Studying the Effects of Command and Control Warfare on Command and Control Performance Magdalena Hammervik, Jenny Lindoff, Martin Castor, Lars Tydén The Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), Box 1165, S-582 26 Linköping, Sweden
[email protected] Abstract Command and Control Warfare (C2W) is a matter becoming increasingly emphasised and complicated due to the rapid technological development. C2W include methods such as Electronic Warfare (EW), Computer Network Operations (CNO) and psychological operations (PsyOps). To visualise the effects of C2W on another party’s ability to practice command and control, the Swedish Armed Forces are developing a C2W demonstrator with a second version of the simulation environment currently completed. Along with the technical development, scenario and methods for measuring command and control ability are developed. The current report describes methods and results of the three user tests so far performed in the demonstrator environment. Test subjects were military officers with extensive knowledge of C2W, thus Subject Matter Experts (SME). Each test was set up so that the test subjects formed two teams, playing opposite forces in the scenario. Both forces had a number of Electronic Warfare and Computer Network Operations actions at their disposal in order to be able to solve their respective tactical tasks. Results show that the demonstrator environment, although in an early version is useful for visualizing effects of C2W on C2 ability. Keywords: Command and Control, C2W, information operations, demonstrator, user test, simulation, Electronic Warfare, Computer Network Operations.
1. Introduction Command and Control warfare (C2W) aims to reduce or block another party’s ability to practice command and control and include a wide span of means such as Electronic Warfare (EW), Computer Network Operations (CNO), psychological operations
(PsyOps) but also physical destruction with conventional means. The effects of C2W actions on the information arena are difficult to assess and understand, however this is an increasingly important issue. Technological development creates possibilities, but also an increased dependency on technology. The Swedish Armed Forces, with aid of the Swedish Defence Research Agency, is developing a Command & Control Warfare Demonstrator [1]. The purpose is to show the effects of C2W on the ability to practice command and control. A second version of the demonstrator has been developed [2]. The demonstrator is developed iteratively using the FEDEP (federation development) method, where requirements are identified mainly through modelling sessions. The current report describes three user tests performed in the demonstrator environment. The overall purpose of all user tests, conducted in July 2006 [3], October 2006 [4] and February 2007 [5], was to evaluate the ability to use the demonstrator for visualising C2 warfare on C2 ability. This included development and test of methods and measures for measuring C2 ability as well as extracting needs for further development of the technological platform. Between the experiments, there has been an ongoing technological development, including new functionality as well as improvement of user interfaces. The interaction between methods and technology development is particularly emphasised in the C2W demonstrator project. Although the demonstrator itself is an advanced technological product, the focus is largely on the cognitive domain, since the overall aim is to develop knowledge and competence (technology, processes, methodology) supporting future development of command and control capacity within the areas of Electronic Warfare and Computer Network Operations. A simulated environment is advantageous in that the different actions taken can be logged and replayed afterwards, for immediate feedback to
participants or for analytical purposes, i.e. analysis of C2 performance. The first question when measuring the ability to practice command and control is – what is C2 ability? The C2W demonstrator project has formulated a hypothesis consisting of nine different statements, seen as prerequisites for the ability to practice command and control. The operationalisation and breakdown of C2 ability is further discussed in section 2.1.
of command give each other feedback of actions taken as needed. 8. Flexibility Participating actors have the ability to adapt to the situation, that is, continuous improvement or adjustment of the way of acting based on changes in the situation. 9. Decision making Decisions are made with adequate swiftness.
2. C2 Warfare demonstrator
Based on the nine factors described, performance measures were developed. These measurements are described in the methods section.
2.1. Prerequisites for Command and Control In order to analyse to what extent the ability to practice command and control is affected by command and control warfare, first, command and control ability needs to be defined. Second, means of measuring C2 ability need to be investigated, creating measurement tools which are suitable for the chosen environment. A hypothesis of nine prerequisites for command and control was at an early stage of the project developed by the project team. The prerequisites have been updated and modified iteratively together with representatives from the Armed Forces. It is hypothesized that if one of these nine prerequisites is affected, the ability to practice command and control is affected. To what extent, and how the different aspects are related to each other is a subject for in depth investigation in future experiments in the demonstrator environment. 1. Knowledge and experience Participating actors have relevant knowledge about rules of engagement, the situation, own and hostile resources and capacity and experience of similar C2 environment. 2. Operational picture Participating actors have access to a sufficiently detailed and updated (physical) picture of the situation. 3. Confidence/trust Participating actors trust each other and the organisation, the methods applied and the technology used in the C2 system. 4. Information flow Information (orders, reports, decision etc) can be accessed and spread effectively through the system. 5. Situation awareness Participating actors have a correct understanding of the situation (based on available information). 6. Objectives The objectives conveyed are clear. 7. Feedback Participating actors receive adequate feedback from the technical C2 system. The different actors in the chain
2.2. Functionality of the C2W demonstrator The C2 warfare demonstrator uses IEEE 1516 HLA (high level architecture) [6] for distributed simulations and allows manned or unmanned simulations of the different parties of a conflict. The basis for the platform in which EW, CNO and C2 components can be tested and developed in a software environment, is a framework called EWSim (Electronic Warfare Simulation Interface Model). The C2W demonstrator is focused on the use of Electronic Warfare and Computer Network Operations (CNO). The Electronic Warfare models are very advanced, which means that many real world physical effects can be simulated. The demonstrator contains functionality for acquiring information using active and passive sensors such as IRST, radar and radio intelligence, electronic counter measures (against radar and radio) and CNO, including network scan and possibility to perform a DOS (denial of service) operation. Functionality also includes different weapons for physical attack. There are platforms for air, land and sea which can be equipped with sensors, countermeasures, weapons and communication equipment as chosen. The threedimensional terrain model affects sensor performance and radio range in a realistic way. In future versions of the demonstrator, particularly CNO functionality will be further developed. For command and control, the demonstrator contains tools for electronically sending and receiving messages (orders, reports) and exchanging information on geographical position and sensor information between the different units in the simulation. The interface between the user and the demonstrator consists of several views. The tactical situation map is central, showing detected units and identity, if known (Figure 1). There are windows for handling messages , used for giving order to and receiving reports from subordinate units. Communication network, acquired by sensors or through network scan, is displayed separately.
Multi spectral Platform configuration 3D, 2D
Scenario Editing/ Managment
Open source and in house developed code except for RTI (part of HLA)
HLA C2 Displays 3D observers First-person shooter
Duel Tools, Sensors effected by EW
HLA
Planning Tool calculate surface coverage and the effect of jaming
Surface coverage diagrams
HLA
Replay, extract and export data
Analyze Multi spectral terrain and object data 3D/2D
Object Signature and Geo data adaptations for different wavelengths.
Figure 2. Simulation cycle in the EWSim simulation Framework
3. Method 3.1. Participants and design
Figure 1. Graphical user interfaces. The upper map shows reported sensor information presented together with reported platform positions. The lower map is a presentation of detected communication networks. In the demonstrator, it is possible to manipulate the speed of the simulation by changing the velocity with which the different units move and the time it takes for units to establish their systems after regrouping. During the current experiments, transportation, regrouping and establishment time of units were forced. Otherwise, a game would have taken several days to perform. Finally, a logger keeps track of all events and actions taken during a game. Log files and replay of games are essential during analysis of how C2W may have affected C2 ability.
During the experiments conducted so far in the C2W demonstrator, two-sided manned simulation has been chosen, where one side represented an EU rapid deployment force and the other side an opposing local irregular force. Participants in all three experiments were military officers with documented competence within the areas of EW and/or CNO. The participants were divided into two teams, two officers in each team. On each team, a third member was added, which was a simulation operator. The operators were part of the development team of the C2W demonstrator, and were thus technically skilled and familiar with the demonstrator environment. All actions taken in the demonstrator were ordered by the officers to the operator, who then made the actual inputs to the demonstrator.
3.2. Materials Two separate rooms were used, one for each team. In front of each team a computer screen was set up, which comprised the simulation interface. Instructions were given mainly in the form of a written order. Rules of engagement were used both for realism, but also to keep control of the game. Each team received an information sheet of materials and capacity of own forces and some less detailed information about the opposite forces. A game control team was situated in a separate room, supervising the game using a God’s eyes view of the simulation showing the true positions of all objects in the simulation.
3.3. Procedure The procedure of the first experiment proved to be functional and only minor changes and refinements of
procedure and materials were made during the following experiments. After some initial instructions and a short introduction to the main functionality of the demonstrator, the written order was distributed to the teams. Based on the task given in the order, each team tactically planned their mission. In the first two experiments the participants were allowed to preposition their forces. For the third experiment, the initial deployment of own forces was given, since planning otherwise tended to be time-consuming. When the game started, all actions to be taken were ordered by the team to the operator, which then made the necessary input to the technical platform. Approximately every 10 minutes, the simulation was paused on both sides, and there was an assessment of situation awareness, as is described in the data collection section. After the game was finished, there was after action review (AAR) and a common discussion with both teams involved. In the third experiment, new functionality allowed a simulator augmented AAR, that is, a replay of the simulation where both teams’ situational pictures were replayed simultaneously side-by-side. The teams could then explain their actions for each other as well as get an understanding for what had happened on the opposing side during the game. In the first two experiments the teams switched sides and played a second game from the perspective of the opposite party. During the third experiment the teams did not switch side, but the scenario was slightly changed during the second game, and a few more units were added, thus increasing complexity. An important part of all experiments was a concluding open discussion involving all participants, development team and game control. The discussion treated the experiment performed and future development of the demonstrator.
3.4. Data collection All simulated actions were logged by the technical system. All other data collection, such as questionnaires and sound recordings, were not parts of the technical platform and had to be synchronized manually after the experiment. The teams were video recorded during the games, and additional voice recorders were used during games as well as during the final discussion. The main purpose of using voice recording was to examine possibilities and usefulness of conducting communication analysis of the data in future experiments. Every five minutes, the participants rated in perspective of the last five minutes, their own performance, whether they believed that they were exposed to Electronic Warfare, what they thought
about the geographical positions of their own units (optimal – suboptimal) and the collaboration within the team. The questions were answered on palm pilots, which signalled when it was time to answer the questions. Approximately every 10 minutes the game was paused, and team situation awareness was measured by asking the teams to visualize their respective view of the situation on a paper map, in terms of geographical positions and identities of detected units. They also answered some questions directed towards analysis of own and the other party’s strengths and vulnerabilities at the moment. Comparing a team’s perceived view of the situation to a screenshot of the God’s eye view at the point of time revealed information about the team’s situation awareness. After each game all participants answered a questionnaire (individually). The purpose of the questionnaire was twofold. First, aspects related to the nine prerequisites of C2 were collected in order to measure C2W impact on C2 ability. Also, views of the experiment itself were collected, to receive input on how to refine the experimental methodology, scenario, materials etc in future experiments. The final part of the data collection was a common discussion with all participants and experiment leaders, discussing the experiment performed, needs for the future development of the demonstrator and usefulness of the demonstrator.
3.5. Scenario A scenario is set up using the EWSim framework in which components are configured and assembled dynamically (Figure 3). A scenario can be easily changed by adding or removing units and changing the materials and capacities of platforms. All three experiments followed roughly the same scenario, with minor changes due to lessons learned from previous experiments. Also, new functionality was developed and included into the scenario.
a false network in order to confuse the EU force, and could in certain conditions also ask for support from Bravoland regular forces.
4. Results
Figure 3. Example of setup of simulation of an international crises scenario. The scenario used in the three experiments takes place in Alphaland, a country with a coast. Alphaland is in conflict with the neighbouring country Bravoland. The international community decides to deploy an EU force (blue team) in Alphaland to maintain the peace agreement. The deployment force consists of a cargo ship (RORO) carrying the materials of the deployment force, escorted by a modern corvette. On land along the coastline, the deployment force also has a number of small special operations units, which have been air transported to the area in an earlier phase. The goal of the sea transported deployment force is to safely arrive to the sea port of Alphaland. The units of the deployment force can perform Electronic Warfare (EW) in form of Electronic Support Measures (ESM) (radar, radio intelligence), Electronic Protection (EP) and Electronic Attack (EP) (jamming). CNO include Computer Network Exploitation (CNE) (network scan) and Computer Network Attack (CNA). The opposing force consists of the irregular unit “Bravo Liberation Army” (BLA, red team). BLA has not accepted the peace agreement. Their overall goal is to unite parts of Bravoland with Alphaland. BLA is hostile towards the EU forces and they try to block the EU ships from arriving to the sea port. BLA has access to land based IR, radar and radio intelligence sensors and anti-surface ship missiles which are deployed along the coastline of Alphaland. Civil boats were included so that the RORO would not be so easily detected. On land, there were a few civil objects (hospital, oil cistern) which were not to be harmed. If the red team deployed a missile unit close to the oil cistern, the blue team could not use physical force to eliminate the threat, however jamming or a digital attack by CNO means may put the missile out of action. During the third experiment, complexity was increased. Amongst others, the read team could create
The results section gives examples from some of the games during the experiments. Since the experiments aimed to test the usefulness of the demonstrator for demonstrating C2 ability, demonstrator functionality and methods and tools used for data collection, the outcome of the games themselves were subordinate. The amount of data and number of participants were far too small to be able to draw valid conclusions about how C2 Warfare may affect C2 ability in a general sense. However, results are interesting when examining demonstrator usefulness, evaluating how to measure C2 ability and extract needs for future development (technical platform as well as experiment methods).
4.1. Example of events during a game This section presents an example of events from one of the games during the second experiment in the demonstrator, performed in november 2006. The third experiment was played with a more complex scenario involving more actors and an extended number of units. However, the second experiment is interesting in that it shows how a simple scenario with only a few units involved, with aid of simple means of C2W can create a hard-to-grasp situation, even for experienced SME:s who were well aware of the purpose of the demonstrator (showing effects of C2W on C2 ability). The deployment force (blue team) chose to deploy Special Operation units on both sides of the harbour, while BLA (red team) chose a close deployment of sensors along the north side of the bay (Figure 4).
Red forces
Blue forces RORO + Corvette
Radar HQ SO1
IRST Radio int Missile
SO4 Harbour SO3
Harbour
SO2
Figure 4 Screen shot of initial deployment of each team’s forces. During the game, the blue team jammed red forces’ radio communication. This resulted in that red forces’
sensor information did not pass correctly to the red HQ and their tactical situation map did not show a correct operational picture. Consequently the blue team’s ships were invisible for the red team during critical moments. However, on read team’s map, two other ships appeared, also heading towards the harbour (Figure 5). These were actually fishing boats, but falsely identified as hostile. Red team, believing that they had identified the deployment force, ordered a missile launched towards the fishing boats, which fortunately missed. Blue forces
Red forces
RORO + corvette
Incorrectly identified fishing boats
Figure 5. Screenshot of each team’s tactical situation map in the middle of the game. When the blue ships were close to the harbour, blue force’s performed a CNO operation against red team’s HQ, leaving red team’s tactical situation map nearly blank. The blue ships arrived to the harbour safely after playing approximately 30 minutes, including the pause for assessment of situation awareness.
4.2. Data collection According to palm pilot ratings in this particular game, five minutes into the game, none of the participants believed that they were exposed to electronic counter measures. Log files of events showed that at this point, neither of the teams had yet started to use their jammers. During the rest of the game, the blue force jams red force’s radio communication continuously. Palm pilot results still show that the read team did not recognize themselves to be particularly exposed to any jamming. On the palm pilot question about information supply from own units, the blue team generally believed that they received enough information from their sensors. The red team, on the other hand, considered information supply to be insufficient. It thus seems that blue team jamming was successful and was actually impairing red team’s operational picture. Results from questionnaires after the game show that read team, which was exposed to counter measures during large parts of the game, considered themselves to have low situation awareness, and did not trust information obtained through sensors. Blue team on
the other hand, believed that they had a good overall understanding of the situation and trusted the information that they received through their sensors. The results of the questionnaires combined with logs and palm pilots show that the command and control warfare did have effect on the other party’s ability to practice command and control. Relating the results to the nine prerequisites for command and control in this particular game indicated an advantage for the blue team. For instance, blue team both rated themselves and were assessed as having better situation awareness (prerequisite 5) than the red team. Also information flow (prerequisite 4) operational picture (prerequisite 2) and feedback from system (prerequisite 7) indicated advantage for blue team. The outcome of the game can therefore to some extent be explained in terms of the nine prerequisites for command and control. During all experiments, the participants commented positively on the demonstrator, the scenario and experiment procedures. During the concluding discussions it turned out that the participants had enjoyed participating in the experiments and strongly believed in the concept of using a simulator as an aid in showing effects of command and control warfare.
5. Discussion The aims of all experiments so far were mainly to receive input for demonstrator development, that is, the outcome of the game is subordinate and merely forms a base for discussion about the functionality of future demonstrator versions. Still, it seems as the demonstrator already is useful for showing effects of command and control warfare. Developing the demonstrator according to the FEDEP process has been functional; however experiments serve as a complement to the FEDEP process, in that requirements are identified through tests with “real” users while interacting with the demonstrator. Input from participants on the scenario resulted in modifications for the next experiment. During the development process, results of experiments have turned out to be quite central. A tricky aspect has been how to handle use of physical force in the scenario. During the first two experiments, the deployment force were not allowed to use any physical force, but were forced to meet the threat by using EW and CNO. As the participants pointed out during the first and second experiment, physical force is also a part of Command and Control Warfare, and should thus be included. However, a pilot experiment prior to the third experiment allowing extended use of physical force showed that participants
focused on use of their physical weapons and protection rather than EW and CNO. The participants explained this by that it was easier at hand to use physical force, since they were more used to thinking in terms of physical force than EW and CNO. The solution for the third experiment was to include physical weapons to a greater extent than during earlier experiments, however restricting the use quite strongly through of Rules of Engagement. Scenario creation proved to be a tricky balance act. It was to be realistic, engaging, simple to overview yet sufficiently complex, balanced between the two parties so that both had the chance to win, not creating deadlock etc. Rules of Engagement and “hidden” directions through order proved to be a good way of directing the participants and yet keeping the game realistic. In order to impose more control of variables, the plan for the next experiment is to replace one team with a force played by game control. Participants found it more engaging to plan their own mission from the start than when initial deployment was given. In the first experiment, the red team were even allowed to choose type of sensors, for instance skipping the radar for the benefit of more radio intelligence. In this way, participants experienced that they more easily engaged in and received an increased understanding for the scenario than when deployment was given. It was also more realistic. However, the planning process tended to be time consuming. The experiment can be controlled in a better way when initial deployment is given beforehand, and then the experiment control team can create a situation which will give a certain pedagogic effect or force the participants to act in a certain way. The results of the games show an important indication of that the demonstrator actually is possible to use for highlighting some of the aspects of C2W, and its implications on C2. The participants, although very familiar with the domains of EW and CNO, became manipulated. This was quite surprising, considering the simplicity of the scenario and the relatively restricted amount of possible actions in the early versions of the demonstrator. Most of the needs for new functionality identified during experiments already have or are in the phase of being implemented in the next demonstrator version. This includes further development of tools for CNO and being able to use the demonstrator also during planning phase. There is a need for analysis of how to visualize and in other ways improve the participants’ sense of time during the game, since time of transportation and deployment is usually forced. To be able to actually use the simulator for showing effects, the results of a game needs to be in reach for the game control quickly, in order to give the
participants immediate feedback. Part of this is already implemented, since it is now possible to replay a game immediately afterwards, showing both parties side-byside. However, it would be good to be able to complement this with graphs showing, for instance, the use of electronic attack and CNO during the game and how these impacted the other party. For analysis, it must easily be possible to compare different types of data in order to show the effects of C2W. For instance, one party’s jamming could be compared with the actual effect it has on the other party, and also with subjective scores of whether the jammed team estimates themselves to be jammed. In the early versions of the demonstrator this is done manually, which is rather time consuming since a game produces large amounts of data.
6. Conclusion The results of the experiments indicate that the C2 warfare demonstrator already in this version is useful for demonstrating some effects of C2W on C2 ability. It is possible to perform a controlled, yet realistic, scientific experiment, and receive valid data. However, for more comprehensive experiments on C2 ability there are needs of further development both regarding possible actions during a game and for analysis afterwards. The major needs include further refinement of CNO functionality, planning tools (before and during games), functionality for easily retrieving and comparing different types of data during analysis and extended visualisation during after action review. Next experiment will be conducted with one team playing against game control. This will allow more control over the variables and hopefully reveal interesting conclusions about how to measure C2 ability. Each experiment is a step towards the overall question - how does C2W affect C2 ability? Also, the demonstrator will be useful in testing new concepts and methods for C2, focusing on C2W. The overwhelming positive responses from users and the SME:s within the Swedish Armed Forces indicate that we are definitely on the right track, and that the demonstrator already is useful for demonstrating how C2W affect C2 ability.
7. References [1] Tydén, L, Wigren, C., Andersson, H., Olsson, S. (2007). Testbed for distributed scenario simulations with EW and its effects on C2. FOI-S--2575--SE. [2] LKS FEDEP steg 1, måldefinition (2005). FMV: VO FoT 23 321:78880/2005.
[3] Hammervik, M., Lindoff, J., Castor, M. (2006). Användartest LKS demonstrator version 1. FOI-R--2034-SE. [4] Castor, M., Hammervik, M., Lindoff, J., Rencrantz, C., Kylesten, B., Svensson, J. (2007). Att mäta effekter av ledningskrigföring på ledningsförmåga – Användartest 2 LKS demonstrator version 1. FOI-R--2228--SE. [5] Hammervik, M., Lindoff, J., Castor, M., Berggren, P., Kylesten, B. (2007). LKS demonstrator som plattform för att mäta effekter av ledningskrigföring på ledningsförmåga – Användartest LKS demonstrator version 2. FOI-R--2254-SE. [6] High Level Architecture, https://www.dmso.mil/public/transition/hla/
