UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED Lessons learned from planning and preparing a distributed ISR LVC Environment - and there were lots John W. Diem Test Technology Director, US Army Operational Test Command ITEA Systems of Systems Engineering Workshop January 29, 2015
15
Embed
Lessons learned from planning and preparing a distributed ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Lessons learned from planning and preparing a distributed ISR LVC Environment
- and there were lots
John W. DiemTest Technology Director, US Army Operational Test CommandITEA Systems of Systems Engineering WorkshopJanuary 29, 2015
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Why did we need an ISR LVC Solution for OT – and why distributed?
• For the Distributed Common Ground Station – Army (DCGS-A) Limited Users Test to be conducted as part of the Network Integration Evaluation (NIE) 15.2 in May 2015• Preceded by lab based risk reduction @ Aberdeen Proving
Grounds, MD• Preceded by developmental testing @ Fort Huachuca, AZ• Preceded by multiple Technical Integration Events for each of
the 3 preceding NIEs (14.1, 14.2, 15.1)
• Required hybrid LVC solutions from testing, training, experimentation, and operations – even 3 letter agency support – to create the right mix of simulation, scripting and control for a free-play environment for the system, its system of systems – and most importantly, its users
• Long ramp-up: multiple DTs, LBRRs, and NIEs as preparatory events – the economy and power of distributed planning, engineering, and support became readily apparent. Getting there was another matter.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The purpose of this webinar is to show the utility of Live Virtual, Constructive (LVC) network models to the broad DoD community to include Development, Test, Plan, and Training of Networks and Network-enabled systems. We will: Discuss the importance and challenges of developing, testing and deploying tactical communications networks Review the recent advances in LVC network models and how they address these challenges Provide case studies of LVC network model use in operational test, analysis, experimentation and cyber threat assessment, and Share some thoughts on the future of LVC network modeling and simulation.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
What does distributed mean for this test – and can it help?(according to dictionary.com)
distribute[dih-strib-yoot]
verb (used with object), distributed, distributing.1.to divide and give out in shares; deal out; allot.2.to disperse through a space or over an area; spread; scatter.3.to promote, sell, and ship or deliver (an item or line of merchandise) to individual customers, especially in a specified region or area.4.to pass out or deliver (mail, newspapers, etc.) to intended recipients.5,6.to divide into distinct phases or classes:The process was distributed into three stages.These plants are distributed into 22 classes.
Build and prove-out hybrid teams and architectures
Geography – but more: security, architectures, protocols,
nationality, standards
YES! – starting with planning and ending in test execution
Link evaluators, testers, tool developers – concept to
accreditation
Leverage SoS elements for time needed
Grow the capability from concept through LBRR through
DT through LUT to IOTE
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
How has this test been distributed?• Geography – but not always nation or world-wide. Sometimes the most
challenging link was between simulations at Fort X and live players at Range Y, 60 miles and multiple tactical and installation backbones away
• Security – unclassified live tactical engagement simulations tied to collateral constructive simulations tied to SCI simulations and operational ISR systems, working at collateral and SCI
• Architectures, Standards and Protocols – DIS, HLA, TENA, multiple tactical message formats and data exchanges distributed across an LVC federation linked at multiple points to a C4ISR enterprise as well as data collection and test control sysetms
• Responsibilities – PM, DT, OT, Evaluator for concept, multiple agencies for scenario and event control development (data, road to war, event lists,….). A Team of Teams
• Time – Multiple events over a 2 year window• System of Systems – mix of live and simulated sensors and other C4ISR
inputs working in the context of a common scenario and envionment
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The purpose of this webinar is to show the utility of Live Virtual, Constructive (LVC) network models to the broad DoD community to include Development, Test, Plan, and Training of Networks and Network-enabled systems. We will: Discuss the importance and challenges of developing, testing and deploying tactical communications networks Review the recent advances in LVC network models and how they address these challenges Provide case studies of LVC network model use in operational test, analysis, experimentation and cyber threat assessment, and Share some thoughts on the future of LVC network modeling and simulation.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Test Environment Design: A Team SportPlanning and Preparation
- Operational Thread Requirements - Friendly Force Structure- Mission Profile - Concept of Operations
- Five Events- Simulation Interoperability- Simulation to Mission Command System Integration- Network Performance Assessment
- Complete build of Test Unit and NIE Tactical Network- Intelligence WfF technical threads (live and sim)- Fires and Maneuver WfF technical threads (live and sim)
• Tasks / Outputs Refine the Master Event List Refine/Adjust individual storylines Refine/Adjust threat scheme of maneuver Synchronize Live / Constructive OPFOR
Threat Entity Live / Sim Intel Signatures Intel Source
Threat Cell #1
HVI #1 Live SIGINT - Live OPFOR communications network
GMTI - Truck (Sim)
HUMINT -TiMS Inject Live Role Player
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
To ensure the test environment is robust…1. Develop overall scenario including DCGS-A LUT Test Team
requirements2. Develop storylines3. Develop individual messages to support storylines4. Live and Simulated portions must be synchronized5. Supports BDE Operations and DIV ACE (-) (ISR)
Distributed Scenario Development
ATTICA
4th ID attacks 2/1 ADVBIED
2/1 LOG PAC attacked
Example StorylinesTACREP - OPFOR Comms
HUMINT reporting
Unit Reporting
Messages of Quality Targeting
Decision Points
BCT Operations
Plan, Prepare, Execute, AssessLessons Learned: 1) Robust is a small word but is open for lots of interpretation; 2) Synchronization is a bigger word but getting that right – and defining robust - has consumed 3 NIEs and we still have a lot of work left between multiple sites to be ready for OT
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
End State: Unit feels like they are conducting live BDE operations and are supporting the commander’s decision making process• Operational Mode Summary / Mission Profile: describes the concept of
employment, missions, and environmental conditions DCGS-A capability will encounter during the full range of military operations• Combination of Wide Area Security and Combined Arms Maneuver• Messages – describes what messages should stimulate the BDE S2• TOC/TAC jumps are executed throughout the exercise in response to
the Situation• Filling data buckets – ensure our messages properly stimulate the use of
DCGS-A; quality ensures that it is a true operational environment that is relevant to the fight
• Master Event List with dynamic scripting to adjust; REDFOR Commander (Live and Sim) can make decisions (traceability i.e. truth table); reviewed/updated daily
Getting the Scenario Right (1/2)
Lessons Learned: 1) Art & Science; 2) Insuring that the means to deliver information “filled the data buckets” correctly would have benefited from a lot more distributed engineering and integration; 3) Event control distributed across simulations, scripting and control cell could also have benefited from a lot more distributed rehearsal.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Enable DCGS-A fuses diverse data streams to provide a commander better SA to conduct the mission. an human-driven OPFOR as part of the OT
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Message Type (24 hour period)SIPRNet JWICS “SCI”
min max min max min max
Maneuver/OPS Mission Command
Combat Reports
All Source
Collaboration
Weather
Intel Products
Collection Management
Biometrics
GEOINT
Engineer Products
Imagery Products
FMV
Moving Target Indicator
SIGINT Operations
Reporting
HUMINT/CI Operations
Reporting
MASINT MASINT
Getting the Scenario Right (2/2)
Structured from the OMS/MP Message Requirements
Lessons Learned: 1) More trial and effort than expected on finding – and documenting “operational realism” – what information, in what sources, over what networks? 2) Close collaboration with TCM and PM required – and has been improved via distributed integration efforts pre-test.
-Ground Moving Target Indicator data- Full Motion Video
Joint Cryptologic Mission Simulation (JCMS) - Pulls SIGINT messaging from simulation and SIGINT scripting cell into a Real Time Regional Gateway (RTRG)
- TS/SCI SIGINT messaging
Training Brain Operations Center (TBOC) Traffic Integration Messaging System (TiMS)
- Scripted HUMINT and Open Source products - HUMINT, Open Source news feeds, other All-Source products
Extensible C4I Instrumentation Suite – Fire Support Application (ExCIS-FSA)
- Friendly Indirect Fire Platforms, Sensors, and Mission Command Nodes
- Tactical Messaging between live and simulated Field Artillery units’ AFATDS and simulated artillery firing platforms
CRAM Distributed System of Systems Simulation (CDS3)
-Friendly Air Missile Defense sensors, C2 nodes, and firing platforms- Fixed Wing Aircraft and Ballistic Missiles
- Air Defense Engagement messaging- Air Picture to BCT Air Defense Airspace Management (ADAM) Cell
The ATEC Player Evaluation Tracking System(TAPETS) integrated with MILES
- Live Player Instrumentation- Tactical Engagement, Position Location
Common Data Link (CDL) - Integrate Live Player position data from TAPETS into the constructive simulation- Live and Constructive synchronization
Lessons Learned: 1) Getting all the tools to work together – most of which we don’t own – would have benefitted from more distributed testing, up front. 2) As we got more comfortable with how the tools worked – alone and together – we began to employ more and more from their home station vice bring to the test site.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Distributed Live EnablersLinked to LVC and/or Tactical Systems/Networks
Enabler Functional Representation Outputs to Mission Command System
OPFOR and civilian communications network - Threat and civilian role player communications - Signature for live SIGINT assets
SIGINT White Cell (BMC G2 and Strategic Plans and Exercise Branches)
- Discrete SIGINT reporting to augment simulation feed
- COMINT messaging
ISR Integration Cell (formerly ISR TOPOFF) - COCOM ISR Collection Manager- Provides GEOINT and Imagery products- Responds to Unit RFIs
- GEOINT- COCOM ISR Collection Plan to Division/JTF HQ
Live Role Players - Represent HVI and civilian persons of interest- Interact with live forces and company response cells during live and simulated engagements
- HUMINT Sources- SIGINT Signature
Live Sensors - Organic BCT ISR - Live SIGINT and Full Motion Video
Live Maneuver Battalion - All Warfighting Functions- HUMINT Collection Teams (HCT)
- Combat Reporting - HUMINT- Tactical Questioning
Company Response Cells` - Live Company Headquarters- Tactical Communications and Mission Command Systems- Constructive maneuver platoons
Lessons Learned: 1) Some of the hardest distribution challenges are within the 60 mile radius of the test site: lack of cross-domain solutions, “stitching” multiple test support networks together, synching live sensor feeds on live force w/ simulated sensor feeds on live + constructive force; 2) Lack of a cross-domain solution (CDS) that can link LVC and operational systems on open SIPR (and higher) is moving from nuisance to mission critical; 3) Geographic boundaries only go so far when synchronizing live and simulated forces.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
How it all comes together: Distributed ISR OT – more than geography
DistributedSims and Operational Networks for Product Distribution Lessons Learned: 1) In almost every case, the impact of disruptions to network
connectivity – the “glue of the event” - were no worse than if the LVC assets were collocated with the test. Said another way – they weren’t an excuse not to go distributed 2) Geographic boundaries only go so far when synchronizing live and simulated forces (worth saying twice).
12
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Summary: We found real or potential benefits – and learned lessons – across the whole OT timeline
• More insightful analysis of alternatives for test plans, scenarios, architectures – “Try before you buy”
• Achieved more realistic scenarios and test environments –and may have only seen the tip of the iceberg
• Earlier identification of potential issues – and solutions -during scenario, LVC architecture, data collection, and test control development
• We were able to help PM relatively late in the cycle – could have helped avoid even more unexpected costs and delays
• Lowered the cost to prepare for and execute the OT – using distributed architecture will save roughly $400K for one event
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The result- benefits across the entire acquisition lifecycle Operational Test Community : Significant cost savings -- reduced need for live test articles & operators Reduce test costs: debug test scenarios with LVC models prior to field events Provided a robust test environment that would be cost-prohibitive to reproduce with all live assets Realistic network loading by accounting accurately for network & user traffic Common environments for test of applications, radios, or network tools Analysis Early insight into performance gaps and consistent evaluation of alternative strategies to mitigate the gaps Early insight into interoperability challenges for heterogeneous networks Consistent comparison of alternatives in operationally accurate scenarios Development Test & Program Management cost avoidance by facilitating testing in early development stages Cost avoidance by testing operational readiness and specifically interoperability gaps in DT events Cost reductions by using a shared repository of scenarios developed throughout the product lifecycle Cyber Evaluate impact of diverse cyber threats on application resilience (and/or mission assurance) from an operational perspective Evaluate impact of mitigation strategies for ‘critical’ cyber threats on application resilience A common environment for cyber threat analysis at all layers form physical, network, to application vulnerabilities Experimentation: Conduct experimentation for conditions not achievable at ranges due to safety, security, limited test assets or space available A robust environment in which to facilitate experimentation with wireless assets which is typically cumbersome in live ranges Training Add realistic communication and cyber effects by embedding network models in current generation of trainers. Facilitate kinetic & cyber training within a single framework
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Questions
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Networked Systems “Plug In” to a Tactically Realistic Virtual Network
Network Emulations
Data Collection & Analysis Tools
Hardware /System in the Loop Interface (HWIL/SITL)
Platforms
C5ISR
Sensors
AirspaceIntegration
DistributedSimulations
SAFs (OneSAF)TENA/HLA/
DIS InterfacesVirtual
Simulations
Tactical NetworkModel Library
Terrain / Weather
RF Propagation
Cyber ModelLibrary
Information Systems
Operates On Top of Wide Area Networks
Distributed testing capabilities and methods benefit OT during
planning, engineering, preparation, and execution.
OT Test Environment Template for Networked Systems
Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the core is the ability to emulate a real tactical network. There are multiple tools already developed that do this and Always On-On Demand will leverage the best of breed. The ability to take a tactical system, be it a radio, sensor, aircraft, C2, or anything else with a network plus … and plug it into a simulation that correctly replicates a tactical network environment opens up a world of possibilities. No longer do we have to rely on field testing to find out how a system, or combination of systems, will react to adverse conditions where weather, terrain, spectrum, etc, will reduce or stop network traffic from one location to another. The core (at the center) is the model of the tactical network; the environmental factors that affect wireless signal propagation including terrain, mobility, interference .. are also modeled accurately. Statistics and relevant data on the mission is collected and analyzed using the identical (and familiar) set of tools used with live networks. Standard interfaces are used to link the LVC network model with simulators of other system components.