Clapp, g., sworDer,d.coMmand, Control and cOmmunications(c) The Electrical Engineering Handbook Ed. Richard C. Dorf Boca raton crc Press llc. 2000
Clapp, G., Sworder, D. “Command, Control and Communications (C3 )” The Electrical Engineering Handbook Ed. Richard C. Dorf Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC, 2000
103 Command, Control, and Communications(C3) G. Clapp Ocean Surveillance Center 103.3 The Technologies of C 103.4 The Dynamics of Encounters D. Sworder 103.5 The Role of the human Decisionmaker in C3 University of California, San Diego 103.6 Summary 103.1 Scope The focus of this chapter is not a detailed profile of a current or planned military C system but it is rather on programmatic reorderings render such express descriptions to become rapidly outdated. Thus block dagrare o the issues and the technologies of the C mission. Evolving technology, an evolving world order, and constant of specific military systems(and listings of their acronyms)are de-emphasized. Of paramount interest is not electronics technology in isolation, but rather technology integrated into systems and analysis of these systems operating under complex real world environments that include technologically capable adversaries. The human commander or decisionmaker, as the principal action element in a C system, is included explicitly in the 103.2 Background Electronics technology is nowhere more intensively and broadly applied than in military systems. Military systems are effective only through their command and control( c)and this is recognized by the fact that is a critical discipline within the military. Frequently systems will be denoted C2I or CI rather than command and control. This adds to C2 the essential area of intelligence and intelligence products derived from surveillance systems. All variants of these acronyms are to be considered equal, whether or not communications, intelligence, or surveillance have been left implicit or made explicit. Likewise the superscript notation is considered optional and interchangeable. The formal discipline of C3 within the military has not been matched by focused technical journals or university curricula due to its highly multidisciplinary nature Two definitions from a Joint Chiefs of Staff (CS)publication CS, Pub. 1] capture the breadth of C2. This ference defines command and control as"The exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned forces in the accomplishment of his mission Command and control functions are performed through an arrangement of personnel, equipment, communications, facilities, and procedures which are employed by a commander in planning, directing, coordinating and controlling forces and operations in the accomplishment of his mission. C2 systems are defined, with almost equal breadth, as "An integrated system comprised of doctrine, pI dures, or onal structure, personnel, equipment, facilities, and communications which provides autho ities at all levels with timely and adequate data to plan, direct and control their operation c 2000 by CRC Press LLC
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC 103 Command, Control, and Communications (C3) 103.1 Scope 103.2 Background 103.3 The Technologies of C3 103.4 The Dynamics of Encounters 103.5 The Role of the Human Decisionmaker in C3 103.6 Summary 103.1 Scope The focus of this chapter is not a detailed profile of a current or planned military C3 system but it is rather on the issues and the technologies of the C3 mission. Evolving technology, an evolving world order, and constant programmatic reorderings render such express descriptions to become rapidly outdated. Thus block diagrams of specific military systems (and listings of their acronyms) are de-emphasized. Of paramount interest is not electronics technology in isolation, but rather technology integrated into systems and analysis of these systems operating under complex real world environments that include technologically capable adversaries. The human commander or decisionmaker, as the principal action element in a C3 system, is included explicitly in the system analysis. 103.2 Background Electronics technology is nowhere more intensively and broadly applied than in military systems. Military systems are effective only through their command and control (C2 ) and this is recognized by the fact that C3 is a critical discipline within the military. Frequently systems will be denoted C2 I or C3 I rather than command and control. This adds to C2 the essential area of intelligence and intelligence products derived from surveillance systems.All variants of these acronyms are to be considered equal, whether or not communications, intelligence, or surveillance have been left implicit or made explicit. Likewise the superscript notation is considered optional and interchangeable. The formal discipline of C3 within the military has not been matched by focused technical journals or university curricula due to its highly multidisciplinary nature. Two definitions from a Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) publication [JCS, Pub. 1] capture the breadth of C2. This reference defines command and control as “The exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned forces in the accomplishment of his mission. Command and control functions are performed through an arrangement of personnel, equipment, communications, facilities, and procedures which are employed by a commander in planning, directing, coordinating and controlling forces and operations in the accomplishment of his mission.” C2 systems are defined, with almost equal breadth, as “An integrated system comprised of doctrine, procedures, organizational structure, personnel, equipment, facilities, and communications which provides authorities at all levels with timely and adequate data to plan, direct and control their operations.” G. Clapp Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center D. Sworder University of California, San Diego
A LOOK TOWARD FUTURE FLIGHT O March 19, 1996, NASA and McDonnell Douglas Corporation unveiled to the public a new subsonic flight vehicle designated X-36, a remotely piloted tailless research aircraft. The X-36 designed to demonstrate the feasibility of future tailless military fighters that can achieve agility levels superior to those of today's aircraft. In the absence of a tail, control of the X-36 is accomplished by a combination of thrust vectoring and innovative aerodynamic control features. Tailless fighter configurations offer reduced weight, increased range, and improvement in survivability. The X-36 is" flown" by a pilot located in a van at the flight test facility; a camera in the XX-36 cockpit relays instrument readings and displays to a console in the van With a wing span of only 10.4 feet and a gross weight under 1, 300 pounds, the X-36 is powered by a single turbofan originally designed as a cruise missile power plant. The X-36 program is intended to establish confidence to incorporate these technologies in future iloted vehicles. This project exemplifies one aspect of a NASA aeronautical research and technology of gram that seeks to improve the performance, efficiency and environmental characteristics of all types of planes and, additionally, addresses such infrastructure factors as air traffic control, navigation, and nications.( Courtesy of National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Designed jointly by NASA and McDonnell Douglas Corporation, the X-36 is a subscale, remotely piloted tailless vehicle for demonstrating technologies that could lead to lighter, longer e survivable fighter aircraft. (Photo courtesy of National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Though general, two points emerge from these definitions: (1)C is multidisciplinary and (2)C is a process which, to this point, includes only implicit roles for electronics technology. One military service, however, often refers to C and CI or has even used C l where the final C and second I refer to computers and interoperabilit respectively, as acknowledgment of the increasing reliance on technology. A C3 system can be visualized as shown in Fig. 103.1. Within the constraints imposed by organization, doctrine, and the skills of the personnel of the military unit, the commander plans and controls his forces. At basic level, command and control is a resource allocation problem, which often must be solved under much
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC Though general, two points emerge from these definitions: (1) C3 is multidisciplinary and (2) C3 is a process which, to this point, includes only implicit roles for electronics technology. One military service, however, often refers to C4 and C4 I or has even used C4 I2 where the final C and second I refer to computers and interoperability, respectively, as acknowledgment of the increasing reliance on technology. A C3 system can be visualized as shown in Fig. 103.1. Within the constraints imposed by organization, doctrine, and the skills of the personnel of the military unit, the commander plans and controls his forces. At a basic level, command and control is a resource allocation problem, which often must be solved under much tighter time horizons and subject to greater uncertainty levels than exist in civil applications. A LOOK TOWARD FUTURE FLIGHT n March 19, 1996, NASA and McDonnell Douglas Corporation unveiled to the public a new subsonic flight vehicle designated X-36, a remotely piloted tailless research aircraft. The X-36 is designed to demonstrate the feasibility of future tailless military fighters that can achieve agility levels superior to those of today’s aircraft. In the absence of a tail, control of the X-36 is accomplished by a combination of thrust vectoring and innovative aerodynamic control features. Tailless fighter configurations offer reduced weight, increased range, and improvement in survivability. The X-36 is “flown” by a pilot located in a van at the flight test facility; a camera in the XX-36 cockpit relays instrument readings and displays to a console in the van. With a wing span of only 10.4 feet and a gross weight under 1,300 pounds, the X-36 is powered by a single turbofan originally designed as a cruise missile power plant. The X-36 program is intended to establish confidence to incorporate these technologies in future piloted vehicles. This project exemplifies one aspect of a NASA aeronautical research and technology program that seeks to improve the performance, efficiency, and environmental characteristics of all types of planes and, additionally, addresses such infrastructure factors as air traffic control, navigation, and communications. (Courtesy of National Aeronautics and Space Administration.) Designed jointly by NASA and McDonnell Douglas Corporation, the X-36 is a subscale, remotely piloted tailless vehicle for demonstrating technologies that could lead to lighter, longer-ranging, more survivable, more agile military fighter aircraft. (Photo courtesy of National Aeronautics and Space Administration.) O
ORGANIZATION HARDWARE DOCTRINE EDUCATION FIGURE 103. 1 Components of C3. The four basic components display overlapped regions to indicate their inseparability. A portion of each category can be designed in isolation; a new antenna or a new radio with decreased size, weight, or power consumption has minimal impact on the other components. However, insertion of a broad new technology (e.g, a radio relay combined with a remotely piloted vehicle(RPv)or the networking of radios) has wide reaching consequences and it may take years to fully integrate into doctrine, training, and organization. The conjunction of the four areas, when specified with some detail, represents or contains an architecture. If the assets, the doctrine, and re limited to just one military function, then the aggregation is referred to as a mission architecture. Figure 103.2 depicts two approaches to achieving C3 architectures. The first Fig. 103. 2(a)) is essentially an aggregation and combination of existing assets and is referred to as a"bottom up"architecture. The"top-down"version of architecture development Fig 103. 2(b)] begins with earlier and high order perspective(and higher order oversight). Interfaces and interface standards become more important standards is desired. When new or updated equipment is designed or acquired it can be integrated without new interface developments, a key property of an"open system?"architecture. A developing architecture of this type is entitled, at the Joint Chiefs of Staff level, "CAI for the Warrior. " Service-specific top-down architec ures are Copernicus(Navy), AirLand 2000(Army), MTACCS( Marine Corps Tactical Command and Control System)and a yet unnamed Air Force architecture. Each of these are to be considered as evolving architectures and all reflect the impact and importance of scenarios with highly mobile nodes. The open system or top-down approach promotes interoperability between the developments of each service Capital investment constraints limit strict adherence to either architectural approach. MTACCS is a meta system of seven independently developed systems and is best described as a hybrid architecture. Most commu- nication systems within any of the above architectures existed prior to an architecture and thus have a hybrid nature Doctrine is a formalized description of military mission definitions and often includes the procedures to accomplish those missions. Doctrine will also often specify the organizational structure appropriate to the specific missions. Some military establishments adhere to strong doctrinal orientation, even down to strict dictation of technology developments. Other establishments treat doctrine as a loose guideline that can be liberally modified One foreign military analyst observed that U.S. commanders did not seem to read their own doctrinal publications, and even if they did, would not mpelled to follow them. A flexible military organization with flexible doctrine, however, can be constrained by inflexible hardware and software. Thus an emerging C3 emphasis is a technical focus on modular equipments, standard interfaces between equipments open system"architectures, and(software)programmable equipments The best way to understand military C3 is to view it as a set of adaptive control loops. The basic variable information and most of the effort in C3 synthesis is devoted to information handling and management. The resource allocation problem with feedback found in C3 has obvious similarities to those found in corporate operations and public safety service operations. Each is characterized by multiple priorities, limited resources, timelines, and deadlines for performance. Measures of the consequences of a given action tend to be obscured both by its antecedent actions and by changing external environments. The external environment contains both continuous events(i. e, tracking of targets)and discontinuous events(i.e, an equipment failure or the onset of communications jamming e 2000 by CRC Press LLC
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC The four basic components display overlapped regions to indicate their inseparability. A portion of each category can be designed in isolation; a new antenna or a new radio with decreased size, weight, or power consumption has minimal impact on the other components. However, insertion of a broad new technology (e.g., a radio relay combined with a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) or the networking of radios) has wide reaching consequences and it may take years to fully integrate into doctrine, training, and organization. The conjunction of the four areas, when specified with some detail, represents or contains an architecture. If the assets, the doctrine, and so on are limited to just one military function, then the aggregation is referred to as a mission architecture. Figure 103.2 depicts two approaches to achieving C3 architectures. The first [Fig. 103.2(a)] is essentially an aggregation and combination of existing assets and is referred to as a “bottomup” architecture. The “top-down” version of architecture development [Fig. 103.2(b)] begins with earlier and high order perspective (and higher order oversight). Interfaces and interface standards become more important in top-down architectures; instead of numerous custom and unique interfaces, a minimal set of interface standards is desired. When new or updated equipment is designed or acquired it can be integrated without new interface developments, a key property of an “open system” architecture. A developing architecture of this type is entitled, at the Joint Chiefs of Staff level, “C4I for the Warrior.” Service-specific top-down architectures are Copernicus (Navy), AirLand 2000 (Army), MTACCS (Marine Corps Tactical Command and Control System) and a yet unnamed Air Force architecture. Each of these are to be considered as evolving architectures and all reflect the impact and importance of scenarios with highly mobile nodes. The open system or top-down approach promotes interoperability between the developments of each service. Capital investment constraints limit strict adherence to either architectural approach. MTACCS is a metasystem of seven independently developed systems and is best described as a hybrid architecture. Most communication systems within any of the above architectures existed prior to an architecture and thus have a hybrid nature. Doctrine is a formalized description of military mission definitions and often includes the procedures to accomplish those missions. Doctrine will also often specify the organizational structure appropriate to the specific missions. Some military establishments adhere to strong doctrinal orientation, even down to strict dictation of technology developments. Other establishments treat doctrine as a loose guideline that can be liberally modified. One foreign military analyst observed that U.S. commanders did not seem to read their own doctrinal publications, and even if they did, would not feel compelled to follow them. A flexible military organization with flexible doctrine, however, can be constrained by inflexible hardware and software. Thus an emerging C3 emphasis is a technical focus on modular equipments, standard interfaces between equipments, “open system” architectures, and (software) programmable equipments. The best way to understand military C3 is to view it as a set of adaptive control loops. The basic variable is information and most of the effort in C3 synthesis is devoted to information handling and management. The resource allocation problem with feedback found in C3 has obvious similarities to those found in corporate operations and public safety service operations. Each is characterized by multiple priorities, limited resources, timelines, and deadlines for performance. Measures of the consequences of a given action tend to be obscured both by its antecedent actions and by changing external environments. The external environment contains both continuous events (i.e., tracking of targets) and discontinuous events (i.e., an equipment failure or the onset of communications jamming). FIGURE 103.1 Components of C3
Development c Documented Development Design Developments FIGURE 103.2 Architectural processes. Command and control systems are examples of perhaps the most complex adaptive systems. In its static state,C3 assets are aggregates of sensors, processors, databases, humans(with their attributes and organizations), computer hardware/software, mobile platforms, weapons, and communication equipments distributed over wide areas. In the dynamic state these assets must be mapped into capabilities in the presence of uncertain or unexpected threats, evolving missions, changing environments, mixed with unreliable communications and possible deception. All can be expected to occur over extended geographic regions and at high tempos. In short C maps assets into capabilities. The control processes require rapid and accurate decisionmaking: from this has come the need for heavy reliance on computer-based data systems and high-reliability communications. Despite the existence of fielded weapon systems capable of autonomous operation, the principal action element in the system is still human C3 system complexity arises primarily from the magnitude and mobility of the forces involved; forces that can be composed of up to thousands of mobile platforms and hundreds of thousands of personnel. To this added the large amount of uncertainty present; uncertainty borne of the adversary, of human attributes, dynamics, hostile environments, and communications. Hundreds of radio frequency channels may be in simultaneous use supporting command, surveillance, intelligence, personnel, and logistics functions 103.3 The Technologies of C3 The general scenario outlined in the previous sections is no longer accommodated by last generation technology of grease pencils, maps, and visual signaling. Technology covered in nearly every other chapter of this handbook is rapidly being incorporated into military C3 systems. Defense departments world wide continue to support technology develo from sub-micron microprocessing devices to global infor rmation Technologies with recent major impact on C3 are a. Digital communications/data links/networking. The newer and critical role of digital(computer-com puter)communications initially became possible through satellite communication systems. Tactical data links(short-range digital communications) have been enhanced by error control techniques such coding, automatic repeat requests, and spread spectrum radios. Networking, a well-established commercial hnique, is being developed for tactical applications. Networking offers survivability through alternate e 2000 by CRC Press LLC
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC Command and control systems are examples of perhaps the most complex adaptive systems. In its static state, C3 assets are aggregates of sensors, processors, databases, humans (with their attributes and organizations), computer hardware/software, mobile platforms, weapons, and communication equipments distributed over wide areas. In the dynamic state these assets must be mapped into capabilities in the presence of uncertain or unexpected threats, evolving missions, changing environments, mixed with unreliable communications and possible deception. All can be expected to occur over extended geographic regions and at high tempos. In short, C3 maps assets into capabilities. The control processes require rapid and accurate decisionmaking; from this has come the need for heavy reliance on computer-based data systems and high-reliability communications. Despite the existence of fielded weapon systems capable of autonomous operation, the principal action element in the system is still human. C3 system complexity arises primarily from the magnitude and mobility of the forces involved; forces that can be composed of up to thousands of mobile platforms and hundreds of thousands of personnel. To this is added the large amount of uncertainty present; uncertainty borne of the adversary, of human attributes, dynamics, hostile environments, and communications. Hundreds of radio frequency channels may be in simultaneous use supporting command, surveillance, intelligence, personnel, and logistics functions. 103.3 The Technologies of C3 The general scenario outlined in the previous sections is no longer accommodated by last generation technology of grease pencils, maps, and visual signaling. Technology covered in nearly every other chapter of this handbook is rapidly being incorporated into military C3 systems. Defense departments world wide continue to support technology developments from sub-micron microprocessing devices to global information systems. Technologies with recent major impact on C3 are a. Digital communications/data links/networking. The newer and critical role of digital (computer-computer) communications initially became possible through satellite communication systems. Tactical data links (short-range digital communications) have been enhanced by error control techniques such as coding, automatic repeat requests, and spread spectrum radios. Networking, a well-established commercial technique, is being developed for tactical applications. Networking offers survivability through alternate FIGURE 103.2 Architectural processes