Development History and Case Study of Interoperability between US Combat Simulation and C2 Systems

doi:10.16182/j.issn1004731x.joss.201812024

Abstract

Abstract: The analysis of heterogeneity between U.S. combat simulation and command & control (C2) systems is carried out. The roadmap, its main development stage and main tendency of interoperability between US combat simulation and C2 systems are also analyzed. Two case studies, Viz., the Naval Simulation System/the Global Command and Control - Maritime (NSS/GCCS-M) Federation and C4I Team Training System (CTTS) are conducted, which are representatives of bidirectional interfaces and embedded interoperability respectively. The main measures such as ensuring interoperability which is a shared responsibility between the M&S and C2 communities, long-term plan and coordination are beneficial to the promotion of similar domains for PLA.

Key words: combat simulation system, C2 system, interoperability, hint

CLC Number:

TP391.9

Xu Xiangzhong, Tang Zaijiang, Tan Yaxin. Development History and Case Study of Interoperability between US Combat Simulation and C2 Systems[J]. Journal of System Simulation, 2018, 30(12): 4686-4692.

References

[1] 徐享忠, 郭齐胜, 张伟, 等. 先进分布仿真[M]. 2版. 北京: 国防工业出版社,2013: 178-180.
Xu X Z, Guo Q S, Zhang W, et al.Advanced distributed simulation[M]. Beijing: Defence Industrial Press, 2013: 178-180.
[2] 李辉光. 美军信息作战与信息化建设 [M]. 北京:军事科学出版社, 2004: 315-318.
Li H G.US Army information operation and information-based construction[M]. Beijing: Military Science Press, 2004: 315-318.
[3] Timian D H, Hieb M R, Lacetera J, et al.Report Out of the C4I Study Group[C]. Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop (00F-SIW-005), San Diego, CA, 2000.
[4] Allen G, Smith R D.TACSIM: Intelligence Training for Tomorrow's Battlefield[R]. Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin. Fort Huachuca, Arizona, 1994.
[5] Smith R D.The Conflict between Heterogeneous Simulations and Interoperability[C]. Proceedings of the 1995 Interservice/Industry Training Systems and Education Conference. Albuquerque, NM, 1995.
[6] Robert L, Marnie S, Garrett B.A Demonstration of C2I System-to-Simulation Interoperability: The NSS/GCCS- M Federation[C]. Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop (99F-SIW-065), San Diego, CA, 1999.
[7] John D, Daniel R, Jim W.Integrating Simulations into DII COE Compliant C4I Systems[C]. Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop(02F-SIW-048), Newport, RI, 2002.
[8] Mark J P, Douglas C, Thomas R, et al.Linked Heterogeneous BML Servers in NATO MSG-085[C]. Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop (13F-SIW-024), Orlando, FL, 2013.
[9] Gustavsson M, Wemmergrd J, Jonsson F.Object- Orientated implementation of Grammar Based Battle Management Languages[C]. Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop (12S-SIW-001), Orlando, FL, 2012.
[10] Samuel S.Semantic C2SIM: Scope and Challenges[C]. Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop (14F-SIW-037), Alexandia, VA, 2014.
[11] Mark J, Magnus G.Publish/Subscribe and Translation Performance in the WISE-SBML Server for MSDL and C-BML[C]. Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop (14F-SIW-036), San Diego, CA, 2014.
[12] Brennan J M, Smith E B.M&S-C4ISR Interoperability/ Synchronization Issues and Potential Solutions[C]. 2001 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL, 2001.
[13] Remmersmann T, Schade U, Khimeche L, et al.Lessons Recognized: How to Combine BML and MSDL[C]. 2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop (12S-SIW-012), Orlando, FL, 2012.
[14] The Office of the Defense Information Systems Agency. Defense Information Infrastructure (DII COE) Technical Working Groups and Advisory Group Page [EB/OL]. (2000-08-12) [2015-03-09]. http://diicoe.disa.mil/coe/ aog_twg/twg/twg_page.html.
[15] Thomas R, Dr Ulrich S, Kellyn R, et al.BML for Communicating with Multi-Robot Systems[C]. Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop (15F-SIW-001). Orlando, FL, 2015.