MITRE 1

Fast ModelingFast ModelingTechniques forTechniques forC4ISR ProblemsC4ISR Problems

John Furman

The MITRE Corporation

McLean, Virginia, USA

3 September 2004

MITRE 2

The ChallengeThe Challenge

IO

N

SystemTechnical

Performance

SystemTechnical

Performance

Cognition andHuman Factors

Cognition andHuman Factors

HighDimensionality(Options & Factors)

HighDimensionality(Options & Factors)

How do you calculate the impact of C4ISR* systems on Force Effectiveness?

*C4ISR: An older acronym for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance

Relationshipto OperationalEffectiveness

Relationshipto OperationalEffectiveness

DistributedFunctional

Processes & IMPerformance

DistributedFunctional

Processes & IMPerformance

MITRE 3

The Taxonomy of C4ISR AnalysisThe Taxonomy of C4ISR Analysis

Tactical or OperationalTask Performance

Based on Info Delivery

Force OperationalOutcome

Mission Branch(Impact of Info Delivery)

Decision Branch(Choice & Outcome)

MoP

MoCE

MoFE Comparison ofAvail Information &Decisions Taken

MoCE

MoPTimeliness Quality

Persistence

QuantityAccess

Synthesis, Fusion,Human Cognition

SystemPerformance

Communications Perception

MoFE

MITRE 4

Basic PrinciplesBasic Principles

• Identify Fundamental Operational Issues“Drivers” --- most challenging aspects (hard problem)Critical Factors for operational executionWhat must I do to succeed? What is a “successful” outcome?

• Model to Support AnalysisBased on comprehensive understanding of problem domain Rapid-response: idea to execution in days or weeksFocus on critical variables and processes (can’t do everything)

• Analyze to Examine the KEY IssuesTask analysisLinkages among tasksTime dependenciesParametric representations of performanceQuantitative measures for outcomesInfluence diagrams as the primary technique

Simple, understandable, parametric

MITRE 5

Linking C4ISR Capability Linking C4ISR Capability

• Mission analysis based on functional decomposition of scenario (Strategy-to-Task) establishes success criteria

• Parametric analysis of capability yields the required Quantitative Threshold Assessment (QTA)

Approach: Strategy-to-Tasks

• Define OPSITs for each conflict condition: Baseline + Excursions

• Establish overall operational goals and effectiveness thresholds• Use / identify functional breakdown of operations process

(single Joint source or hybridize from multiple sources as appropriate) Establish functional performance thresholds Establish (& quantify where possible) relationship between info

and functional performance

• Assess IS support to functions and tasks Directly / inferred from established sources … or

By analysis and best professional judgment, validated by gov’t and military authorities

• Identify gaps, opportunities and potential solution concepts

Approach: Strategy-to-Tasks

• Define OPSITs for each conflict condition: Baseline + Excursions

• Establish overall operational goals and effectiveness thresholds• Use / identify functional breakdown of operations process

(single Joint source or hybridize from multiple sources as appropriate) Establish functional performance thresholds Establish (& quantify where possible) relationship between info

and functional performance

• Assess IS support to functions and tasks Directly / inferred from established sources … or

By analysis and best professional judgment, validated by gov’t and military authorities

• Identify gaps, opportunities and potential solution concepts

MITRE 6

Quantitative Threshold AnalysisQuantitative Threshold Analysis

Mission area analysis based on functional decomposition and Quantitative Threshold Assessment

OperationsCombat/WarArms ControlCombatting TerrorismCounterdrug OperationsNation AssistanceNoncombatant Evacuation Operations…..

Mission AreasAir and Missile DefenseInterdiction Kill 1st Echelon TargetsSEADMaritime/Air/Land Superiority…..

TargetsMoving ArmorWeapons ProductionNational C2ICommunicationsPorts …..

C4ISR FunctionsInformation Acquisition / Situation MonitoringInformation AssessmentDecision MakingPlanningExecution Management (Force & Unit)

ObjectiveDeploy ForcesHalt InvasionDefeat EnemyRedeployment…..

C4ISR Tasks- Detect- ID- TLE/AOI- Report

CONOPsRollbackIn-depth…..

Domain AssessmentCommunicationsCommand & ControlISRInfo TechnologyInfo OperationsInfo Assurance

AssessmentLevels

ExceedsMeetsDoes Not Meet(But Useful)Compromises

PerformanceThresholdsHigh

MediumLow

None

MITRE 7

Common Modeling ApproachCommon Modeling Approach

• Parametric system dynamics modeling

• Implemented in easily available toolsAnalytica™, MatLab,

Mathematica, Python, Smalltalk, SimPy

Open-source when appropriate (cost, risk, or response time)

Strike Lethality

Calc

Percentage of targetbase killed

Assumptions

Cumulative CoalitionGround Losses

Relative to Total Force

Phase

Region

SEAD Condition

State of Air War

Integrity

Indicators

Specific Munitions

Red & Blue Characterisitics and

Performance

Case

Targets

SAMs

Platforms MunitionsUnit

Cost Forecast

Weather

Foliage

Aggregate Air Losses

Sortie Loss Rate

PhasesEst. Cost of Analysis Cases

From All Sources

Can we decisively terminate the MTW ?

Is the ground engagementviable ?

Is the air engagementviable ?

What does a given level of capability cost ?

How rapidly can we eliminate the threat ?

NavalSurfaceLosses

Is the naval engagementviable ?

Mission analysis based on functional decomposition and

quantitative threshold assessment

MITRE 8

Example Model ConceptExample Model Concept

Approach

• Posit evolution of adversaries,forces and capabilities

• Lay down adversary forcesinto defense zones

• Time dynamic, 2-sided, parametriccalculation of expected damage

• If E(damage) < tolerance threshold,then access to zone is obtainedon day N

• Forecast force lethality vs. ground mobile targetsrelative to “complete access”

Simple --- Aggregate --- Rapid

Maritime Engagement Model - MEM

MITRE 9

MEM Top-level StructureMEM Top-level Structure

DefenseZones

AnalysisCase

Combat PowerCombat Power

Threat Forces, Capabilities,Disposition & CONOPs

US Maritime Forces,Disposition, Capabilities &

CONOPs

Attrition ofThreat Forces

Attrition ofUS Forces

Access Achievedby US Forces

E( KPD) / Max( KPD)

•Decision nodes•Chance nodes•Result nodes•Data

Modules contain a process (collection of nodes)

MITRE 10

ISR Modeling in MEMISR Modeling in MEM

Threat RSTA OB

Probability Detection and ClassifyWITH Countermeasures by Threat

Prob Detect, Classify andTrack considering ALL

RSTA Systems

Probability BLUE ForcesClassified and Detected

Physical Attackson RSTA

ISR CapabilityMap

Prob Detect

Prob Classify

Prob Track

CMT Prob Detect,Classify and Track ALL

RSTA Systems

CMT ProbClassify

CMT ProbDetect

Select PhysicalAttacks on RSTA

Select BLUEPlatform

Countermeasures against RSTA

Blue PlatformCountermeasures

against RSTA

The probability that each ISR system independently detects the target is calculated

ISR performance can be degraded by a variety of factors including physical attack or use of countermeasures

Allows individual sensor capabilities to detect/identify/track to be accounted for and influence the output

Probability of detection, classification (ID), and track used as appropriate in expected damage calculations throughout MEM

Decision nodes: controlled set of decisions (tables)

Chance nodes: events not controlled by the decision maker

MITRE 11

ISR Systems ModeledISR Systems Modeled

Space

Air

Ground

Sea

EO / IR Radar SIGINT Acoustic

CommercialAdversary Ally

Missile Launch Det.

TACAIR RecceMPAUAV

Monitor shore / straits

FPBD-E sub

ScientificAdversary AllyGov’t Owned

TACAIR RecceMPAUAV

Monitor shore / straits

Counter-battery Radar

IADS / ATC

MerchantmanPatrol

Adversary AllyGov’t Owned

TACAIR ESMMPAUAV

Monitoring networks

PatrolD-E sub

AcousticD-E sub

Other / CyberSpace - Commercial EO/IRSpace - Adversary Ally EO/IRSpace – EO/IRSpace - Missile Launch Detect EO/IRSpace - Scientific RadarSpace - Adversary Ally RadarSpace – RadarSpace - Adversary Ally SIGINTSpace – SIGINT

Air - TACAIR RECCE EO/IRAir - MPA EO/IRAir - UAV EO/IRAir - TACAIR RECCE RadarAir - MPA RadarAir - UAV RadarAir - TACAIR ESM SIGINTAir - MPA SIGINTAir - UAV SIGINT

Ground - Monitor Shore/Straits EO/IRGround - Monitor Shore/Straits RadarGround - OTH RadarGround - Counter-Battery RadarGround - IADS/ATC RadarGround - SIGINTGround - Offensive EW

Sea - Fast Patrol Boat EO/IRSea - Diesel Electric Sub EO/IRSea - Modern Diesel Electric Sub EO/IRSea - Merchantman RadarSea - Patrol Craft RadarSea - Patrol SIGINTSea - Diesel Electric Sub SIGINTSea - Modern Diesel Electric Sub SIGINTSea - Sea Bed AcousticSea - Diesel Electric Sub Acoustic

Systems can be categorized by time to expedite portfolio analysis

Categorization ensures proper consideration of all systems

MITRE 12

Assessing Operational Assessing Operational EffectivenessEffectiveness

Maritime Mission

WeightedSum

Minimum Maximum

If( (A & B) > GRN ) then Min (C, D)else Min (A, B) x ...

AverageA B C D

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3

Base case

Option 1

Option 2

• Quantitative Threshold Methodology (QTA)Decompose Operational Mission into its basic functionsDevelop rules for aggregating children into their parentsAssess capability at lowest level functions based on

defined quantitative capability thresholdsLowest level assessments and therefore the overall assessment

may change for each option considered

MITRE 13

Automating the AssessmentAutomating the Assessment

• Automated using Portfolio Analysis Machine (PALM)

• Changes in “leaf” nodes are automatically reflected all the way to the top.

• PALM identifies the critical failure path = functions for improvement

• Calculates and displays the rate of increase of the overall mission value foreach unit of increase in node

• Calculates cost and improvement in operational effectivenessfor all combinations of possible improvements

Explores Solution Space Automatically

MITRE 14

Investment AnalysisInvestment Analysis

Mission or Campaign “A”

OperationalEffectiveness

Cost

A Single Solution Alternative(such as the POM)

Cost-EffectivenessEnvelope of All

Combinations ofSolution Alternatives

“Max Effectiveness”Alternative

“Min Cost” Alternative

Set of Potentially“Winning” Alternatives

• For a given portfolio of C4ISR improvements, betterperformance at leaf nodes is traced up the tree to determineoverall mission impact

• Evaluates all possible portfolios and displays cost-effectiveness “efficient frontier”

• Adjusts efficient frontier to account for user-selected inclusionor exclusion of certain improvements

• Displays critical nodes and their potential impact on missionperformance

108 - 109 combinationsof options

108 - 109 combinationsof options

• For a given portfolio of C4ISR improvements, betterperformance at leaf nodes is traced up the tree to determineoverall mission impact

• Evaluates all possible portfolios and displays cost-effectiveness “efficient frontier”

• Adjusts efficient frontier to account for user-selected inclusionor exclusion of certain improvements

• Displays critical nodes and their potential impact on missionperformance

108 - 109 combinationsof options

108 - 109 combinationsof options

PALM- Exhaustive Automated Analysis of Alternatives -

PALM: Portfolio AnaLysis Machine

MITRE 15

Extensible Modeling ApproachesExtensible Modeling Approaches

• Mission analysis based on functional decomposition and quantitative threshold assessment – multiple missions

• Linked parametric system dynamics modeling

Cross mission effects & C4I rivalry

C4ISR module

Combat moduleSTRIKE

C4ISR module

Combat moduleJSEAD

C4ISR module

Combat moduleMaritime

C4ISR module

Combat moduleOCA

C4ISR module

Combat moduleBMD

C4ISR module

Combat moduleGround

Cross mission effects & C4I rivalry

C4ISR module

Combat moduleSTRIKE

C4ISR module

Combat moduleJSEAD

C4ISR module

Combat moduleMaritime

C4ISR module

Combat moduleOCA

C4ISR module

Combat moduleBMD

C4ISR module

Combat moduleGround

Model Development

• Rationalize and extend previously developed C4ISR models for conventional combat

• Calculate bounds onMOPs --> conflict MOFEs in minutes

• Evaluate military worth of … Doctrine and CONOPs changes C4ISR systems improvements Changes to force structure and

weapon systems

MITRE 16

Analytic RigorAnalytic Rigor

• Measure C4ISR effectiveness• Quantify performance:

Comparative performance “System A performs 3 times as well as system B.”

Absolute performance “System A is likely to meet 65 of 85 percent of capability needs.”

• Assess capability needsEvaluates options at the mission or operation levelRecommends solutions that address

Future risk tradeoffs, Force management, Warfighting capabilities, and Economic limitations