Enabling Military Coalition Command and Control with
Interoperating Simulations
J. Mark Pullen
C4I Center, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, U.S.A.
Keywords: Military Command and Control, Simulation, Interoperability.
Abstract: This paper reports on progress in developing standardized methods for military coalitions to interoperate
command and control (C2) systems and simulations as a system-of-systems, resulting in improved
functionality and timeliness for participants. Command and control systems are networked software systems
that commanders, staffs, and other participants use to exchange tasking information (called Orders) and
status information for situational awareness (called Reports). Simulations are useful as C2 system elements
for analysis and to stimulate training and mission rehearsal. C2SIM combines the two and has particular
value in a coalition environment, where each nation prefers to use its own C2 system and simulation. The
paper describes NATO and SISO activities in C2SIM, the technical approach used to achieve
interoperability, and examples of its success.
1 INTRODUCTION
This paper reports on progress in developing
standardized methods for military coalitions to
interoperate command and control (C2) systems and
simulations as a system-of-systems, resulting in
improved functionality, timeliness and cost savings.
Command and control systems are networked
software systems that commanders, staffs, and other
participants use to exchange tasking information
(called Orders) and status information for situational
awareness (called Reports). Simulations are useful
as C2 system elements for course of action (COA)
analysis and to stimulate training and mission
rehearsal (Sudnikovich et al., 2004).
Coalitions consist of military forces from
multiple nations; generally, each national force has
its own C2 and simulation systems. This complicates
the problem of operating as a cohesive whole. The
goal of C2-simulation interoperability (C2SIM) is to
enable an environment where national C2 systems
can exchange information freely and each nation’s
military operations can be represented accurately,
each operating their own simulations. In developing
C2SIM technology and standards, we look toward a
day when a newly-formed coalition, operating over a
shared network, can “plug in” their C2 and
simulation systems to the network and work together
rapidly and seamlessly to train, analyze COAs, and
perform mission rehearsal. As a result, they will be
better able to perform as a cohesive whole and do so
more rapidly and efficiently.
In such a force, the C2 systems may function as a
group using a C2 interoperation capability such as
the Joint Consultation, Command and Control
Information Exchange Data Model (JC3IEDM)
(Multilateral Interoperability Programme, 2007) and
the simulations may function as a group using an
interoperation capability such as DIS (IEEE
Standards Association, 2012) or HLA (IEEE
Standards Association, 2010). Alternately, it is
possible for all systems to share information through
the C2SIM capability, although the resulting system
may have lower time resolution. We refer to the
totality of systems interoperating under C2SIM as a
coalition, just as a collection of simulations
interoperating under the HLA is called a federation.
The remainder of this paper provides a
comprehensive overview of the current state of work
in C2SIM. Section 2 describes North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) efforts to improve and
validate the interoperation capability; section 3
describes Simulation Interoperability Standards
Organization (SISO) activity to standardize C2SIM;
section 4 describes how system components are
combined to achieve C2SIM; section 5 describes
recent activities that have demonstrated the potential
effectiveness of C2SIM; and section 6 concludes the
409
Pullen J..
Enabling Military Coalition Command and Control with Interoperating Simulations.
DOI: 10.5220/0005514604090417
In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications (SIMULTECH-2015),
pages 409-417
ISBN: 978-989-758-120-5
Copyright
c
2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
paper.
2 C2SIM IN NATO
The process wherein the NATO Modeling and
Simulation Group (NMSG) identified and has
continued to encourage C2SIM as an enabler of
coalition military operations is described in (Pullen
and Khimeche, 2014). Initial NMSG concerns for
interoperation were largely economic. With
introduction of modern combat simulations in the
1980’s came a new capability: military organizations
can “train as you fight” by using their operational
C2 systems to interact with each other and with the
simulation (Sudnikovich et al., 2004). However,
interaction with the simulation required an extra
human in the loop: a supporting “puckster” who
transfers C2 information into the simulation system
and also enters situational information from the
simulation into the C2 system. In a large exercise,
staffing for this role became a major expense.
Furthermore, if the “puckster” was not
knowledgeable in this role and diligent in
transferring information, the operation of the
exercise could become degraded. Therefore,
automated interfaces between C2 and simulation
systems were sought and in some cases
implemented. However, such interfaces were
implemented in an ad hoc, point-to-point manner
and could not be extended readily to other systems.
Beyond the domain of training, the ability to
interoperate C2 and simulation systems presents the
possibility for simulation support of planning and
preparation phases in ongoing military operations,
by providing course of action analysis and mission
rehearsal capabilities. These C2SIM capabilities also
were implemented experimentally were strictly ad
hoc, operated point-to-point, and could not be
extended readily to other C2 or simulation systems.
A more generic, consistent approach to
interoperability was needed. Adherents to this
approach called it Battle Management Language
(BML) (Carey et al., 2001). Figure 1 shows the
general architecture adopted. The server provides a
publish/subscribe service to its clients. Use of a
server-based architecture has two advantages: it
simplifies a complex development environment,
since each client can be tested individually using the
server; and it provides a measure of fault-tolerance,
since it does not require that all members of the
C2SIM system-of-systems coalition are available at
all times.
The need for C2SIM is particularly compelling
in coalitions, because differences among coalition
partners’ C2 systems and simulations make use of a
single system impractical; the national forces are
training to use their own C2 systems and are best
represented by their own simulations. Thus,
differences in organization, equipment, and doctrine
result in a situation where each national simulation
system may represent only that nation’s forces well.
In response to these concerns, organizations from
France and the US that were interested in C2SIM
capabilities became aware of each other’s work and
interests in 2005. They proposed to the NATO
Modelling and Simulation Group (MSG) that a
multinational Technical Activity be organized with
the purpose of exploring use of the BML approach
for coalitions. The resulting Exploratory Team (ET-
016) led to a four-year NATO Technical Activity
MSG-048 Coalition Battle Management Language
where France and the US were joined by national
representatives from Canada, Denmark, Germany,
the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Turkey, the United
Kingdom (UK). The group developed prototypes,
working to define solutions that could be
standardized by SISO as Coalition Battle
Management Language (C-BML - see below). Each
year they presented a demonstration at the
Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and
Education Conference (I/ITSEC) in Orlando,
Florida, demonstrating the current state of C-BML at
the time.
Figure 1: General Architecture for BML.
As MSG-048 was preparing for its final
experimentation, the NATO MSG considered a
charter for a follow-on Technical Activity. It was
clear even before the experimentation that Coalition
BML was a very promising approach, so a new
charter was approved with no hesitation. The new
Technical Activity was named MSG-085
SIMULTECH2015-5thInternationalConferenceonSimulationandModelingMethodologies,Technologiesand
Applications
410
Standardization for C2-Simulation Interoperation
and focused on assessing the operational relevance
of Coalition BML while increasing its Technical
Readiness Level (TRL) to a point consistent with its
operational employment. Nations participating
included the original nine from MSG-048 plus
Belgium and Sweden, with interest also expressed
by Italy and Australia. (In NATO context, Australia
and Sweden are Partner Countries but not committed
to NATO collective security; the Partner Countries
are welcome in MSG-085 and many other NATO
activities.) MSG-085 ended in 2014 and was, to a
large extent, a process of maturing the technical and
operational basis for coalition use of standardized
C2SIM. A new Exploratory Team (ET-038) now is
working to develop a plan for a new MSG Technical
Activity to establish operational military use of
C2SIM.
3 C2SIM IN SISO
SISO provides a collaborative environment for
exchange of information about simulation
interoperability and an organization under which
standards for interoperability can be developed. A
creative synergy has existed between NATO MSG
activities in C2SIM and the focus of SISO on
standards needed to support C2SIM (Pullen et al.,
2014). Various interested parties, including several
ET-016 participants, formed a SISO Study Group to
consider the possibility of developing a C-BML
standard. After due deliberation, in 2005 that group
produced a report (Blais, Galvin and Hieb, 2005)
recommending that SISO charter a Product
Development Group (PDG) for that purpose.
In parallel with MSG-048 investigations, the
SISO C-BML PDG undertook to define such a
standard. This did not go as smoothly as the work of
the NATO Technical Activity did. While there was
progress in drafting and adopting a standard, the
overall process was slower than most stakeholders
found satisfactory. The standards effort went on past
the end of MSG-048; at one point, the leadership of
the PDG found it necessary to publish an analysis of
the reasons for delay (Abbot et al., 2011).
Eventually the process did produce results, as
described below. In the interim, MSG-048 worked
with a schema that had been developed in the US, in
conjunction with an effort to increase the geospatial
relevance of C-BML (Hieb at al., 2007).
An important finding under MSG-048 was that,
for an effective operational capability, the SISO C-
BML focus on Orders, Requests and Reports must
be supplemented with another SISO standard: the
Military Scenario Development Language (MSDL)
(Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization,
2008) to provide effective initialization.
Accordingly, in its first year MSG-085 pressed its
members to implement MSDL in the simulation
systems they had made BML-capable under MSG-
048. This implementation was effective but it
illuminated another problem: although SISO policy
called for MSDL and C-BML to work together, the
two were developed independently and there was no
“roadmap” telling how to use them together. As a
result, considerable effort went into exploring
alternatives before a path forward was adopted
(Remmersmann et al., 2012; Heffner et al., 2012).
In 2014, SISO published the C-BML standard
(Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization,
2014), with a schema that supports two major
variants, called Full and Light. During development,
the C-BML received considerable criticism.
Ironically, while implementers found the full
standard to be overly complex, it dealt with only
maneuver warfare whereas the ideal BML would
extend to all forms of military operations and
specifically to operations other than warfare. In the
same year, the culmination of MSG-085 included a
new insight: a more productive path would be to
base the next generation of C2SIM standards on a
logical data model (LDM), standardizing the core of
that LDM and the process for extending it into new
domains. Schemata needed for interoperation in
various domains will be derived from the LDM.
Also, the second generation of initialization (MSDL)
and tasking-reporting (C-BML) should form a single
standard, based on that LDM (NATO Collaboration
Support Office, 2014). In September 2014 SISO
chartered a unified C2SIM Product Development
Group (PDG) and associated Product Support Group
(PSG) based on those recommendations.
4 C2SIM SYSTEMS
This section will address the technology roles of
C2SIM clients (C2 systems and simulations) and
servers.
4.1 C2SIM Clients
Clients generally fall in two categories: C2 systems
and simulation systems. Experience to date indicates
the process of interfacing clients for C2SIM
operation requires only a moderate amount of time
to accomplish (typically, one to three months).
EnablingMilitaryCoalitionCommandandControlwithInteroperatingSimulations
411
Client outputs (input to the server) are XML
document files, transmitted via Representational
State Transfer (REST) protocol; server outputs sent
to the clients are similar XML document files, sent
via the Streaming Text Oriented Messaging Protocol
(STOMP) subscription-based protocol.
C2 systems are an essential element of modern
warfare, used by commanders and their staffs to
provide direction to their subordinates and keep
track of the status of those subordinates. To do this,
they produce Orders and consume Reports. To
enable C2SIM, a C2 system must add an interface
module that follows an agreed schema so the C2
system can send the server an XML document for
each Order and also subscribe to Reports distributed
by the server as XML documents, in order to present
them as situational awareness to the commander and
staff. In addition there are special requirements for
working with simulations, as distinct from working
with live subordinates: the C2 system must be able
to clearly identify when running in simulated mode;
and also support start/stop of simulated operation.
Simulation systems represent the operation of all
or part of the coaltion force. Whereas most
simulation systems communicate with their users via
a graphic interface, under C2SIM the simulation
systems communicate with their users via C2
systems. To do this, they accept Orders and produce
Reports. Therefore, to enable C2SIM operation, it is
necessary to add to the simulation system an
interface module that sends the server an XML
document following an agreed schema for each
status change that requires a Report. Special
requirements for working under C2SIM are that the
simulation subscribes to Orders distributed by the
server and follows the directions they contain; and
also is able to start/stop simulation operation under
C2SIM coalition control.
Examples of simulations that have been
incorporated in C2SIM coalitions include APLET
and OneSAF. The APLET system is used by France
and is notable for its ability to support faster-than-
real-time simulation, which is very useful in COA
analysis since multiple alternatives generally must
be considered. OneSAF was provided by the USA
and is notable for its ability to represent a wide
range of military forces and also as the only system
that implemented the new C-BML standard
completely (Wittman, 2014). A complete list of
simulations used in MSG-085 can be found in
(NATO Collaboration Support Office, 2014).
In addition to national C2 systems and
simulations, developers of C2SIM systems have
found it convenient and useful to create a special
graphical user interface (GUI) client, in order to
generate and edit XML documents that serve as
system input and also to monitor and display the
contents of such messages. Such a GUI also can be
used as a surrogate C2 system where a regular
military C2 system is not available. Another useful
type of GUI provides for status monitoring and
control in the form of a shared webpage; this is used
as a coordination mechanism where multiple
simulations are operated simultaneously.
4.2 C2SIM Servers
The primary functions of a C2SIM server are:
• Accept push/post C-BML Orders and Reports
and MSDL scenario files, in REST format
• Accept client subscriptions, by Topic (e.g. all
General Status Reports)
• Publish the XML documents to subscribers via
STOMP as they arrive and be prepared respond
to get/pull for them
A C2SIM server may have other functions:
• Namespaces: XML tagnames can be qualified by
addition of a “namespace” code or example
<bml:Report> indicates a namespace “bml” is to
be used; this allows tagnames from different
sources to work together safely without previous
disambiguation.
• Schema Validation: the server confirms that each
document received conforms to the schema, in
order to identify possible incompatibilities. Since
this slows the service, normally it is done only
during initial testing.
• Filtering Data: the server can restrict delivery,
based on user-defined criteria.
• Logging/replay: to achieve this, the server writes
a file containing every transaction it receives,
with time stamps for each. The server is capable
of replaying this file to recreate the original
sequence of Orders and Reports at original time
intervals.
• Bridged Servers: multiple servers can be tied
together into a distributed server system in order
to increase load capacity and increase network
efficiency of a C2SIM coalition (Pullen et al.,
2015). Figure 2 shows a three-server system that
was demonstrated in December 2014.
• Aggregating MSDL Inputs from Participating
Systems: In a coalition each C2 and simulation
system can have different initialization
requirements. A consolidated MSDL
initialization file is needed for consistency; the
SIMULTECH2015-5thInternationalConferenceonSimulationandModelingMethodologies,Technologiesand
Applications
412
server can aggregate them automatically, so that
all systems receive common initialization data.
Figure 2: Three-Server Architecture.
4.3 Server Schema Translation
A translation capability is needed because
developing organizations are reluctant to change
their interface each time a new schema is developed,
with the result that the coalition finds itself with C2
and simulation systems interfaced to different (but
largely equivalent) schemas. To achieve translation,
the server parses the XML document according to
appropriate schema, saves the input in an in-memory
database, and draws on the database to produce
output conforming to different designated schema.
(This is possible only where data support the same
semantics.) A server with this capability, developed
by George Mason University in cooperation with
Saab Corp, allowed MSG-085 to interoperate C2
and simulation systems that had been interfaced
under various previous schemas (Pullen et al.,
September 2013).
4.4 Example of Server Operation
The server is the heart of the interoperation
capability in the C2SIM architecture. It provides the
critical publish/subscribe function and can enable by
translation, as was done for MSG-085, operation
over multiple compatible schemata that otherwise
would not be capable of interoperation. This section
will highlight the methods used by the author’s
development team to produce a server capable of
doing these things at production message rates and
also of working with other servers to form a
distributed, interoperating server system. A more
detailed exposition is available in (Pullen et al.,
September 2013).
Saab Corporation is in the business of providing
software for military command and control. They
were active in the Swedish delegation to NATO
MSG-085 and offered use of their Widely Integrated
Systems Environment (WISE) for experimentation
support. WISE is built on commercial technology
and supports a robust, high-performance information
switching capability with a graphic setup editor. In
2012, discussions between the GMU C4I Center and
Saab concluded that the general approach used in
GMU’s open source Scripted Battle Management
Language (SBML) server could be productively re-
implemented in WISE. This capability enables
fundamental research at GMU, prototyping a new
generation server that is expected ultimately to
transition to operational military use as described in
(Pullen et al., June 2013).
Saab also provided to MSG-085, through GMU,
access to its 9LandBMS command and control
system, intended for use with touch-sensitive tablet
computers at battalion/brigade levels. This system
had an existing interface to WISE; thus it was
capable of interoperation with C-BML capable
systems using the WISE-SBML server, without
going through the usual process of building a C-
BML interface.
Figure 3 shows the architecture of the WISE-
SBML server. WISE appears to SBML as an in-
memory, non-persistent database. The “BMS”
system in Figure 3 represents the 9LandBMS or any
other system directly interfaced to WISE. This
approach enables a great improvement in
performance over the previous SBML server,
measured at over 10X, and is well suited for
deployment in the high-performance cloud
computing environment.
Integrating a new capability into WISE requires
creating a software interface element and then using
the WISE graphic editor to configure information
mappings between that interface and the WISE
internal database. These configuration elements
must be maintained as changes to the schema occur.
It is noteworthy that the second step in particular can
be achieved more quickly than developing an SBML
script.
As shown in Figure 3, the WISE-based Web
service accepts XML inputs through a REST
interface and publishes one or more XML
documents (the original plus translations) through a
STOMP interface.
Therefore, to build a server based
on WISE, the GMU team had to complete two
important steps:
Build a WISE driver, shown in green on the
figure, for each major information flow to be
interfaced: C-BML/MSDL Web service (one for
each schema version); publish-subscribe service;
persistent recording interface; and the
9LandBMS WISE interface, adapted for C-
BML/MSDL.
EnablingMilitaryCoalitionCommandandControlwithInteroperatingSimulations
413
Use the WISE graphic editor to specify all
information flows between the WISE data
repository and these drivers.
The second of these steps represents an added
capability provided by the WISE approach and
requires only drag-and-drop in the WISE
Connectivity Designer. However, there remains a
sequence of steps to be programmed in conjunction
with the specifics of the application (in the case at
hand, C-BML and MSDL) for XML documents,
both incoming from the REST interface and
outgoing to the STOMP interface for publication.
Further, when the client is subscribed to a topic
using a different schema, a translation must occur.
This takes place as follows:
Accepting incoming XML from REST:
Parsing: using the open source DOM parser, the
interface extracts each data element from the
input XML file to an internal data structure.
Building: the internal data structure is pushed
into the WISE database.
Producing outgoing XML through STOMP:
Receiving: a matching internal data structure is
extracted from the database.
Generating: XML output is generated from this
data, in accordance with the appropriate schema.
The WISE driver software generated for this
purpose, written in C++, is available as open source
at http://c4i.gmu.edu/OpenBML. WISE itself
requires a license from Saab, which may be
available at no cost for development purposes. Also
available via the OpenBML site are Java client
software, replay logger, and replay client.
5 EXAMPLES OF C2SIM USE
As described above, C2SIM coalitions are expected
to support interoperation of the C2 systems and
simulation systems of the participating nations,
requiring interoperation of all parts of a
heterogeneous system-of-systems. This section will
describe the two most significant such coalitions
assembled to date, at the culminating major events
of MSG-048 and MSG-085. The diversity of
systems involved illustrates the scope and flexibility
of the C2SIM approach.
While it would be possible to use only C2SIM
interoperability methods to couple the simulations in
a coalition, the primary intention of C2SIM is not
simulation-to-simulation; it is sharing information
among C2 and simulation systems, and for this the
frequency of information update required is on the
order of once per minute. Experience has shown that
it is quite possible for simulations to send updates
more frequently than some C2 systems are able to
accept them. Therefore, in the coalitions reported
here, the simulation-to-simulation interconnection
was via DIS (use of HLA was considered, but
determined to require more complex setup than
warranted by the circumstances).
The MSG-048 Technical Activity set out to show
the technical feasibility of the C2SIM approach. It
culminated in a one-week period of exploratory
experimentation, conducted with operational
military subject matter experts (SMEs) in 2009.
Intensive preparation for this activity took place
over the Internet, which at the time was a new way
of working for most of the participants. In addition,
two physical integration events were held:
September 2009 in Portsmouth, UK and October
2009 in Paris, France. These events proved to be a
successful risk reduction mechanism. The system-
of-systems architecture used is shown in Figure 4.
It would not be accurate to say that all MSG-048
development went smoothly. Despite all the risk
reduction, there were technical problems even
during the experimentation. Nevertheless,
interoperability was achieved, many of the
experimentation goals were met, and we learned a
great deal about how BML would need to be
supported in MSG-085. Considering the complexity
of the system of systems assembled (as reflected in
the variety of subsystems described above) and that
an entirely new paradigm was implemented, the fact
that the MSG-048 final experimentation ended with
all subsystems demonstrating interoperation was a
significant accomplishment. As a “proof of
principle,” the process followed was basically
successful and showed that the technologies used,
and the overall BML concept, provide a sound basis
for future work. This was confirmed by the
participating military, who were not part of the
MSG-048 development team and therefore were
able to view the results objectively (Heffner,
Khimeche and Pullen, 2010). Evidence that others
also were convinced can be seen in the fact that
MSG-048 received the NATO Scientific
Achievement Award in 2013.
MSG-048 set the stage for MSG-085, which was
intended to show the operational military utility of
C2SIM. The final demonstration of MSG-085 took
place in the US at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas in
December, 2013. MSG-085 partnered with the US
Army Mission Command Battle Laboratory there to
engage in a short integration session. The featured
capability was Joint and Combined Mission
SIMULTECH2015-5thInternationalConferenceonSimulationandModelingMethodologies,Technologiesand
Applications
414
Planning. The architecture of the demonstration
system-of-systems that was assembled is shown in
Figure 5.
While the complexity of the MSG-048 and
MSG-085 final events was roughly similar, there
were some striking differences:
Network Sophistication: The MSG-085 network
included two remote participants and operated
with two linked servers and three schemata (C-
BML Full, while available on the WISE-SBML
server, was not used by any of the systems). This
models the sort of operation expected in
operational BML use.
Setup Process: The MSG-048 setup was
somewhat chaotic, with some of its capabilities
becoming usable only on the last day of
experimentation. By contrast the MSG-085
systems came together smoothly. There were a
few problems but mostly they “just worked”.
Audience Impression: The MSG-048 final
audience got the message “We have an exciting
new capability. It's not working very well yet but
it has great potential for the future.” In contrast,
the MSG-85 final audience got the message “We
have an exciting new capability and it works
very well to improve some unmet needs of
coalition C2, using interoperable simulations.”
In short, where MSG-048 succeeded in proving the
principle that C2SIM could be used effectively in
coalition operations, MSG-085 succeeded in harder
goal: improving the Technical Readiness Level of
C2SIM in the form of MSDL and C-BML and
proving the concept that C2SIM is ready to be tested
in real coalition operations. Currently the NATO
MSG has chartered a new Exploratory Team (ET-
038) to plan new Technical Activity toward that end.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The ability to interoperate C2 systems and
simulations in a coalition context represents an
exciting new capability for NATO military
elements. Experience in activities of the NATO
Modelling and Simulation Group is that every
system brought forward for interoperation by
participating national groups has been able to be
interfaced to the C2SIM coalition, requiring a
relatively modest effort to do so, and that currently
available servers will support the sizeable
configurations tested to date, with rapid delivery of
Orders and Reports to the participating group.
Server systems have progressed to the point where
heterogeneous distributed server systems and on-
the-fly translation to support mixed-schema systems
are available.
Figure 3: WISE/SBML Server Architecture.
EnablingMilitaryCoalitionCommandandControlwithInteroperatingSimulations
415
Figure 4: Architecture for MSG-048 Final Experimentation.
Figure 5: MSG-085 Final Demonstration System of Systems.
SIMULTECH2015-5thInternationalConferenceonSimulationandModelingMethodologies,Technologiesand
Applications
416
The SISO C2SIM PDG is working on an
integrated second generation standard, based on a
logical data model with standard core that is
designed for extension and can be used to generate
schemata tailored to individual domain needs. The
C2SIM community is looking forward to bringing
this new technical approach into military operations,
enabling coalitions to seamlessly interoperate a
collection of national C2 systems with each force
being represented by its own national simulation.
This will enable such coalitions to perform training,
course of action analysis, and mission rehearsal in a
straightforward way, interfacing via their own C2
systems.
REFERENCES
Abbott, J., Pullen, J., Levine, S., 2011, Answering the
Question: Why a BML Standard Has Taken So Long
to Be Established? IEEE Fall Simulation
Interoperability Workshop, Orlando FL, USA.
Blais, C., Galvin, K. Hieb, M., 2005, Coalition Battle
Management Language (C-BML) Study Group
Report, IEEE Fall Simulation Interoperability
Workshop, Orlando FL, USA.
Carey, S., Kleiner, M., Hieb, M. Brown, R., 2001,
Standardizing Battle Management Language – A Vital
Move Towards the Army Transformation, paper 01S-
SIW-067, IEEE Fall Simulation Interoperability
Workshop, Orlando FL, USA.
Heffner, K., Khimeche, L., Pullen, J., 2010, MSG-048
Technical Activity Experimentation to Evaluate the
Applicability of a Coalition Battle Management
Language in NATO, NATO Modeling and
Symposium 2010, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Heffner, K. Blais, C., Gupton, K., 2012, Strategies for
Alignment and Convergence of C-BML and MSDL,
IEEE Fall 2012 Simulation Interoperability Workshop,
Orlando FL, USA.
Hieb, M., Mackay, S., Powers, M., Kleiner, M., and J.
Pullen, 2007, The Environment in Network Centric
Operations: A Framework for Command and Control,
12
th
International Command and Control Research and
Technology Symposium, Newport, RI, USA.
IEEE Standards Association, 2010, IEEE Standard 1516,
High Level Architecture for Modeling and Simulation.
IEEE Standards Association, 2012, IEEE Standard
1278.1, Distributed Interactive Simulation.
Khimeche, L., de Champs, P., 2004, M&S in Decision
Support for Course of Action Analysis, APLET, Paper
04F-SIW-006, 2004 Fall Simulation Interoperability
Workshop, Orlando, FL, USA.
Multilateral Interoperability Programme, 2007, The Joint
C3 Information Exchange Data Model (JC3IEDM)
Edition 3.1a.
NATO Collaboration Support Office, 2014, Final Report
of MSG-085 Standardization for C2-Simulation
Interoperability.
Pullen, J., Corner, D., Gustavsson, P. and Grönkvist, M.,
June 2013, Incorporating C2--Simulation
Interoperability Services Into an Operational C2
System, International Command and Control Research
and Technology Symposium 2013, Alexandria, VA,
USA
Pullen, J., Corner, D., Wittman, R., Brook, A.,
Gustavsson, P., Schade U., Remmersmann, T.,
September 2013, Multi-Schema and Multi-Server
Advances for C2-Simulation Interoperability in MSG-
085, NATO Modelling and Simulation Symposium
2013, Sydney, Australia.
Pullen, J., Wittman, R., Khimeche, L., Burland. B., Ruth,
J. and Hyndøy, J., 2014, Coalition C2-Simulation
History and Status, NATO Modelling and Simulation
Symposium 2014, Washington DC, USA.
Pullen, J., Khimeche, L., 2014, Advances in Systems and
Technologies Toward Interoperating Operational
Military C2 and Simulation Systems, International
Command and Control Research and Technology
Symposium 2014, Alexandria VA, USA.
Pullen, J., Khimeche, L., Cuneo, X., Schade, U.,
Remmersmann, T., 2015, Linking C2-Simulation
Interoperation Servers to Form Distributed Server
Systems, International Command and Control
Research and Technology Symposium 2015,
Annapolis, MD, USA.
Remmersmann, T., Schade, U., Khimeche, L., Gautreau,
B., 2012, Lessons Recognized: How to Combine BML
and MSDL, IEEE Spring Simulation Interoperability
Workshop, Orlando FL, USA.
Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization,
Standard for: Military Scenario Definition Language
(MSDL), 2008
Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, 2014,
Standard for: Coalition Battle Management Language
(C-BML).
Sudnikovich, W., Pullen, J., Kleiner, M., Carey, S., 2004,
“Extensible Battle Management Language as a
Transformation Enabler,” in SIMULATION, 80:669-
680.
Wittman, Robert, 2014, OneSAF as an In-Stride Mission
Command Asset, International Command and Control
Research and Technology Symposium 2014,
Alexandria, VA, USA.
EnablingMilitaryCoalitionCommandandControlwithInteroperatingSimulations
417
