common MTDS repository

Long-term

SG215-MR-G-02


SG215-RR-04

Develop and adopt policies that mandate using and maintaining repositories (i.e., sharing of information, regularly updating metadata etc.)

Medium-term

SG215-MR-G-03

Lack of agreed metadata specifications for M&S services etc.

SG215-RR-05

Share information about existing models and data sets (using Excel or similar tools)

Short-term

SG215-RR-06

Update existing metadata specifications (or develop new schema) to incorporate latest information regarding M&S services etc

Medium term

SG215-MR-G-04

Lack of mappings between different existing metadata specifications to improve interoperability.

SG215-RR-07

Develop mappings between different existing metadata specifications to improve interoperability.

Short-term

SG215-MR-G-05

Lack of STANREC/STANAG for a preferred metadata specification.

SG215-RR-08

Develop and adapt STANREC/STANAG for a preferred metadata specification.

Medium-term


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-20

Gap ID Gap Description Reco ID Recommendation Implementation

SG215-MR-G-06

Lack of MTDS-specific requirements for registry/repository user interface (e.g., required roles, actions, views, reports, etc.)

SG215-RR-09

Identify MTDS-specific requirements for repository user interface (e.g., required roles, actions, views, reports, etc.)

Medium-term

SG215-MR-G-07

Lack of detailed requirements regarding MTDS exercise management services

SG215-RR-10

Identify detailed requirements regarding exercise management services. Select or develop an MTDS specific set of services.

Medium-term

SG215-RR-11

Integrate process support into comprehensive management systems (e.g., for planning, designing and executing an exercise)

Medium-term

SG215-MR-G-08

Lack of detailed requirements regarding MTDS-specific tools and services (e.g., required roles, actions, views, reports, etc.).

SG215-RR-12

Introduce and use templates throughout the MTDS lifecycle (e.g. for test plan)

Short-term

SG215-RR-13

Identify MTDS-specific requirements for tools (e.g., required roles, actions, views, reports, etc.). Select or develop an MTDS specific collaboration tool services. Migrate templates from stand-alone use (Excel) to collaborative work environment

Medium-term

Table H 4-3 : Identified Gaps on MTDS Repository and Collaboration Tools ID


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-21

H5 MTDS Implementation plan

H5.1. Introduction and requirements

NATO and nations face challenges regarding training and exercises: while current and future operations are multinational in nature, the missions and the systems are becoming more complex and need detailed preparation and rapid adaptation to changing circumstances. At the same time opportunities for (live) training and mission preparation are reduced due to available resources and limited time span between political decision making and deployment. NATO AWACS and nations have a common need for training of air combined and joint collective tactical training. In light of decreasing exercise budgets, decreasing availability of assets for live exercises and increasing difficulty in realistically simulating the complex threat environment, NATO member nations develop and adopt national MTDS capabilities. However, NATO is missing a cost-effective capability to enhance Operational Readiness for the Forces of contributing nations to conduct future Coalition Operations. Simulation has become an essential tool to meet the training demands of the military forces. Improvements in technical capabilities and reduced costs have enabled more effective use of simulation tools across nations and organizations. Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS) is therefore crucial to NATO’s and nation’s readiness. At a time when many member nations are moving toward greater use of advanced simulation for mission training, NATO does not currently have a collective MTDS capability to leverage these national developments. NATO has had a number of initiatives on distributed simulation for air combined and joint mission training. These studies have provided valuable inputs in the development of a NATO MTDS vision and concept of use (CONUSE), however none have provided a persistent MTDS capability to support the war fighter in achieving increased Mission Readiness. Implementation planning of MTDS deals with the execution of the activities to achieve continuous operation of the two tracks as proposed for the next phase of MTDS, i.e. for: - MTDS Exercise Planning, Development and Delivery Deals with implementation aspects with respect to organization, infrastructure, architectural components and processes (development, security) required. The MTDS CONUSE describes how to execute an MTDS event, from initial MTDS exercise planning, through instantiation and execution of the required federation, to evaluation of the training and closing the event. Cost-efficient operation of MTDS exercises can only be achieved by tools and innovative technology supporting the execution of the CONUSE. - MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance Deals with implementation aspects with respect to organization and MTDS infrastructure, improving efficiency (in cost and duration) and of capability development and maintenance.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-22

H5.2. Requirements

To derive implementation requirements, references [SG215-IO], [SG162], [ASG162], MSG-128 and [MSG086] are analysed. As efficiency/costs are driving factors for MTDS capability development and MTDS operation/use, recommendations in the mentioned literature dealing with efficiency improvements have been translated into requirements. The requirements identified are not exhaustive and do only cover identified issues as listed in the references mentioned. The following tables show the implementation requirements including the source/reference of the requirement. Requirements are grouped into the tracks as identified in the introduction. Reference IDs list to the specific requirement as listed in the documents referenced. Furthermore, the requirements are allocated to three categories, being organisation, architecture and process. Each requirement is referenced also by a short title header underlined.

MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance ID Description Reference Topic SG215-CD-01

MTDS Development and Maintenance Organization An organization shall be established with qualified personnel to manage, coordinate and perform MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance, including - MTDS Reference Architecture Development and

Maintenance - MTDS Core Architecture instantiation and maintenance

(core components/services, engineering processes, repository)

- (CFBL) network initiative development, execution and maintenance

- Governance of (security) accreditation - Governance of LVC asset certification

MSG-86-17 MSG-86-18

Organization

SG215-CD-02 SG215-CD-021 SG215-CD-022 SG215-CD-023 SG215-CD-024

MTDS Reference Architecture A standard MTDS Reference Architecture shall be developed and maintained, specifying: - Interoperability) requirements for participating LVC

simulation assets to comply with,

- A common MTDS Federation Agreement Document (MFAD), including recommended M&S technical specifications and standards. This would allow faster set-up times for exercises and enable new participants to more easily join existing federations,

- The MTDS MFAD will need to be maintained to allow continuous improvements and may need extensions to meet new requirements,

- a simulation engineering process to support effective capability development. Conceptual modelling, as part

SG-162-01 MSG-86-1 MSG-86-2 MSG-86-3 MSG-86-12(2) MSG-86-15 MSG-86-5 MSG-86-10 MSG-86-15 MSG-86-28 SG-162-15 MSG-128-5 MSG-128-10 MSG-128-12 MSG-128-29

Process/ Architecture


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-23

MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance ID Description Reference Topic SG215-CD-025 SG215-CD-026 SG215-CD-027 SG215-CD-028

of this process, shall be performed to reduce risks in achieving MTDS Simulation asset interoperability

- mechanisms and agreements on how aggregation/de-

aggregation and object hand-over mechanisms shall be coordinated and implemented,

- an efficient test (engineering) process - a qualified MTDS Asset VV&A process, supported by

VV&A support tools, - a standard exchange format to allow for exchange of

Synthetic Environments as well for dynamic terrain changes during MTDS execution,

in order to - avoid unwanted federation/federate behaviour (i.e. after

simulator crash corresponding entities shall be removed)

- efficiently develop and test LVC composed federations - reduce time and efforts required for VV&A (MTDS

certification and (security) accreditation)

SG215-CD-03 SG215-CD-031 SG215-CD-032 SG215-CD-033 SG215-CD-034

MTDS Qualification Services For efficient MTDS operation, MTDS qualification services shall be provided for certification of LVC assets prior to joining an MTDS exercise. These qualification services shall include but not be limited to the following services: - LVC Asset Certification LVC (simulation assets) shall be certified against set MTDS (interoperability) standards prior to use in MTDS Exercises. - LVC Asset assessment During MTDS Capability Development and Maintenance, the impact of LVC assets, having data output restrictions and other anomalies, on the training objectives shall be assessed. - Fidelity Impact Assessment Assessment on of the impact of different fidelity of LVC assets on the MTDS training objectives shall be performed - Security accreditation LVC Simulation Assets and Federation Support Tools (gateways, data recorders, ..) shall be (security) accredited to allow for efficient integration, testing, and maintenance. - Security accreditation process National security accreditation processes of systems, networks and facilities shall be as fast as possible. For recurring training exercises, facilities, networks and national

SG-162-40 MSG-128-4 MSG-128-7 MSG-86-9 MSG-86-14 MSG-86-16 MSG-86-21 MSG-86-27 MSG-128-2 MSG-128-8 MSG-86-19 SG-162-40

Architecture Asset Certification Process Security Accreditation


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-24

MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance ID Description Reference Topic SG215-CD-035 SG215-CD-036 SG215-CD-037 SG215-CD-038

systems shall be pre-qualified (security accreditation) to allow for efficient planning of these exercises. - Scenario Validation Validation shall be applied on MTDS scenarios developed, to assess fit for purpose for MTDS training. - Exercise Control Support Support tools for Exercise Control (EXCON) shall be validated (be fit for purpose) with respect to the training objectives - Training Evaluation Data Recording, Replay and Training Analysis tools shall be implemented to support effective training evaluation.

MSG-86-20 UV16-01, UV16-02 MSG-128-9

SG215-CD-04

Certification Maintenance Certification of MTDS Certified assets shall be frequently assessed and maintained (for instance by frequent regression testing).

MSG-128-1

Process/ Asset Certification

SG215-CD-05

Network availability Network connectivity shall be established and maintained between NATO/national) training centres providing LVC assets.

MSG-86-12(1)

Process

SG215-CD-06

Network Performance Network bandwidth and delays shall have no negative impact on training objectives.

MSG-128-6

Architecture

SG215-CD-07 SG215-CD-071 SG215-CD-072

Synthetic Environment Correlation To reduce fair fight issues correlation of Synthetic Environments shall be established where required for the participating LVC assets in MTDS exercises, amongst others by - Central Terrain Database Server A Central Terrain Database Server shall be installed to provide the common MTDS terrain in all applicable formats for the simulation assets. - Common Terrain Database production facility, to produce correlated terrain databases in different format as required by participating LVC assets

MSG-86-26 MSG-128-11 SG-215

Process / Architecture

SG215-CD-08

Configuration MSG-86-23

Architecture


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-25

MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance ID Description Reference Topic

For efficient operation, configuration files to initialize the simulation assets shall have a standardized format, to which the receiving asset shall adapt or comply with.

SG215-CD-09

Fidelity To reduce negative impact on training of different levels of fidelity of LVC, standard and central servers (on weather, terrain, weapons, damage, radio effects, ...) shall be developed and implemented

MSG-86

Architecture

SG215-CD-10

Acquisition For future simulation systems to be acquired, requirements for MTDS operation shall be taken into account.

MSG-86-25 MSG-86-27

Process

MTDS Exercise Planning, Development and Delivery ID Description Reference Topic SG215-ED-01

MTDS Delivery organisation An organization shall be established with qualified personnel to manage, coordinate and perform MTDS Exercise Delivery.

MSG-86-17 MSG-86-18

Organization

SG215-ED-02

MTDS Accredited Assets MTDS Assets (LVC Simulation Assets and Federation Support Tools) shall be (security) accredited in advance to MTDS development and delivery to allow for efficient (low turn-around times)

MSG-128-2 MSG-128-8 MSG-86-19

Process, Security Accreditation

SG215-ED-03 SG215-ED-031 SG215-ED-032

MTDS qualification services MTDS qualification services (i.e. regression testing support tools) shall be provided for certification of LVC assets prior to joining an MTDS exercise, including but not limited to: - Fair fight MTDS exercise design shall check for non-existence of fair-fight issues to allow for effective training. - LVC Asset Testing For certified LVC assets, regression testing shall occur prior to joining an MTDS exercise.

MSG-128-1, SG162

Architecture, Process

SG215-ED-04

ROE compliance All players/entities shall comply with the Force ROEs, to be distributed prior to MTDS exercise execution. All LVC assets involved shall interpret the Force ROEs correctly.

MSG-86-24

Architecture

Table H 5-1 : Requirements on MTDS Exercise Planning, Development and Delivery


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-26


MTDS Development and Maintenance Organization An organization shall be established with qualified personnel to manage, coordinate and perform MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance, including - MTDS Reference Architecture Development and

Maintenance - MTDS Core Architecture instantiation and maintenance

(core components/services, engineering processes, repository)


- Governance of (security) accreditation - Governance of LVC asset certification

MSG-86-17 MSG-86-18

Organization

SG215-CD-02 SG215-CD-021 SG215-CD-022 SG215-CD-023 SG215-CD-024 SG215-CD-025 SG215-CD-026 SG215-CD-027 SG215-CD-028

MTDS Reference Architecture A standard MTDS Reference Architecture shall be developed and maintained, specifying: - Interoperability) requirements for participating LVC

simulation assets to comply with,


- The MTDS MFAD will need to be maintained to allow continuous improvements and may need extensions to meet new requirements,

- a simulation engineering process to support effective capability development. Conceptual modelling, as part of this process, shall be performed to reduce risks in achieving MTDS Simulation asset interoperability

- mechanisms and agreements on how aggregation/de-

aggregation and object hand-over mechanisms shall be coordinated and implemented,

- an efficient test (engineering) process - a qualified MTDS Asset VV&A process, supported by

VV&A support tools, - a standard exchange format to allow for exchange of

Synthetic Environments as well for dynamic terrain changes during MTDS execution,

in order to

SG-162-01 MSG-86-1 MSG-86-2 MSG-86-3 MSG-86-12(2) MSG-86-15 MSG-86-5 MSG-86-10 MSG-86-15 MSG-86-28 SG-162-15 MSG-128-5 MSG-128-10 MSG-128-12 MSG-128-29

Process/ Architecture


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-27

MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance ID Description Reference Topic

- avoid unwanted federation/federate behaviour (i.e. after simulator crash corresponding entities shall be removed)

- efficiently develop and test LVC composed federations - reduce time and efforts required for VV&A (MTDS

certification and (security) accreditation)

SG215-CD-03 SG215-CD-031 SG215-CD-032 SG215-CD-033 SG215-CD-034 SG215-CD-035 SG215-CD-036 SG215-CD-037

MTDS Qualification Services For efficient MTDS operation, MTDS qualification services shall be provided for certification of LVC assets prior to joining an MTDS exercise. These qualification services shall include but not be limited to the following services: - LVC Asset Certification LVC (simulation assets) shall be certified against set MTDS (interoperability) standards prior to use in MTDS Exercises. - LVC Asset assessment During MTDS Capability Development and Maintenance, the impact of LVC assets, having data output restrictions and other anomalies, on the training objectives shall be assessed. - Fidelity Impact Assessment Assessment on of the impact of different fidelity of LVC assets on the MTDS training objectives shall be performed - Security accreditation LVC Simulation Assets and Federation Support Tools (gateways, data recorders, ..) shall be (security) accredited to allow for efficient integration, testing, and maintenance. - Security accreditation process National security accreditation processes of systems, networks and facilities shall be as fast as possible. For recurring training exercises, facilities, networks and national systems shall be pre-qualified (security accreditation) to allow for efficient planning of these exercises. - Scenario Validation Validation shall be applied on MTDS scenarios developed, to assess fit for purpose for MTDS training. - Exercise Control Support Support tools for Exercise Control (EXCON) shall be validated (be fit for purpose) with respect to the training objectives

SG-162-40 MSG-128-4 MSG-128-7 MSG-86-9 MSG-86-14 MSG-86-16 MSG-86-21 MSG-86-27 MSG-128-2 MSG-128-8 MSG-86-19 SG-162-40 MSG-86-20 UV16-01, UV16-02

Architecture Asset Certification Process Security Accreditation


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-28


- Training Evaluation Data Recording, Replay and Training Analysis tools shall be implemented to support effective training evaluation.

MSG-128-9

SG215-CD-04

Certification Maintenance Certification of MTDS Certified assets shall be frequently assessed and maintained (for instance by frequent regression testing).

MSG-128-1

Process/ Asset Certification

SG215-CD-05


MSG-86-12(1)

Process

SG215-CD-06

Network Performance Network bandwidth and delays shall have no negative impact on training objectives.

MSG-128-6

Architecture

SG215-CD-07 SG215-CD-071 SG215-CD-072

Synthetic Environment Correlation To reduce fair fight issues correlation of Synthetic Environments shall be established where required for the participating LVC assets in MTDS exercises, amongst others by - Central Terrain Database Server A Central Terrain Database Server shall be installed to provide the common MTDS terrain in all applicable formats for the simulation assets. - Common Terrain Database production facility, to produce correlated terrain databases in different format as required by participating LVC assets

MSG-86-26 MSG-128-11 SG-215

Process / Architecture

SG215-CD-08

Configuration For efficient operation, configuration files to initialize the simulation assets shall have a standardized format, to which the receiving asset shall adapt or comply with.

MSG-86-23

Architecture

SG215-CD-09

Fidelity To reduce negative impact on training of different levels of fidelity of LVC, standard and central servers (on weather, terrain, weapons, damage, radio effects, ...) shall be developed and implemented

MSG-86

Architecture

SG215-CD-10


MSG-86-25 MSG-86-27

Process

Table H 5-2 : Requirements on MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-29

H5.3. Status Quo / State of the art

This chapter describes the identified, current solutions related to the requirements listed and, where solutions do not meet the requirement, describes the gap of which implementation is required for full compliancy with the requirement. The following table shows for all requirements identified in the previous chapter the state of the art solutions and identifies the gaps of these solutions to comply with the requirement. Also, requirements are clustered when belonging to the same overarching main requirement (for instance all requirements belonging to the topic/attributes of a MTDS Reference Architecture).


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-30

MTDS Exercise Planning, Development and Delivery Req ID Requirement State of Art Gap ID Gap identified SG215- ED-01

MTDS Delivery organisation An organization shall be established with qualified personnel to manage, coordinate and perform MTDS Exercise Delivery.

Several NATO Training centres exist, where training is provided to NATO and nations forces. Existing Training Organisation within NATO are: - the Joint Forces Training Centre (JFTC) JTFC

actively supports NATO Command Structure and NATO Force Structure exercises by facilitating certification exercises for NATO and National Headquarters.

- NATO Maritime Interdiction Operational Training Centre (NMIOTC), which mission is: "To conduct the combined training necessary for NATO forces and Partners to better execute surface, sub-surface, aerial surveillance, and special operations activities in support of Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO).

- Warrior Preparation Centre (WPC), a joint USAREUR and USAFE training facility. The WPC's primary mission is to train Air Operations Centers (AOC) at the operational level. The secondary mission is to provide tactical training via Distributed Mission Operations, with other bases throughout the world. These missions are accomplished with advanced simulation software

SG215-IGP-01

No dedicated (NATO) training delivery organisation exists for MTDS

SG215-ED-02

MTDS Asset security accreditation MTDS Assets (LVC Simulation Assets and Federation Support Tools) shall be (security) accredited to allow for

Currently accreditation is performed as part of exercise development, which can take considerable duration. National Accreditation

SG215-IGP-02

Duration for security accreditation can take considerable time during exercise development.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-31

MTDS Exercise Planning, Development and Delivery Req ID Requirement State of Art Gap ID Gap identified

efficient (low turn-around times) of MTDS development and delivery

Authorities work together under the umbrella of the CFBLNet MSAB.

SG215-ED-03 SG215-ED-031 SG215-ED-032

MTDS qualification services MTDS qualification services (i.e. regression testing support tools) shall be provided for checking certification of LVC assets prior to joining an MTDS exercise, including but not limited to: - Fair fight MTDS exercise design shall check for non-existence of fair-fight issues to allow for effective training. - LVC Asset Testing For certified LVC assets, regression testing shall occur prior to joining an MTDS exercise.

--- Most existing exercises, like JPOW, Viking apply regression testing just before exercise execution to check previous certification. While testing already uses dedicated testing tools, analysis of test results can still require considerable effort. Lessons learned from recent exercises show that not only testing interoperability compliancy but also stress testing (complex scenarios with many entities, large data exchange amounts and voice communications) should be applied for certification and regression testing. Tool and process development for certification is ongoing (e.g. MSG-134 IVCT).

SG215-IGP-03 SG215-IGP-031 SG215- IGP-032

Provided test tools currently need specialists’ knowledge for operating and analysing test results. No process description, guideline and supporting tools currently exist to check and achieve fair fight in a distributed simulation environment with respect to training objectives. Effort required for analysis of regression test results still can take considerable effort.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-32

MTDS Exercise Planning, Development and Delivery Req ID Requirement State of Art Gap ID Gap identified

SG215-ED-04

ROE compliance All players/entities shall comply with the Force ROEs, to be distributed prior to MTDS exercise execution. All LVC assets involved shall interpret the Force ROEs correctly.

SG215-IGP-04

LVC assets do not adapt behaviour to ROEs distributed prior to MTDS exercise execution.

Table H 5-3 : Solutions and Gaps for MTDS Exercise Planning, Development and Delivery


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-33

MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance Req ID Requirement State of Art Gap ID Gaps identified SG215-CD-01

MTDS Development and Maintenance Organization An organization shall be established with qualified personnel to manage, coordinate and perform MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance, including - MTDS Reference Architecture

Development and Maintenance - MTDS Core Architecture instantiation

and maintenance (core components/services, engineering processes, repository)


- Governance of (security) accreditation

- Governance of LVC asset certification

No specific (NATO) training capability development organisation exists for MTDS. With NATO Training organisation this organisation is embedded in the overall training centre organisation. Existing Training Organisation within NATO are: - the Joint Forces Training Centre (JFTC)

JTFC actively supports NATO Command Structure and NATO Force Structure exercises by facilitating certification exercises for NATO and National Headquarters.

- NATO Maritime Interdiction Operational Training Centre (NMIOTC), which mission is: "To conduct the combined training necessary for NATO forces and Partners to better execute surface, sub-surface, aerial surveillance, and special operations activities in support of Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO

SG215-IGP-05

No dedicated (NATO) MTDS capability development & maintenance organisation exists for MTDS.

SG215-CD-02

MTDS Reference Architecture A standard MTDS Reference Architecture shall be developed and maintained, specifying:

MTDS Reference Architecture and Design (MRAD), MSG-128 draft document provides an initial MTDS Reference Architecture descriptions, including a solution architecture (implementation) dedicated to air missions

SG215-IGP-06

No MTDS Reference Architecture exists. MRAD initial Reference Architecture is limited for use, in air domain only for a limited number of missions.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-34

MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance Req ID Requirement State of Art Gap ID Gaps identified SG215-CD-021 SG215-CD-022 SG215-CD-023 SG215-CD-024

- Interoperability) requirements for participating LVC simulation assets to comply with


- The MTDS MFAD will need to be

maintained to allow continuous improvements and may need extensions to meet new requirements,

- A simulation engineering process to support effective capability development. Conceptual modelling, as part of this process, shall be performed to reduce risks in achieving MTDS Simulation asset interoperability,

The current NETN FOM version is used complemented with existing BOM modules for MSG128 exercises and others. Current exercises develop dedicated federation agreement documents based on participating assets. The current NETN Federation Agreements and Federation Design (FAFD) has been complemented for MSG128 exercises and others exercises (e.g. Viking). Collaboration support tools, i.e. SharePoint sites, support configuration maintenance (version control) of MTDS documentation. DMAO and DSEEP are dedicated standards for distributed simulation / federation development.

SG215-IGP-061 SG215-IGP-062 SG215-IGP-063 SG215-IGP-064

MRAD focuses mainly on technical interoperability issues in distributed simulation NETN FOM does not cover all MTDS Joint, Air, Maritime and Land Missions yet. No common Federation Agreements Document, as part of a MTDS Reference Architecture, exists `to cover MTDS exercises with extended variety of assets. No maintenance organization exists yet for maintenance of RA and MFAD (Efficient) processes, supported by tools, are missing in DMAO and DSEEP with respect to conceptual modelling, integration and testing, fair fight analyses, asset certification, security accreditation, (terrain) database exchange and conversion to allow for fair fight. Standardized templates are required for process outcome documentation and efficiency


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-35

MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance Req ID Requirement State of Art Gap ID Gaps identified SG215-CD-025 SG215-CD-026 SG215-CD-027 SG215-CD-028

- Mechanisms and agreements on how

aggregation/de-aggregation and object hand-over mechanisms shall be coordinated and implemented,

- An efficient test (engineering) process,

- A qualified MTDS Asset VV&A process, supported by VV&A support tools,

- A standard exchange format to allow

for exchange of Synthetic Environments as well for dynamic terrain changes during MTDS execution.

Provisions are implemented in HLA REPR-FOM v2.0 for aggregation of single entities into an aggregate object. Efficient test engineering processes: - make use of automatic testing facilities, Test Management Support tools and Reusable Test Infrastructure (i.e. repository stored test vignettes for testing Link-16 behaviour) - distinguish different aspects: functional, performance and load testing - and are designed/managed/executed by skilled personnel. The existing SISO/NATO guideline with respect to Generic Methodology for Verification and Validation (GM-VV) is a generic methodology for VV&A to justify the acceptability of models, simulation, underlying data and results for the intended use. Also, an IEEE V&V overlay exists for DSEEP, focussing at V&V activities to perform during each step of DSEEP. Several terrain database exchange formats exist which shall be adopted to MTDS requirements.


No standard mechanisms and agreements exist for aggregation/de-aggregation and object handover in MTDS context. No test engineering processes/ approaches specified currently and adapted to MTDS specific aspects and to its specific assets in distributed locations at different time zones), No testing infrastructure implemented and available to increase test efficiency. No VV&A process is currently adopted/applied in MTDS exercises (e.g. MSG-128). No standard exchange format for dynamic terrain changes exist.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-36

MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance Req ID Requirement State of Art Gap ID Gaps identified

SG215-CD-03 SG215-CD-031 SG215-CD-032

MTDS Qualification Services For efficient MTDS operation, MTDS qualification services shall be provided for certification of LVC assets prior to joining an MTDS exercise. These qualification services shall include but not be limited to the following services: - LVC Asset Certification LVC (simulation assets) shall be certified against defined MTDS (interoperability) standards prior to use in MTDS Exercises. - LVC Asset assessment During MTDS Capability Development and Maintenance, the impact of LVC assets, having data output restrictions and other anomalies, on the training objectives shall be assessed.

In current exercises most of the time performed by dedicated test organisations, supported with dedicated test support tools. Most distributed LVC exercises are testing compliancy of assets against interoperability requirements before use in the exercise. A certification process (including Capability Badges for Simulation Interoperability), certification framework and tools (Integration Verification Certification Tool and Executable Test Cases) is still in progress by MSG-134, to be delivered mid 2017. Unknown if processes and tools exist to assess impact of data output restrictions on training objectives.

SG215-IGP-07 SG215-IGP-071 SG215-IGP-072

No (MTDS) qualification services, supported by efficient tools exist currently. No dedicated MTDS Certification process and certification support tools exists. Most of time no stress testing is performed. Also impact on fair fight, training objectives of asset and its fidelity (which can vary depending on security restrictions) is not assessed. The planned follow-on to MSG-134 will further develop these capabilities. No dedicated tools exist within MTDS context to assess impact of data security restrictions on training objectives. This assessment, supported by relevant tools, shall be part of the MTDS certification process (validation activity).


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-37

MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance Req ID Requirement State of Art Gap ID Gaps identified SG215-CD-033 SG215-CD-034 SG215-CD-035 SG215-CD-036 SG215-CD-037

- Fidelity Impact Assessment Assessment on of the impact of different fidelity of LVC assets on the MTDS training objectives shall be performed - Security accreditation LVC Simulation Assets and Federation Support Tools (gateways, data recorders ..) shall be (security) accredited to allow for efficient integration, testing and maintenance. - Security accreditation process National security accreditation processes of systems, networks and facilities shall be as fast as possible. For recurring training exercises, facilities, networks and national systems shall be pre-qualified (security accreditation) to allow for efficient planning of these exercises. - Scenario Validation Validation shall be applied on MTDS scenarios developed, to assess fit for purpose for MTDS training.\ - Exercise Control Support Support tools for Exercise Control (EXCON) shall be validated (be fit for purpose) with respect to the training objectives

Generic Methodology for Verification and Validation (GM-VV) could be supporting on this requirement NATO and national security authorities provide services for security accreditation Execution of national security accreditation processes on assets and facilities can last from few weeks to a number of months. These processes most of the time cannot be influenced by accreditation requestor. Generic Methodology for Verification and Validation (GM-VV) could be in support of this requirement Generic Methodology for Verification and Validation (GM-VV) could be in support of this requirement


No process and supporting tools exist to assess impact of different fidelity of LVC assets on MTDS training objectives. No gap identified Not as gap identified. Time involved for security accreditation (of facility, asset and its data exchanged) by national authorities can take considerable time. No dedicated MTDS scenario validation process identified, and service implemented. Current EXCON support tools are not validated for MTDS. Validation of these tools shall occur in MTDS Capability Development and Maintenance.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-38

MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance Req ID Requirement State of Art Gap ID Gaps identified SG215-CD-038

- Training Evaluation Data Recording, Replay and Training Analysis tools shall be implemented to support effective training evaluation.

Data Recording and Replay tools can provide (3D) reconstruction/visualisation of the mission training performed. However smart and efficient training analysis tools, evaluating how well the mission is performed by the team and assessing achievement of the training objectives are yet not on market.

SG215-IGP-077

No (Mission) Training Analysis Tools are implemented in current MTDS exercises

SG215-CD-04

Certification Maintenance Certification of MTDS Certified assets shall be frequently assessed and maintained (for instance using regression testing).

It is common practice in military and civil aviation to maintain certification by yearly airworthiness checks.

SG215-IGP-08

Certification maintenance within MTDS does not exist because non-existence of the maintenance organisation. The maintenance shall be planned and performed by the Capability Development Organisation to be instantiated.

SG215-CD-05


Long-term CFBL initiatives can fulfil MTDS requirements on network availability.

SG215-IGP-09

No long-term MTDS CFBL initiative exists.

SG215-CD-06

Network Performance Network bandwidth and network communication delays shall have no negative impact on training objectives.

SG215-IGP-091

Not a capability gap. Design for sufficient bandwidth based on network load prediction tool


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-39

MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance Req ID Requirement State of Art Gap ID Gaps identified SG215-CD-07 SG215-CD-071 SG215-CD-072

Synthetic Environment Correlation To reduce fair fight issues correlation of Synthetic Environments shall be established where required for the participating LVC assets in MTDS exercises, amongst others by - Central Terrain Database Server A Central Terrain Database Server shall be installed to provide the common MTDS terrain in all applicable formats for the simulation assets. - Common Terrain Database

production facility, to produce correlated terrain databases in different format as required by participating LVC assets

Terrain database generation processes and supporting COTS tools exist for generating (different format) correlated terrains from same source data. COTS tools also support transfer of a 3D visual terrain database into correlated 2D/3D databases in other formats, as well as supporting measurement of correlation between different formatted databases of same terrain. Current (repository) solutions and data distribution mechanism exist to support terrain database distribution services. Processes and supporting COTS tools are available to provide required capability

SG215-IGP-10 SG215-IGP-101 SG215-IGP-102

No process and supporting tools defined to deliver correlated Synthetic Environments for MTDS purposes. The recently started MSG-156 taskgroup will address this issue. A Central Terrain Database Server is not available/ implemented in current MTDS exercises. A common Terrain Database production facility for MTDS does not exist.

SG215-CD-08

Configuration For efficient operation, configuration files to initialize the simulation assets shall have a standardized format, to which the receiving asset shall adapt or comply with.

Configuration file format and file distribution methods are part of Federation agreement and p performed by Exercise Management federates. Capability has been proven in many federations.

SG215-IGP-11

No such configuration file standard exists yet.

SG215-CD-09

Fidelity To reduce negative impact on training by different levels of fidelity of LVC assets, standard and central servers (on weather,

COTS support tools enabling implementation of required services are available.

SG215-IGP-12

No centralized services (Weapon effects, weather, radio effects, ) exist for reduction of impact on


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-40

MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance Req ID Requirement State of Art Gap ID Gaps identified

terrain, weapons, damage, radio effects, ...) shall be developed and implemented

training by different levels of fidelity of LVC assets.

SG215-CD-10


SG215-IGP-13

SG215-IGP-06

MTDS need statements often not recognized by end-users of simulation systems during acquisition of simulation systems. No Reference Architecture defined to derive MTDS (interoperability) requirements for future LVC asset acquisitions.

Table H 5-4 : Solutions and Gaps for MTDS Operational Capability Development and Maintenance


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-41

H5.4. Analysis and Road Mapping

Analysis of gaps is performed, and solutions are determined. The following table provides the overview of the gaps and next to the specific gap the solution foreseen and estimated completion of the solution implementation on the timescale. Furthermore, identified gaps which belong to an overarching recommendation are clustered within that recommendation. For each of the corresponding sub-recommendations however, a different implementation timeframe can be applicable.

Gap ID Gap Description Recom ID

Recommendation Implemen-tation on


No dedicated (NATO) training delivery organisation exists for MTDS. No dedicated (NATO) MTDS training capability development & maintenance organisation exists for MTDS. Certification maintenance within MTDS does not exist because non-existence of the maintenance organisation. No maintenance organization exists yet for maintenance of Reference Architecture and MTDS Federation Agreement Document.

SG215-IR-01

Establish an MTDS Organisation capable of delivering training on request by participating nations or self-initiated training, while hosting the White Cell and MTDS Exercise Management facilities/services. Next to training delivery the organisation shall develop, implement, upgrade and maintain the MTDS Training Infrastructure and related MTDS Reference Architecture

Short-term

SG215-IGP-09

This gap is not identified as such but derived from the organisational gaps. Establishing a training organisation needs an initial MTDS infrastructure to use for delivering the training. No long-term MTDS CFBL initiative exists.

SG215- IR -03

Develop a persistent, IOC MTDS infrastructure via a Strategic Defence Initiative. The SDI could be managed by NCIA, WPC, … and supported by ACT (User Requirements), ACO (Acquisition), NATO/nations (hosting simulation assets) and Industry providing support tools, services). Development shall, next to composition of the MTDS federation, take into account the development and instantiation of a long-term CFBL initiative, delivering the required network infrastructure between participating nations.

Short-term Short-term

SG215-IGP-06

No MTDS Reference Architecture exists for joint and combined MTDS

SG215- IR -04

Develop and maintain MTDS Reference Architecture, focussed


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-42



SG215-IGP-061 SG215-IGP-062 SG215-IGP-064 SG215-IGP-065 SG215-IGP-067 SG215-IGP-066 SG215-IGP-068

NETN FOM does not cover all MTDS Joint, Air, Maritime and Land Missions yet. No common Federation Agreements Document, as part of a MTDS Reference Architecture exists. (Efficient) processes, supported by tools, are missing in DMAO and DSEEP with respect to conceptual modelling, integration and testing, LVC asset certification, fair fight analyses security accreditation, (terrain) database exchange and conversion. Standardized templates are required for process outcome documentation and efficiency. No test engineering processes/ approaches specified currently and adapted to MTDS specific aspects and to its specific assets in distributed locations at different time zones), No testing infrastructure implemented and available to increase test efficiency. No VV&A process is currently adopted/applied in MTDS exercises. No standard mechanisms and agreements exist for aggregation/de-aggregation and object handover in MTDS context. No standard exchange format for dynamic terrain changes exist.

at Joint and Combined MTDS, specifying a.o. - Interoperability) requirements for

participating LVC simulation assets to comply with, based on development of MTDS FOM

- A common MTDS Federation

Agreement Document (MFAD), including recommended M&S technical specifications and standards

- A (simulation development

focused) engineering process to support effective capability development and detailing on:

- conceptual modelling, to reduce risks in achieving MTDS LVC simulation asset interoperability,

- qualified (engineering) test and certification processes

- a qualified MTDS LVC asset Verification, validation and Accreditation (VV&A) process,.

- standard templates to increase efficiency of required documentation

- Mechanisms and agreements on

how aggregation/de-aggregation and object hand-over mechanisms shall be coordinated and implemented,

- a standard on exchange format(s)

to allow for exchange of Synthetic Environments prior to execution as well as for dynamic terrain support during execution

Short-term Short-term Short-term Mid-term Short-term


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-43



SG215-IGP-07 SG215-IGP-071 SG215-IGP-065 SG215-IGP-072 SG215-IGP-073 SG215-IGP-076 SG215-IGP-075

No (MTDS) qualification services, supported by efficient tools exist currently. No dedicated MTDS Certification process and certification support tools exists. Most of time no stress testing is performed. Also impact on fair fight, training objectives of asset and its fidelity (which can vary depending on security restrictions) is not assessed. No testing infrastructure implemented and available to increase test efficiency. No dedicated tools exist within MTDS context to assess impact of data security restrictions on training objectives. This assessment, supported by relevant tools, shall be part of the MTDS certification process (validation activity). No process and supporting tools exist to assess impact of different fidelity of LVC assets on MTDS training objectives. Current EXCON support tools are not validated for MTDS. Validation of these tools shall occur by the MTDS Capability Development and Maintenance organisation. No dedicated MTDS scenario validation process identified and service implemented.

SG215- IR -05

Develop, implement and maintain (a set of) MTDS Qualification Services to support efficient MTDS development, implementation, integration & test and execution. Amongst others, development shall be focussed at: - Development of a MTDS Test &

Certification Process, focussed at certifying legacy and non-legacy LVC assets efficiently using the MTDS Test & Certification Suite and Certification Services (technical support) provided. For efficiency reasons, distinction should be made between local testing, partial federation testing and full federation/design pattern testing. Development could take advantage of MSG134 and follow-on study currently prepared.

- Develop a smart and efficient tool

suite to support MTDS test & certification of national LVC assets and other support tools. Smart in a sense that no dedicated tool specialists are required to operate the Test & Certification suite at the different stages of the test and certification process and, by using advanced analysis methods, that the analysis of test results are largely automated. The MTDS Test & Certification suite to certify LVC assets, federation development and execution support tools, shall be capable of:

- Testing compliancy of the interface of the test subject to the MTDS federation, according to interoperability requirements defined in the Reference Architecture (prior and during exercise execution)

- Stimulating the test subject in order to certify correct behaviour under stress conditions (many entities and

Short-term Short-term Short-term Short-term Short-term Short-term Short-term Short-term Mid--term Mid-Term Short-Term


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-44



interactions at the same time).

- Testing the correct behaviour of the tactical datalink implementation of the LVC asset.

- Validating the correct behaviour of the LVC asset against EXCON / Simulation Execution Management requirements as defined in the Reference Architecture

- Validating the correct behaviour of the LVC asset during federation initialisation and configuration (i.e. Force ROE distribution and processing).

- Validating EXCON support tools

- Assessing impact on training when federation is composed of assets having different fidelity due to data exchange restrictions (security), asset anomalies,

- Assessing fair fight issues and impact on training

- Validation of scenario to support training objectives

Development can take advantage of MSG134 study results and follow-on study currently prepared.


No process and supporting tools defined to deliver correlated Synthetic Environments for MTDS purposes. A Central Terrain Database Server is not available/ implemented in current MTDS exercises. A common Terrain Database production facility for MTDS does not exist. No configuration file standards and distribution services exist yet

SG215- IR -06

Develop, Implement and Maintain MTDS Services/Support Tools to efficiently and effectively support MTDS capability development and MTDS delivery, such as - Terrain Database Production

facility: Develop and implement an architecture, process and HW/SW infrastructure to support correlated, common Terrain Database development, maintenance and distribution to participating MTDS LVC assets. A centralized repository server can support maintenance and distribution of these common terrain databases

Mid-term Short-term Mid-term


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-45



SG215-IGP-12 SG215-IGP-077

No centralized services (Weapon effects, weather, radio effects) exist for reduction of impact on training by different levels of fidelity of LVC assets No (Mission) Training Analysis Tools are implemented in current MTDS exercises

- Simulation Management Services as part of MTDS Exercise Management capable amongst others of efficient LVC asset initialisation by distribution of (standard formatted) configuration files prior to start of the exercise

- Weather-, terrain-, weapons-, damage- and radio effects services in order to reduce impact of fidelity and fair fight limitations.

- Mission Training Analysis Tools to support efficient evaluation of training objectives achievement

Mid-term

SG215-IGP-13 SG215-IGP-06

MTDS need statements often not recognized by end-users of simulation systems during acquisition of simulation systems. No Reference Architecture defined to derive MTDS (interoperability) requirements for future LVC asset acquisitions.

SG215- IR -07

Create awareness of MTDS capabilities and benefits. Need statements for MTDS capability are the first step of acquisition process. As MTDS has evolved from simulation interoperability technology, end-users of simulation/live systems shall be made more aware of MTDS capabilities and benefits.

Short-term

SG215-IGP-074

Not as gap identified, but constraint. Time involved for accreditation: Security accreditation (of facility, asset and its data exchanged) by national authorities can take considerable time.

SG215- IR -08

Proper planning of LVC asset accreditation activities during MTDS capability development (and especially focusing at assets involved in (weekly/monthly) recurring MTDS training events, reduces impact of long accreditation process duration on training delivery.

Short-term

SG215-IGP-091

Not as gap identified, but constraint. Network bandwidth and network communication delays shall have no negative impact on training objectives

SG215- IR -09

Design for sufficient bandwidth based on network load prediction tool

Short-term

Table H 5-5 : Implementation Roadmap for Identified Implementation Gaps.5


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

H-46

H6 Conclusions and Recommendations

The study and analysis of MTDS related Security, Repository and Implementation issues has resulted in a proposed roadmap with recommendations for implementation of organisations, policy development and technology to support effective and efficient operation of MTDS within NATO countries. The following graph (Figure H.6-1) shows the main items of the roadmap clustered and projected in time.

Figure H 6-1 : Implementation Roadmap 3

The stars in the roadmap show the estimated start of operation for the identified organisations, or the delivery of the required operational capability for technology and policy items. The dotted lines represent the development period required for delivering the operational capability. The gap analysis within the context of the Security, Repository and Implementation issues has been performed and solutions and activities to fill the gaps have been determined. Implementation of solutions on a timescale is estimated based on complexity of technology and knowledge/experience of involved SMEs on NATO and national processes on common developments and agreements.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX I

CONTRIBUTION

TO THE UPDATE OF THE

JULY 2015 - NATO GAP ANALYSIS REPORT

ON MODELLING AND SIMULATION IN

SUPPORT OF MILITARY TRAINING

ON

NIAG SG215




The work described in this report was carried out under the provisions of the NIAG Study Order for

Study Group 215.

Disclosure, utilization, publication or reproduction of this report by industry is subject to pre-


NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-1

INPUT ON M&S GAP ANALYSIS REPORT

In accordance with the tasking provided with NIAG SG215 Study Order Extension DI(2017) 0231 (IP) dated 2 August 2017, the SG215 contribution to the ongoing revision process of the :

• 2015 Gap Analysis Report on Modelling and Simulation in support of Military Training dated 15th July 2015

is provided in the following pages, for:

Air Operations (new gaps)

• G43: Collective Training & Exercise for Systems (MTDS)

• G44: High Level Training for Air Policing

• G45 Gap: JFAC Training Land Operations

• G01: (Note: new name) LandOps

Maritime Operations

• G02: Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) Simulation in the Maritime Domain (MD) Cyber Defence Operations

• G04: Cyber Defence Training Special Forces Operations

• G07: Individual and Small Team Training - Air

Infosec Policies and Procedures

• G14: INFOSEC Policies and Procedures (for Multi-Level Security accreditation and cyber security/resilience)

Education Training Exercise & Evaluation (ETEE)

• G15: (Note: new name) Lack of a common approach for the Synthetic Natural Environment (SNE)

• G16: Modelling of the Operational Environment

• G17: Technical Gaps

Note: The baseline 2015 M&S Gap Analysis Report (to be updated) had been produced as a NATO Unclassified document; in accordance with the SG215 Study Order Extension mandate, the SG215 contribution had to be NATO Unclassified releasable to IP. For the above reason in the following text only the specific SG215 proposed new wording is shown, with the understanding that NATO authorities will have the freedom to decide up to which extent to use it for the new issue of the Gap Analysis Report. Whenever the original NU text was integrated, and, as considered by SG215, still applicable, then it is not shown below, but an “Original NU text available” caption has been included, replacing the NU text.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-2

AIR OPERATIONS

Gap Name Collective Training & Exercise for Systems (MTDS)

Gap Code G43

Status

Area Collective Training and Exercises

Description The execution of live exercises to train adequately at Operational and Tactical

Level is increasingly difficult to be performed:

• Air Force and Maritime/Land Air components use several different

capabilities to conduct Air Operations. Currently it is difficult to train

together in realistic conditions before going into operations.

• The complexity of Air Operations does require a multitude of assets to

simulate credible force engagement scenarios.

• Introduction in the NATO Air Forces of 5th generation aircraft (equipped

with very long range sensors/weapons, with stealth and networked

operation capabilities, becoming a capability enabler when operating in

coordination with lower generation assets) will make difficult to perform

realistic complex live exercises addressing networked sensor to shooter

events or coordinated employment. The following aspects (list not

exhaustive) could negate/descope a realistic live training:

o Security considerations (e.g. risk of exposure of TTPs and of

performance of highly classified equipment)

o Interoperability issues between national and/or multinational

5th and 4th generation aircraft

o Tactical data link capabilities for coordination with other

platforms and weapons (e.g. Link 16 with Network Enabled

Weapon)

o Complexity of scenarios

o Future automated targeting/fire deconfliction capabilities

between air and ground assets, difficult to be live reproduced

o Size and capabilities of current training ranges

o Operations in networked complex environments taking into

account the effects of possible disruptions due to cyber attacks

• Within an Integrated Air Missile Defence (IAMD) approach, BMD

becomes part of the wider Air Operation conduction, further increasing

number and type of involved assets and the complexity of the scenario

(due to the interference to Air Operation execution). Specificity of BMD

related weapons also makes highly inefficient to routinely employ live

effectors for training.

• Cyber-attack on Air Operations is rapidly becoming an important feature

of operational training, and should be included routinely in force level

mission rehearsal and training exercises, to train the audience to

recognize and operate into a possible degraded environment (to include

deception).

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-3

Furthermore, even during exercises with mixed LVC assets, the Joint aspect

during Air Exercises is reduced to a bare minimum due to lack of Joint Simulation

Capabilities.

G31 Gap: Joint simulation opportunities and G30 Gap: Simulation tool for joint

and collective air operation are interlinked with this gap

Benefit if gap is

satisfied

Using a network synthetic environment, Mission Training through Distributed

Simulation (MTDS) provides an efficient alternative way to perform Collective

and Combined training, Mission Rehearsal and Operational Assessment of Air

and C2 systems in all core airpower roles and types of joint air operations, by

also allowing to train in a secure environment for TTPs of advanced technology

assets. In particular for 5th generation aircraft, this will create the optimal

precondition for future combined training, exercises and operations, by also

supporting resolution of interoperability issues.

It also increases flexibility by enhancing the possibility to stimulate reaction

capabilities to unexpected situations.

Exploit the training audience capabilities on cyber defense and reactions to a

fast changing (cyber-attack) degraded environment.

Cost reduction, reduced environmental impact and reduced psycho-

physiological exposure would also result from MTDS employment.

As the technical interoperability and network connectivity is not fully exploited

at this time, MTDS will boost the degree of interoperability within a relatively

short time. MTDS will also benefit the following:

• Support and Sustain NATO-wide military exercises

• Planning of exercises, development of specific scenario modules, definition

of required information flows, and collaborative development of the

exercise plan.

• Consolidation and preparation of data and scenarios developed and

generated during exercises and operations.

• Planning, collection, staffing, analysis, tracking, classification and reporting

of observations and lessons learned from exercises and operations.

• Support the development of a NATO-wide education and training capability

(to include the IAMD requirements) able to integrate national expertise and

capabilities, to maximize the synergy between live, virtual and constructive

simulation.

Pertains to NATO and Nations

References Draft NIAG SG215 report

Linkage with other

disciplines

Maritime Operations and Land Operations, Joint Targeting, BMD, Cyber

Defence Operations, Special Forces Operation, ISR, Space support to

Operations

Mitigation Some nations have extensive experience in the implementation of MTDS/LVC

architectures with Air Systems. As a recommendation to these nations, they

should consider leading on the implementation of this gap. Possibly through

the Smart Defence Initiative, NATO can act as a catalyst to bring all interested

nations together in the context of the implementation of the MTDS concept

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-4

and to promote the activities of the NMSG for standardization of M&S services

for training.

Linkages to on-

going initiatives

National MTDS/LVC initiatives

NIAG SG215

MSG-128 and follow on MSG-165

SDI 2.117

European Air Group Program on 5th Generation aircraft

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-5

Gap Name High Level Training for Air Policing

Gap Code G44

Status


Description Air Policing is a peacetime mission; NATO and Nations have recently established

dedicated structures to handle Air Policing.

The NATO and the national Air Policing decision makers need to be trained

together with the civil and military ATC authorities, also addressing the

consequence of live engagements on civilian environment.

The recent introduction of new International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

rules (NEXTGEN, SESAR) increases complexity and need for awareness about

implications of airspace sharing between Civil and Military and evolution of the

procedures.

Specificity of scenarios (involving the civilian airspace) make difficult to live train

in realistic conditions (e.g. disrupting civilian air traffic).

Scenario examples:

• Airspace management of ATM traffic due to episodic conflict in NATO border

area

• NATO border tension due to intimidation by threat military flights

approaching the border

• Allied aircraft deployed to a NATO border country for air policing duties for

protection of multinational area

• Area denial for protection of major events ((air) protection system in place

to protect against renegade/slow flyer threat)

• Possible renegade aircraft approaching or intruding NATO border, with flight

trajectory also directed toward more alliance nations

Cyber-attacks could also represent a concurrent feature in some of the above

scenarios; a representation of the impact of a cyber-attack should be included

in the Air Policing training exercises, to train the high-level audience to handle

the decisional process within a degraded environment (to include deception).

Benefit if gap is

satisfied

Train (through M&S) high level political/military authorities, involved in Air

Policing Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs), in threat/crisis situations

that cannot be fully reproduced in live situation.

Train the whole chain of command (to include relevant institutional entities) in

Air Policing TTPs.

Enhance the short-term decision-making procedures.

Exploit the training audience reaction capabilities to a (cyber-attack) degraded

environment.

Better understanding and training about the new International Civil Aviation

Organization rules (NEXTGEN, SESAR).

More effective, efficient and safer coordination with civil air controllers.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-6

References

Linkage with other

disciplines

Maritime Operations, Land Operations, Cyber Defence Operations, Civil

Military Cooperation (CIMIC) and Civil Military Interaction (CMI)

Mitigation Conduct Command Post eXercise (CPX ) or Table Top eXercise (TTX).

Linkages to on-

going initiatives

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-7

Gap Name JFAC Training

Gap Code G45

Status

Area Coordination Training and Exercises

Description JFAC is responsible for management of crisis response and wartime operations,

and for time/space coordination, deconfliction and synchronization of activities,

coordination with JISR, Maritime/Land for 3rd Dimension Operations, BMD,

Cyber, Space support (Navigation, Blue/Red ISR, Communication

Synchronization and Resources) and coordination among civil and military ATC.

A comprehensive JFAC live training would then require a significant complexity

in terms of scenario and multiple assets employment (types and capabilities).

Within an Integrated Air Missile Defence (IAMD) approach, JFAC will have to

handle also BMD as part of the wider Air Operation conduction, further

increasing the complexity of its operating role.

Cyber-attacks on JFAC operations is also becoming an important feature of

operational training, and should be included routinely in mission rehearsal and

training exercises, to train the audience to recognize it and handle the decisional

process within a degraded environment (to include deception).

An additional issue would be to train for JFAC transition from (core) peacetime

to crisis/wartime situations.

Since JFAC is mainly handling data and information, the use of a synthetic

environment would be as effective as the live without the associated issues

(resources/cost/etc…).

G31 Gap: Joint simulation opportunities is interlinked with this gap.

Benefit if gap is

satisfied

Better and more efficient and cost/effective training (through MTDS) for all JFAC

cells for planning, programming and execution.

Better integration of JFAC with all other components to include civil ATC.

Should prepare integration of JFAC inside FMN.

Exploit the training audience capabilities on cyber defense and reactions to a

fast changing (cyber-attack) degraded environment.


References

Linkage with other

disciplines

Maritime Operations and Land Operations, Joint Targeting, BMD, Cyber Defence

Operations, Special Forces Operation, ISR, Space support to Operations

Mitigation Train operators on real C2 systems connected to simulations.

Participation in NATO exercises would facilitate the implementation of

multidiscipline and multidomain coordination training for JFAC.

Linkages to on-

going initiatives

FMN

SDI 2.117

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-8

LAND OPERATIONS

Gap Name LANDOPS

Gap Code G01

Status


Description Original NU text available

Lack of integration between Land and Air operational training environments

restricts training between the Air and Land component, for example

• to support and train operators for (Digital) Close Air Support

• to support and train operators on 3rd Dimension Operations for the execution

of Joint Fires/Targeting between the Air, Maritime and Land environment

Benefit if

gap is

satisfied

Original NU text available

Execution of Joint training.

Pertains to Original NU text available

References

Linkage with

other

disciplines


For Air/Land integration: Air Operations, Maritime Operations, Joint Targeting,

Special Forces Operation, ISR, Space support to Operations

Mitigation Original NU text available

Linkages to

on-going

initiatives

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-9

MARITIME OPERATIONS

Gap Name Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) Simulation in the Maritime Domain (MD)

Gap Code G02

Status Original NU text available


Description


… E.g., for the integration of air support in the maritime domain, the following

mission types should be supported by the LVC training environment:

• Fighter allocation and control from Air Defence frigates

• Air Space coordination (Airspace Control Order execution, Combat Air

Patrol management)

• Airspace control in support of carrier ops

• Long range Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) from Maritime Patrol Aircraft

(MPA). ASW commander tasks MPA, coordination with organic Helicopters

• Joint fires coordination, 3rd dimension operations

• Link operation, Force Track Coordinator (Air) (FTC(A))

This would require integration of naval assets, fighter aircraft, MPA, Helicopter,

UxVs and AEW simulators in the training environment

Benefit if

gap is

satisfied


EXAMPLES

Original NU text available … in conjunction with UK, GE, FR.

UK MOD initiated an annual, joint synthetic training events between Royal Navy

and Royal Airforce, incorporating simulators for the AEW, Typhoon and Type-45

destroyer.


References

Linkage with

other

disciplines

Air Operations, Maritime Operations, Joint Targeting, Special Forces Operation,

ISR, Cyber Defence Operations, Space support to Operations


NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-10

Linkages to

on-going

initiatives


MCTS (UK), TAUES (GE), NCTE (US)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-11

CYBER DEFENCE OPERATIONS

Gap Name Cyber Defence Training

Gap Code G04

Status Original NU text available

Area Education, Individual Training, Collective Training and Exercises.


The lack of representation of a cyber-attack in coalition joint air level

simulations is a major gap which needs to be addressed as cyber will be an

important feature of future operational scenarios.

Benefit if

gap is

satisfied



References Original NU text available

Linkage

with other

disciplines

Air Operations, Maritime Operations, Land Operations, Special Forces

Operation, ISR, Space support to Operations


Linkages to

on-going

initiatives


NMSG related activities.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-12

SPECIAL FORCES OPERATIONS

Gap Name Individual and Small Team Training - Air

Gap Code G07

Status

Area Education and Individual and collective Training. Classroom Instruction


Benefit if

gap is

satisfied




Linkage

with other

disciplines

Air Operations, Maritime Operations, Land Operations, Joint Targeting, ISR,

Space support to Operations


Linkages to

on-going

initiatives

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-13

INPUT ON M&S SPECIFIC GAPS

The M&S Specific GAPS referred in ETEE Gaps G16 & G17 come from ACT in the following list:

1. Lack of NATO Policy on application on M&S including training

2. INFOSEC Policies and Procedures

3. Lack of synchronization and synergy between the processes that contribute to S&T and CD&E in NATO

4. Persistent Training Environment

5. Tools accessibility and capability

6. Lack of a service-oriented approach in M&S in NATO

7. Deficiency on a systematic approach to SIM-C2 connectivity

8. Need to enhance SIM-SIM connectivity for a more standard way of exchanging simulation data

9. Lack of a comprehensive approach for Geo data acquisition

10. Lack of a systematic support for reusing scenario/simulation data

11. Complexity of network configuration

12. Absence of technical solutions that allow multi-level security interoperability

13. Wide interoperability orientation

14. Support for MEL/MIL data deconfliction

15. Lack of a systematic approach to the integration of EXCON information

16. Information exchange should be ensured during Distributed Exercises

17. Multi-language user interfaces

18. Simulation performance issues with large scale scenarios

19. Lack of smart aggregation in multi-resolution federations

20. High bandwidth demands

21. Lack of ability to switch C2 systems from real mode to training mode seamlessly and easily

22. Tools, methodologies for process modelling (from ET 039)

23. NATO LVC – To be confirmed

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-14

INFOSEC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Gap Name INFOSEC Policies and Procedures (for Multi-Level Security accreditation and

cyber security/resilience)

Gap Code G14

Status

Area All


Lack of NATO and national info sec policy concerning air operation training

environment. Without this clear policy further progress in this domain is

impossible.

Benefit if

gap is

satisfied

Faster and more efficient setup of …. (Original NU text available)

Pertains to NATO, Nations


Linkage with

other

disciplines

FMN, Air Operations, Maritime Operations, Land Operations, BMD, Cyber Defence

Operations, Special Forces Operation, ISR, Space support to Operations

Mitigation Align…. Original NU text available

Linkages to

on-going

initiatives


NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-15

EDUCATION TRAINING EXERCISE & EVALUATION (ETEE)

Gap Name Lack of a common approach for the Synthetic Natural Environment (SNE)

Gap Code G15

Status


Description Currently the most costly and time consuming part of setting up an exercise is

the development of a common Synthetic Natural Environment (SNE).

Geo data acquisition (M&S specific gap 9). It is often difficult to obtain

simulation map and geo data for specific areas with correct level of detail as

per exercise support requirements. There is a lack of a comprehensive solution

today that would enable rapid acquisition of arbitrary map/geo data in a

simulation-independent way.

More requirements on SNE that are specifically related to Collective Training

and Exercises are concerned with commonality of SNE representation across

participants. This impacts the datasets used and the way they are processed

into each participant’s simulation. In addition, there are dynamic effects that

must be taken into account that require exchange of information between

participants.

The source requirement for all of these is labelled “fair fight”. At the current

level of technology, it is impossible to make a virtual world as detailed as the

real world, so compromises must be made. With the addition of multiple

participants at different locations, using different simulators, a match between

the compromises made at each location must be ensured (at least for

participants of similar type: air, ground, maritime), so that each participant has

the same interaction with the environment, even if that is not the best one

available.

Fair Fight requirement: The SNE, including terrain and dynamic effects caused

by weather or interaction with human or CG actors, shall be perceived equally

and at the same level of detail by all participants.

SNE data product requirement: Data products shall be available in open

standard formats, including guidelines and instruction regarding conversion

and customization.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-16

Common dynamic services requirements: Dynamic services should be

available for correlating weather, interaction with objects and weapons

damage across exercise participants.

Benefit if

gap is

satisfied

Lower cost and preparation time for setting up Collective Training and

Exercises.

Better support to achieve the training objectives in NATO Exercises by

achieving fair fight conditions through better interoperability of systems.


References

Linkage

with other

disciplines

Air Operations, Land Operations, Maritime Operations, BMD, Joint Targeting,

Special Forces Operation, ISR

Mitigation Original NU text deleted

Linkages to

on-going

initiatives


SISO RIEDP PDG, MSG-156 task group

Comment

The filling of this gap will have a major improvement of the interoperability of systems,

leading to greatly enhanced training. The realization of this capability requires action

on materiel, personnel and facilities.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-17

Gap Name Modelling of the Operational Environment

Gap Code G16

Status


Description • Persistent Training Environment (M&S specific gap 4)

o Original NU text available

o For Air Operations systems we particularly need persistent MTDS

infrastructure providing quick access to a virtual training

environment ready to operate collectively (integration tested,

simulation and terrain database deployed)

• Tools accessibility and capability (M&S specific gap 5)


o For Air operations we need to meet training requirements from

SACEUR’s Annual Guidance on ETEE (SAGE) documents. For system

training the tools must be deployed over the MTDS infrastructure

or easy to access for exercise set-up.

• Lack of a service oriented approach in M&S in NATO (M&S specific gap

6)


o MSaaS should be particularly relevant for MTDS.

• Lack of a systematic support for reusing scenario/simulation data

(M&S specific gap 10)


o For Air Operations we also need both reuse easily the

scenario/simulation data and the results of previous exercises in

order to refine doctrine and tactics in the context of ISR (AFSC, AGS,

UAV, etc.) and C2. MSaaS combined with Big Data processing could

be relevant.

• Support for MEL/MIL data deconfliction (M&S specific gap 14)

o Original NU text available.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-18

o For Air Operations the real time aspects of the scenario make the

de-confliction unmanageable by human. Decision Aids based on Big

Data real time architecture could be relevant.

• Lack of a systematic approach to the integration of EXCON

information (M&S specific gap 15)


o For Air Operations a MTDS Exercise Management (MEM or DMOC

in US) is required for technical support with synthesis reporting to

EXCON (e.g. MTDS health picture, scenario status, etc.

• Information exchange should be ensured during Distributed

Exercises (M&S specific gap 16)


o For Air Operations MEM aims to address this gap, MSaaS is part of

the solution.

• Specific simulation environment (Identified in the 2015 Gaps: For

these simulation environments a server providing real time services

during scenario execution should be appropriate (could be a requirement

for MSaaS). Specific simulation environments include:


• Other Gaps identified in 2015.

o Original NU text available Note: Should be addressed in G15

o Original NU text available… Test and Trial should be part of the

wider requirements

o Original NU text available Note: the MEM approach for MTDS is to

extract ORBAT/STARTEX from C2 data bases, allocate the scenarios

to the multiple parties and provide scenario data services to

support the multiple parties.

Benefit if

gap is

satisfied


Pertains to NATO

References

Linkage

with other

disciplines


Mitigation Original NU text available … and training support tools.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-19

Linkages to

on-going

initiatives


Smart Defence Initiative 2.117 on Mission Training through Distributed

Simulation (MTDS), MSG-164 MSaaS, MSG-165 Air and Joint MTDS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

I-20

Gap Name Technical Gaps

Gap Code G17

Status

Area All


• M&S as a Service (MSaaS). Enable easier access to remotely provided

tools and services. The issue is that when multiple nations and NATO

want to combine their systems together, a lot of client software

installations need to be done for various tools and systems involved.

This creates additional workload and implied cost, and can also trigger

legal issues with licenses, ownership etc.

• NATO LVC. (see M&S specific gap #23). Live systems should be

designed with an interface to support information required for

distributed training. Changes in live systems should be reflected

correctly to virtual or constructive simulations and vice versa.

Benefit if

gap is

satisfied


Pertains to


Linkage

with other

disciplines


Linkages to

on-going

initiatives


Combined Air Interoperability Programme


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX J

CONTRIBUTION TO THE UPDATE OF THE

JAN. 2016 - NATO ACTION PLAN ON MODELLING AND SIMULATION IN SUPPORT

OF MILITARY TRAINING

ON

NIAG SG215

FUTURE COMBINED / JOINT DISTRIBUTED TACTICAL TRAINING THROUGH SIMULATION FOR JOINT AND


The work described in this report was carried out under the provisions of the NIAG Study Order

for Study Group 215.

Disclosure, utilization, publication or reproduction of this report by industry is subject to pre-



NATO UNCLASSIFIED J-1

INPUT ON M&S ACTION PLAN

In accordance with the tasking provided with NIAG SG215 Study Order Extension DI(2017) 0231 (IP) dated 2 August 2017, the SG215 contribution to the ongoing revision process of the :

• NATO Action Plan on Modelling and Simulation in Support of Military Training, dated 25th January 2016

is provided in the following pages, in terms of an Action Plan associated to each one of the gaps addressed by SG215 (see Annex I); as requested by above tasking, the SG215 input had been provided directly to ACT within the requested deadline of end December 2017.

Air Operations (new Action Plans)

• G43: Collective Training & Exercise for Systems (MTDS)

• G44: High Level Training for Air Policing

• G45: JFAC Training Land Operations

• G01: (Note: new name) LandOps

Maritime Operations

• G02: Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) Simulation in the Maritime Domain (MD) Cyber Defence Operations

• G04: Cyber Defence Training Special Forces Operations

• G07: Individual and Small Team Training - Air

Infosec Policies and Procedures

• G14: INFOSEC Policies and Procedures (for Multi-Level Security accreditation and cyber security/resilience)

Education Training Exercise & Evaluation (ETEE)

• G15: (Note: new name) Lack of a common approach for the Synthetic Natural Environment (SNE)

• G16: Modelling of the Operational Environment

• G17: Technical Gaps

Note: The baseline 2016 NATO M&S Acton Plan (to be updated) had been produced as a NATO Unclassified document. In accordance with the SG215 Study Order Extension mandate, the SG215 contribution had to be NATO Unclassified releasable to IP. For the above reason in the following text only the specific SG215 proposed new wording is shown, with the understanding that NATO authorities will have the freedom to decide up to which extent to use it for the new issue of the M&S Action Plan. Whenever the original NU text was integrated, and, as considered by SG215, still applicable, then it is not shown, but an “Original NU text applicable” caption has been included, replacing the NU still applicable text.



Action Plan structure For each one of the Gaps addressed by SG215 within Annex I, a dedicated entry has been produced, addressing:

Gap number/name: as in Gap Analysis report Description: synthesis of the related Gap description from Annex I Action table:

Column Action Specific Action description Deadline Deadline envisaged by SG215 for implementation of the Action Strand Strands proposed by SG215 in order to achieve a coordinated incremental

approach (definitions below)

Work Strands definitions

- Strand I – Establishment of a policy and strategic framework for the exploitation of M&S to support military training. Specifically focused in designing an agreed NATO military policy, strategy and governance on the use of M&S in support of NATO military training.

- Strand II – Synchronization of M&S activities within NATO and continuous identification of training gaps and opportunities.

- Strand III – Capability Building. Build capability by addressing training gaps in a prioritized order via the development or enhancement of NATO, National and multinational M&S training capabilities.

- Strand IV – M&S Standardization. Address interoperability, reusability and cost-effectiveness by the definition and agreement of both M&S and training standards.



AIR OPERATIONS G43: Collective Training & Exercise for Systems (MTDS)

Description: The execution of live exercises in order to train adequately at the Operational and Tactical Level is increasingly difficult to fulfil. Currently it is difficult to train together Air Force and Maritime/Land Air components in realistic conditions, the complexity of Air Operations does require a multitude of assets to simulate credible force engagement scenarios. The introduction in the NATO Air Forces of 5th generation aircraft (equipped with very long range sensors/weapons, with stealth and networked operation capabilities) is creating interoperability problems for networking with lower generation platforms, and will make difficult to perform or even negate/descope realistic complex live exercises addressing networked sensor to shooter events or coordinated employment. Moreover, BMD (as part of the wider Integrated Air Missile Defense operations) would further increase number and type of involved assets and the complexity of the scenario and specificity of BMD related weapons makes highly inefficient to routinely employ live effectors for training. Finally, Cyber-attacks on Air Operations is rapidly becoming an important feature of operational training, and should be included routinely in force level mission rehearsal and training exercises, to train the audience to recognize and operate into a possible degraded environment (to include deception).

Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS) would overcome most of the above issues, by providing efficient and effective Collective and Combined training, Mission Rehearsal and Operational Assessment of Air and C2 systems in all core airpower roles and types of joint air operations, together with supporting resolution of interoperability issues between 5th and 4th generation aircraft, while providing a secure training for TTPs of advanced technology assets. It also increases flexibility by enhancing the reaction capabilities to unexpected situations. Cost reduction, reduced environmental impact and reduced psycho-physiological exposure of aircrews/operators would also result from MTDS employment.

G31 Gap: Joint simulation opportunities and G30 Gap: Simulation tool for joint and collective air operation are interlinked with this gap

Action Deadline Strand Establish an MTDS Organization capable of developing, implementing, upgrading and maintaining the MTDS Training Infrastructure and delivering training on request by participating nations or self-initiated training

2019 I

Develop and maintain an MTDS Reference Architecture, focused at Joint and Combined MTDS

2019 IV

Identify national assets (legacy, selected Verification & Validation and new assets) to be integrated into the MTDS

2019 II

Develop an MTDS Test & Certification Process, focused at certifying legacy and non-legacy LVC assets.

2020 III, IV

Establish a MTDS capability between multinational 5th generation aircraft networked with 4th generation platforms, focused on supporting interoperability assessment.

2020 III, IV

Develop persistent MTDS infrastructure improvements to allow for Air and Joint NATO and National mission training (exercise scalability and variability).

2021 III, IV



Develop, Implement and Maintain MTDS Services/Support Tools to support MTDS capability development and MTDS delivery (e.g. Terrain Database Production facility, EXCON / Simulation Management Services, After Action Review)

2021

III, IV

Responsible Entities

Supporting Entities

Customers Products Common MTDS infrastructure and capability Comments For more in-depth details see NIAG SG215 Report (para 3.3 and

Annex H) Several of above actions could benefit from SDI 2.117 effort European Air Group could be involved as a stakeholder for the 5th generation aircraft issue



G44: High Level Training for Air Policing Description: Air Policing is a peacetime mission; NATO and Nations have recently established dedicated structures to handle Air Policing. The NATO and the national Air Policing decision makers need to be trained together with the civil and military ATC authorities, also addressing the consequence of live engagements on the civilian environment and the effect of operating in a degraded environment due to cyber-attacks. The recent introduction of new International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules (NEXTGEN, SESAR 2) increases complexity and need for awareness about implications. Specificity of scenarios (involving the civilian airspace) make difficult to live train in realistic conditions (e.g. disrupting civilian air traffic) and should be supported mostly by constructive simulation and C2. Fulfillment of M&S training exercise gap would allow training high level political/military authorities involved in Air Policing Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) in threat/crisis situations that cannot be fully reproduced in live condition, training the whole chain of command (to include relevant institutional entities) in Air Policing TTPs and short term decision making procedures, while also allowing to achieve a more effective, efficient and safer coordination with civil air controllers.

Action Deadline Strand Define NATO military policy, strategy and governance for Air Policing training, including the training audience identification and the Air policing scenario on the existing (MTDS) infrastructures or new ones.

2019 I

Develop requirements (to include the Air Policing focused decisional process) into NATO M&S services

2020 II

Develop M&S tools/service to support training events/procedures 2021 III Implement simulation Air Policing scenarios 2021 III Establish a Training Structure (support Teams and M&S infrastructure) capable of delivering training on request by participating nations or self-initiated training (including a White Cell capable of real time scenario updating)

2022 III

Develop dedicated infrastructure and communication tools 2022 III


Supporting Entities

Customers Products High level training environment, procedures and capability for Air

Policing operations Comments



G45: JFAC Training Description: JFAC is responsible for management of crisis response and wartime operations, and on time/space coordination, deconfliction and synchronization of activities, coordination with JISR, Maritime/Land for 3rd Dimension Operations, BMD, Cyber, Space support and coordination among civil and military ATC. A comprehensive JFAC live training would require significant complexity in terms of scenario and multiple assets employment (types and capabilities). Within an Integrated Air Missile Defence (IAMD) approach, JFAC will have to handle also BMD as part of the wider Air Operation conduction, further increasing the complexity of its operating role. An additional problem area would be to train for JFAC transition from (core) peacetime to crisis/wartime situations. Finally, JFAC will have to take into account the impact of cyber-attacks on operations and should be trained on cyber defence procedures. Since JFAC is mainly handling data and information, the use of Virtual or Constructive environment would be as effective as the Live, without the associated issues (resources/cost/etc…), by providing (through MTDS) a better and more efficient and cost/effective training for all JFAC cells for planning, programming and execution as well as a better integration of JFAC with all other components to include civil ATC. G31 Gap: Joint simulation opportunities is interlinked with this gap.

Action Deadline Strand Develop requirements (to include focused decisional process) into NATO M&S services and the possible need for dedicated infrastructures

2019 I

Assess how to enhance BDA modelling in support of intelligence and planning training.

2019 I

Enhance M&S services currently used to meet the range of training needs in a normally operational and strategic level training alliance.

2021 II

Develop simulation tools (also exploring technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, Deep Learning) to reduce the need for human resources needed in support of training

2022 III

Develop (or integrate COTS) tools with intelligent agents to test the planning process.

2022 III

Develop BDA modelling in support of intelligence and planning training.

2022 III


Supporting Entities

Customers Products A training environment, procedures and capability for JFAC

operations

Comments



LAND OPERATIONS

G01. Land Operations (Collective Training and Exercises)

Description:

Original NU text applicable

Additionally, lack of integration between Land and Air operational training environments restricts training between the Air and Land components.

Action Deadline Strand 1) Original NU text applicable

2) Original NU text applicable 3) Original NU text applicable 4) Original NU text applicable 5) Original NU text applicable 6) Original NU text applicable 7) Original NU text applicable

8) Integrate Air and Land operational training environments, in order to support:

• (Digital) Close Air Support (D/CAS) training

• Execution of Joint Fires training

2020 III & IV


Supporting Entities

Customers Products Comments



MARITIME OPERATIONS

G02. Live Virtual Constructive Simulations in the Maritime Domain (Collective Training and Exercises) Description: Original NU text applicable

Action Deadline Strand 1) Original NU text applicable 2) Original NU text applicable 3) Original NU text applicable 4) Original NU text applicable 5) Original NU text applicable

6) Integrate naval assets, fighter aircraft, Maritime Patrol Aircraft, Helicopter, UxVs and Airborne Early Warning aircraft simulators in the training environment

2020 III & IV


Supporting Entities




CYBER DEFENCE OPERATIONS

G04. Cyber Defence Training. (Collective Training)

Description:

Original NU text applicable

The lack of representation of a cyber-attack in coalition joint air level simulations is a major gap which needs to be addressed, as cyber will be an important feature of future operational scenarios.


2) Original NU text applicable 3) Original NU text applicable 4) Original NU text applicable 5) Original NU text applicable 6) Original NU text applicable 7) Original NU text applicable 8) Original NU text applicable 9) A representation of the impact of a cyber-attack should be included routinely in force level mission rehearsal and training exercises

2020 III & IV


Supporting Entities

Customers Products

Comments



SPECIAL FORCES OPERATIONS

G07: Individual and Small Team Training - Air

No specific entry provided, since the currently available Action Plan (as addressed in NATO 2016 Action Plan document) is considered already encompassing the additional gap integration proposed by SG215 (see Annex I).



INFOSEC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES G14: INFOSEC Policies and Procedures (for Multi-Level Security accreditation and cyber security/resilience) Description: Original NU text applicable


2) Original NU text applicable 3) Original NU text applicable 4) Original NU text applicable 5) Original NU text applicable 6) Original NU text applicable 7) NMSG-MSG-165 MTDS to develop and demonstrate new

concepts in this area. 2020 III & IV


Supporting Entities




EDUCATION TRAINING EXERCISE & EVALUATION (ETEE) G15: Lack of a common approach for the Synthetic Natural Environment (SNE) Description: Implementation time and cost, commonality of SNE used in simulators and absence of dynamic services to correlate SNE impacts across distributed simulation.

Action Deadline Strand Select or define standards for shared SNE data and processes (e.g. SISO RIEDP)

2019 IV

Apply standards to both generators and consumers of SNE data 2021 IV Make a reference implementation of SISO RIEDP 2019 III & IV Define and source SNE datasets into a repository (geo-specific in as-needed order, geotypical, e.g. MissionLand)

2020 III

R&D distributed solutions to dynamic simulation services (weather, damage, terrain changes due to weather, damage)

2020 III

Establish standard ICDs for dynamic services 2021 IV Apply dynamic services ICDs to future projects 2022 II


Supporting Entities




G16: Modelling of the Operational Environment

Description: This action plan covers all M&S specific Gap related to Modelling of the Operational Environment for collective training.

Persistent Training Environment. It would allow units to connect and conduct training at a single site or multiple sites interconnected. A persistent MTDS infrastructure should address at least Air Operations.

Tools accessibility and capability. Dedicated/persistent exercise environment tool set provided as a web-based “service". These services should be available on a MTDS infrastructure (i.e. trough interconnected networks)

Service oriented approach in M&S in NATO. MSaaS should be the preferred way for “pooling & sharing” of M&S resources. MSaaS should be also available on a MTDS infrastructure.

Systematic support for reusing scenario/ simulation data. MSaaS discover and compose data access services combined with Big Data processing should be appropriate.

Support for MEL/MIL data de-confliction. Automation or Decision Aids for de-confliction should help EXCON (mandatory for fast interactions such Air operations or Cyber).

Systematic approach to the integration of EXCON information. Systematic approach to integration of information from various sources or technical support with synthetic status from a persistent simulation infrastructure.

Information exchange ensured during Distributed Exercises. Support geographical distribution of exercise setup (in particular from MTDS infrastructure).

Specific simulation environment. Simulation server (MSaaS) should provide specific simulation environment such as Weather, CBRN, EW, BDA, etc.

Action Deadline Strand Persistent training environment such as MTDS infrastructure 2019 II & III Tool accessibility and availability 2020 III

Establish a MSaaS policy for persistent training environment 2019 I Establish MSaaS standard services 2020 IV Implement MSaaS as standard services on pilot project (e.g. MTDS)

2021 III

Support for reusing scenario/ simulation data 2022 III & IV Support for MEL/MIL data de-confliction 2025 III Systematic approach to the integration of EXCON information 2022 III

Information exchange ensured during Distributed Exercises 2022 III Initiate MSaaS services for specific simulation environment 2021 III Responsible Entities

Supporting Entities

Customers Products

Comments



G17: Technical gaps

Description: This gap comprises all technical approaches and their limitations regarding coupling and data exchange between systems in order to achieve interoperability

Action Deadline Strand Develop methodology and standards to describe scope and objectives of exercises in order to allow for better conceptual modelling at the operational and tactical level.

2020 IV

Develop and derive common reference architectures and interaction patterns conforming to NMSG interoperability standards.

2020 III & IV

Collect, select and standardize best practices for training applications taking into account live systems.

2022 IV

Support M&S as a Service activities targeting a common standing service infrastructure.

2020 III

Encourage and support nations to implement FAFD and contribute to its further development

2020 II


Supporting Entities

Customers Products

Comments


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX K

PROPOSALS FOR SMART DEFENSE INITIATIVE

MSG 164 MSG 165

ON

NIAG SG215

FUTURE COMBINED / JOINT DISTRIBUTED TACTICAL TRAINING THROUGH SIMULATION FOR JOINT AND


The work described in this report was carried out under the provisions of the NIAG Study Order for Study Group 215. Disclosure, utilization, publication or reproduction of this report by industry is subject to pre-approval by NATO until such time as NATO may have released such work to the public.


NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX CONTRIBUTORS

The present Annex was produced by SG215 Lead group, supported by members of the Sponsor and the QRT groups.

Specifically, the SG215 members contributing to the production of this Annex are:

• Mr. Jean Pierre Faye (Chairman) • Mr. Arjan Lemmers (Vice-Chair/Team Leader B) • Mr. Giuseppe Fristachi (Rapporteur) • Mr. Erik di Quirico (Team Leader A) • Mr. Henk Janssen (Team Leader C) • Mr. Don Turnbull (Sponsor) • Mr. François Hanne (QRT)


NATO UNCLASSIFIED K-1

PROPOSAL FOR SMART DEFENSE INITIATIVE

TITLE OF PROJECT / PROPOSAL Proposed

by Former

Instalment

Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS) NAFAG N/A

DESCRIPTION & SCOPE

MTDS Mission Training through Distributed Simulation is a generic term for collective training using a

networked synthetic environment. In particular, NATO needs MTDS to provide operational

assessment, mission rehearsal and TTP training of air and C2 systems in all core airpower roles and

types of air operations for aircrews, controllers, and CAOC/JFAC staff.

PURPOSE

Establish a persistent NATO/Multinational MTDS infrastructure to support distributed

tactical training through simulation.

RATIONALE Indicate linkage to:

Several nations are currently engaged on national MTDS program. MSG-128

and NIAG SG-215 identified several gaps on MTDS before reaching a full

sustainable operational capability for multinational training exercises. An

M&S action plan to address these gaps requires in particular: a MTDS concept

of operation, common MTDS exercise management, scenario and terrain

database sharing, high bandwidth and multilevel security network

infrastructure, common standards and tools across the nations.

This Smart Defense program will share national investments in order to

reduce the individual national efforts, improve training interoperability and

coalition operational readiness.

LCCP:

PSA:

SCO:

EXPECTED BENEFITS

NATO MTDS will provide warfighters enhanced Operational Readiness by conducting complex mission

training within an environment as operationally realistic as possible including interdependent

consequences of human-in-the-loop performance with supported and supporting capabilities, all within

a lower risk, lower cost training environment.

INTEREST of NATIONS and INTENT

Nations

interested:

CAN, DEU,

FRA, ITA, NLD,

NOR, TUR,

USA,

Partner:

Remarks:

Potential interest of NATO bodies: Air Operations COE,

M&S COE and Industry

Lead nation:

Lead Nation POC: Tbd

Remarks:



ASSESSMENT & WAY AHEAD

Proposed for ACT M&S Action plan expected early 2018

Way ahead 2018-2020: MSG-128 follow-on and operational NATO exercises

NATO / EU coordination (as applicable)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Related Project's Description (as applicable)/ References: NIAG study SG-215 report (end 2017)

Maturity of related existing projects: MSG-128 exercises (TRL7), Exercises SPARTAN Warrior (TRL8-9),

NATO CFBLNet for network infrastructure

General Background info about Project/ proposal:

NATO AWACS and nations have a common need for training of air combined and joint collective tactical

training, referred to in NATO as Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS). Several NATO

and national activities have been conducted in this area and some nations have implementation

programs. NATO activities include the study SAS-013 on MTDS (2000), training demonstration exercise

First WAVE (SAS-034/MSG-001, 2004), the NATO SMART (2007) and NATO Live, Virtual Constructive

(2010) projects, and, most recently MSG-128 and NIAG Study Groups SG-215 on distributed simulation

for air combined and joint mission training.

With these activities and programs, MTDS has achieved a level of maturity that makes it feasible for

NATO to implement a persistent capability to support operational readiness. As a strong air warfare

capability is one of the pillars of NATO defense, but as training of aircrew is a national responsibility,

implementation of MTDS operations has to be a combined effort of NATO and the nations.

ACT CORE TEAM UPDATES/ WORKFLOW REMARKS

Cluster:

HQ SACT "Mentor"

FOGO:

HQ SACT "Mentor"

FOGO POC:

HQ SACT SME:

Sponsoring Committee:

Supporting Committee:

Sponsoring Committee

Rep:

Supporting Committee

Rep:

Remarks:

Project's / Proposal's Summary and/ or recent updates

Action Remarks:

Lead Nation Proposal:

Project/ Proposal reflection in NDPP:



TECHNICAL ACTIVITY PROPOSAL FOR MSG-164

ACTIVITY REFERENCE NUMBER

MSG-164 ACTIVITY TITLE Modelling and Simulation (M&S) as a

Service (MSaaS) Phase 2

APPROVAL TBA

TYPE RTG + CDT START

05/02/2018

LOCATION(S) AND DATES Kickoff meeting at JFTC (Bydgoszcz, POL), subsequent meetings in participating nations

END 31/12/2020

COORDINATION WITH OTHER BODIES

NCIA, ACT, JWC, JFTC, M&S CoE, CMRE, NIAG, SISO

NATO CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIVITY RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC

Non-NATO Invited

Yes

KEYWORDS M&S as a Service, Simulation Interoperability, M&S Services, Distributed

Simulation, Simulation Environments, Simulation Architecture, Service Oriented Architecture.

I. BACKGROUND:

MSG-131 and MSG-136 provided initial proof that M&S as a Service (MSaaS) has great potential for NATO to benefit from commercial developments, and to efficiently realize future simulation environments for NATO and its Partners. II. MILITARY RELEVANCE:

NATO and its Partners extensively use simulation for various purposes (e.g., training, mission rehearsal, or decision support in acquisition processes). Setting up simulation environments today still requires enormous effort with regards to time, personnel, and budget. Improving efficiency in simulation use and better utilization of valuable simulation resources is a critical factor to sustain the asymmetrical advantage that simulation provides to NATO and its Partners. This activity will mature MSaaS in an operationally relevant environment and conduct necessary research and development efforts. Through close cooperation with the operational user community and participation in exercises, this activity contributes to realizing the MSaaS vision that “M&S products, data and processes are conveniently accessible and available on-demand to all users in order to enhance operational effectiveness”. III. SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE(S) AND EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENTS:

Building upon the Allied Framework for M&S as a Service developed by MSG-136 this activity addresses three main objectives:

1. To advance and to promote the operational readiness of M&S as a Service.



2. To align national efforts and to share national experiences in establishing MSaaS capabilities.

3. To investigate critical research and development topics to further enhance MSaaS benefits.

This activity will establish an MSaaS infrastructure that is available for use in operationally relevant environments and supports continued MSaaS experimentation and evaluation efforts. This activity will also deliver a Technical Report, a repository of available M&S services and recommendations with regards to the organizational perspective of introducing MSaaS in NATO and in the Nations. Additional deliverables (e.g., interface specifications, prototype implementations) will be defined by activity members in the final Program of Work. A Cooperative Demonstration of Technology (CDT) is foreseen for 2019 and 2020. IV. SCIENTIFIC TOPICS TO BE COVERED:

To address the objectives, this activity will cover the following topics: 1. Demonstrate MSaaS application in an operational environment through a series of

events (e.g., using national MSaaS capabilities or the M&S Enclave on CFBLNet). Annual participation in CWIX to develop MSaaS to maturity through a phased approach. CWIX participation is considered a Cooperative Demonstration of Technology (CDT).

2. Maintain and enlarge the MSaaS Community of Interest. 3. Establish interim governance structure and collect experiences wrt MSaaS

governance. 4. Collect and share experiences in establishing MSaaS capabilities and providing

M&S services. 5. Conduct research on M&S-specific service discovery and service composition. 6. Conduct research and development activities on M&S-specific federated cloud

environments, federated identity management and cyber secure communications. 7. Conduct research on enabling services like scenario specification services, etc.

Additionally, the task group will 1. Act as governance body for the Allied Framework for M&S as a Service, maintaining

and updating (if needed) AMSP-02 (MSaaS Governance Policies), AMSP-06 (MSaaS Reference Architecture) and therein referenced documents of the Allied Framework for M&S as a Service.

2. Collaborate with international standards bodies (like SISO, IEEE, etc.). 3. Inform and engage stakeholders in NATO, Academia, and Industry about MSaaS.

V. SYNERGIES AND COMPLEMENTARITIES:

This activity seeks close collaboration with the following NMSG and NATO efforts:

• UCATT

• Data Farming as a Service

• HLA Certification Services

• Mission Training through Distributed Simulation (MTDS)

• C2Sim



• Crisis Management and Disaster Recovery

• ACT CoreSim 2020

• M&S COE MSaaS Platform efforts (“OCEAN”) and M&S Enclave Initiative

• CMRE M&S capabilities In the MSaaS spirit of sharing and reusing simulation resources, it is expected that the above mentioned efforts contribute resources and benefit from resources provided by members of this activity. VI. EXPLOITATION AND IMPACT:

• Significant contributions to national simulation policies and ACT CoreSim 2020

• Use of MSaaS in CWIX

• Establishment of M&S Enclave Initiative to provide permanent MSaaS capabilities

• Enlargement of MSaaS Community of Interest, including outreach to industry

• Contributions to existing standards and recommendations for new standards and guidelines

VII. TECHNICAL TEAM LEADER AND LEAD NATION:

Lead Nations: Germany (Chair), GBR (Co-Chair), NLD (Co-Chair), USA (Co-Chair) Points of Contact:

Dr. Robert Siegfried, DEU([email protected], +491607367329) Jon Lloyd, GBR ([email protected], +44 7881 280966) Tom van den Berg, NLD ([email protected]) Chris McGroarty, USA ([email protected], +1 407-401-3486)

VIII. NATIONS/NATO ORGANISATIONS WILLING/INVITED TO PARTICIPATE:

NATO Nations and Bodies: all NATO Nations and Bodies invited PfP Nations: all PfP nations invited Global Partners: Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand invited Contact / Other Nations: Singapore Confirmed: Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The

Netherlands, Norway, UK, USA, Australia, Sweden, JFTC, M&S COE, ACT

IX. NATIONAL AND/OR NATO RESOURCES NEEDED (Physical and non-physical Assets):

Personnel resources (technical, scientific and military) and travel costs are to be provided through national contributions. JFTC is willing to contribute the permanent usage/support of the JFTC Battle Lab capabilities, and M&S COE is willing to provide cloud computing infrastructure. All participants are kindly asked to share models and M&S services (e.g., 3-d models, terrain data, middleware services, management services, simulation services, support tools, infrastructure services).



X. CSO RESOURCES NEEDED (e.g. Consultant Funding):

Standard support for STO Task Groups in accordance with the current edition of the STO Operating Procedures. Support for cooperative demonstrations of technologies in conjunction with major events related to Simulation, Training and Education (e.g., CWIX, I/ITSEC, ITEC, NATO CAX Forum, SISO SIW, Winter Simulation Conference).



TECHNICAL ACTIVITY PROPOSAL FOR MSG-165

ACTIVITY REFERENCE NUMBER

MSG 165 ACTIVITY TITLE

Incremental Implementation of Mission

Training through Distributed Simulation for Joint and Combined Air Operations

APPROVAL (4)

TYPE TG START 01/2018

LOCATION(S) AND DATES Multiple locations END

12/2020 COORDINATION WITH OTHER BODIES

NMSG, ACT, Air Operations COE, NAFAG, NCIA, NIAG, M&S COE

NATO CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIVITY

NATO UNCLASSIFIED releasable to IP for R&T

NATO SECRET for operational exercises

Non-NATO Invited

Yes for IP1

KEYWORDS Mission Training, Distributed Simulation, LVC, Interoperability, Tactical

Data Links, Exercise Management, Security

XI. BACKGROUND:

In October 2013 the NATO task group MSG-128 ‘Incremental Implementation of NATO MTDS operations’ was stood up with the objective to establish essential elements for a permanent NATO MTDS capability and validate these elements through initial multinational exercises (NAEW, CAN, DEU, FRA, NLD, NOR) with AWACS and small Air-to-Air missions using legacy simulators, and growing in scenario complexity, including C2 and Ground targets.

In October 2016, NAFAG defined the need for a study as a result of the MSG-128 and requested a NIAG study (SG-215) on Future Combined / Joint Distributed Tactical Training through Simulation for Joint and Combined Tasks and Operations in order to provide a roadmap for how technological innovations can improve NATO and national Distributed Tactical Training through Simulation while leveraging existing simulation technologies. In particular, NATO aims to provide mission rehearsal and operational assessment of air and C2 systems in all core airpower roles and types of air operations for aircrews, controllers and CAOC/JFAC staff. This should include Maritime Air components, Land Air components and JISR components (AGS, UAV, etc.).

The MSG-128 and the NIAG SG-215 recommend pursuing simultaneous effort; 1) on R&T to extend the initial MTDS capability, and 2) on NATO/Multinational operational exercises and training events to validate MTDS capability.

XII. MILITARY RELEVANCE:

NATO needs an MTDS capability to provide mission training and operational assessment of air and C2 systems in all core airpower roles, including Maritime Air, Land Air and JISR (AGS,

1 Interoperability Package



UAV) components. This activity has to be part of the ACT M&S action plan on Air Operation Training (systems level) and will improve the (initial) MTDS capability provided by MSG-128.

XIII. SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE(S) AND EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENTS:

The key objectives and expected achievements are:

− Based on the work of previous NATO and (multi-)national studies (MSG-128 & NIAG SG-215) and projects extend NATO MTDS essential elements to include Maritime, Land, JISR simulations.

− Refine MTDS Reference Architecture and interoperability solutions based on recommendations from NIAG SG-215

− Develop concept for interfaces for integration of Live assets in MTDS and validate.

− Develop a common approach to multi-level security in MTDS based on NIAG SG-215 recommendations

− Recommend MTDS Exercise Management set of tools, based on available COTS and GOTS products and C2.

− Validate these elements through initial operational tests and evaluation in a classified network or when possible in non-classified network.

− Participate in NATO/Multinational operational exercises and training events.

− Organize specific exercise when required

XIV. SCIENTIFIC TOPICS TO BE COVERED:

− Reference Architecture, processes, interfaces, and information exchange interoperability

o Technical building blocks

o Data Exchange Models

o Engineering process

− Communication and Tactical Data Links

o L11/L16/L22, SATCOMM, AGS, LOS/BLOS COMMS, DCAS COMMS, ACCS/JFAC

o Voice communications

o Simulation environment agreements and data exchange models for tactical datalinks

− Standards for LVC (Live, Virtual and Constructive) training

o Interfaces to Live systems (C2, Aircraft, instrumented systems)

o Best practice for coherent representation of environment among all LVC elements of a MTDS exercise.



− Recommendations for MTDS Exercise Management tools

− Security for various levels of classification (same level / multi-level)

− Tests & experiments

XV. SYNERGIES AND COMPLEMENTARITIES:

The results of MSG-128 are used for the development of the MTDS Reference Architecture.

The results of MSG-134 (NATO Distributed Simulation Architecture & Design, Compliance Testing and Certification) and its successor provide the certification and accreditation processes and tools that can be used for the test and integration of system elements.

The results of MSG-156 (Dynamic Synthetic Environments for Distributed Simulation) will be used for correlated terrain/radar/visual databases as well for harmonized weather simulation.

The results of MSG-136 (MSaaS) should be used to provide simulation services such as database repository, terrain/ weather servers, testing, etc.

XVI. EXPLOITATION AND IMPACT:

The MTDS architecture, the multi-level security solutions, and other results as developed by this Task Group will be used by NATO and nations to implement MTDS capabilities. Yearly tests & experiments follow-on by operational exercise organization/ participation will aim to initiate persistent MTDS capability for NATO Joint and Combined Air Operations training.

The NAFAG will work with NATO and nations on a Smart Defence Initiative to realize and maintain this MTDS capability.

XVII. TECHNICAL TEAM LEADER AND LEAD NATION:

Arjan Lemmers (NLD) co-leader and Timothy Steffen (US) co-leader

XVIII. NATIONS/NATO ORGANISATIONS WILLING/INVITED TO PARTICIPATE:

Willing nations: Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, United States, M&S COE, Air Operations COE, NIAG.

Invited nations: Italy, Spain, United Kingdom and other interested Nations

XIX. NATIONAL and/or NATO RESOURCES NEEDED (Physical and non-physical Assets):

The following contributions are needed from participating nations and NATO bodies (recognizing that not all participants may be able to provide resources in all areas).

− Operational Experts in air warfare, JISR, Air components of Army and Navy − M&S experts: Training Experts in the Air domain, simulator and C2 industry

− IT security experts, networks (ex: CFBLnet)

− Contribution of relevant assets: Simulators, Training and exercise centres,



Most of these contributions are not required full-time, but only for specific phases and meetings.

Meetings will be unclassified and the Technical Report will not contain classified information.

Operational exercises will be NATO classified at some level (most likely NS). When possible lower level classification will be apply)

XX. CSO RESOURCES NEEDED

The following contributions are requested from CSO:

• SISO SIW registration fees.

• Dissemination support (creation of PR2 videos)

2 Public Relation

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED L-1

ANNEX L

SG215 COMMON REFERENCES

[1] SG215_STUDY_ORDER_DI(2016)0270-IP on Future Combined -Joint Distributed Tactical Training through Simulation (MTDS) for Joint and Combined Tasks and Operations, 13 OCTOBER 2016

[2] DI(2017)0231_IP_SG215_STUDY_ORDER_EXTENSION, 2

AUGUST 2017 [3] NIAG-D(2012)0022 (PFP), FINAL REPORT OF NIAG SG 162

STUDY ON DISTRIBUTED SIMULATION FOR AIR AND JOINT MISSION TRAINING, FINAL REPORT, 15 OCTOBER 2012.

[4] NIAG-D(2012)0022 (PFP), ANNEXES TO THE FINAL REPORT

OF NIAG SG 162 STUDY ON DISTRIBUTED SIMULATION FOR AIR AND JOINT MISSION TRAINING, 15 October 2012.

[5] TR-MSG-080, SECURITY IN COLLECTIVE MISSION

SIMULATION, APRIL 2015 [6] TR-MSG-106, ENHANCED CAX ARCHITECTURE, DESIGN

AND METHODOLOGY – SPHINX, FINAL REPORT [7] AMSP-03: GUIDANCE FOR M&S STANDARDS IN NATO AND

MULTINATIONAL COMPUTER ASSISTED EXERCISES WITH DISTRIBUTED SIMULATION.

[8] AMSP-04: NATO EDUCATION AND TRAINING NETWORK

FEDERATION ARCHITECTURE AND FOM DESIGN (NETN FAFD).

[9] AMSP-05: HANDBOOK (BEST PRACTICES) FOR CAX. [10] SPHINX CONCEPTUAL MODEL SUPPORTED BY AN

EXPERIMEN-TAL TOOL. [11] NATO ACTION PLAN ON MODELLING AND SIMULATION IN

SUPPORT OF MILITARY TRAINING, 22 February 2016 [12] 2015 GAP ANALYSIS REPORT ON MODELLING AND

SIMULATION IN SUPPORT OF MILITARY TRAINING, 15 July 2015, 7800/TSC FER 0100/TT-150276/Ser:NU0604

NATO UNCLASSIFIED


NATO UNCLASSIFIED L-2

[13] MSG-080 STUDY ON SIMULATION INTEROPERABILITY. [14] MSG-042 STUDY ON DEFINITION OF A FRAMEWORK FOR

SIMULATION RESOURCES REUSABILITY (FSRR) [15] MSG-136 STUDY ON M&S AS A SERVICE [16] MSG-ET 047 EXPLORATORY STUDY ON FEDERATED

APPROACH TOWARDS NATO SIMULATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

NATO INDUSTRIAL ADVISORY GROUP (NIAG) NATO AIR FORCE ...2018... · NATO’s readiness for coalition...

Documents

Transcript of NATO INDUSTRIAL ADVISORY GROUP (NIAG) NATO AIR FORCE ...2018... · NATO’s readiness for coalition...