KEYWORDS: Analytics, Data modeling, Computer simulations, Data processing, Computing systems, Sensors, Space operations, Control systems, Internet, Distributed computing
Modern software and network technologies are on the verge of enabling what has eluded the simulation and operational communities for more than two decades, truly integrating simulation functionality into operational Command and Control (C2) capabilities. This deep integration will benefit multiple stakeholder communities from experimentation and test to training by providing predictive and advanced analytics. There is a new opportunity to support operations with simulation once a deep integration is achieved. While it is true that doctrinal and acquisition issues remain to be addressed, nonetheless it is increasingly obvious that few technical barriers persist. How will this change the way in which common simulation and operational data is stored and accessed? As the Services move towards single networks, will there be technical and policy issues associated with sharing those operational networks with simulation data, even if the simulation data is operational in nature (e.g., associated with planning)? How will data models that have traditionally been simulation only be merged in with operational data models? How will the issues of trust be addressed?
KEYWORDS: Sensors, Data modeling, Sensor performance, Infrared sensors, Environmental sensing, Databases, Data processing, Information technology, Information operations, Weapons
Terrain and weather effects represent fundamental battlefield information supporting situation awareness and the
decision-making processes for Net Centric operations. Sensor information can have a greater impact when placed within
a terrain and weather contextual framework. Realizing the promised potential of Net Centric operations is challenging
with respect to these effects, since these effects can both enhance or constrain force tactics and behaviors, platform
performance (ground and air), system performance (e.g. sensors) and the soldier. We have defined a methodology that
starts with military objectives and determines the most useful terrain products to support these missions, taking into
account weather effects and sensors. From this methodology we have designed a number of technical standards and
components. A key standard is geospatial Battle Management Language (geoBML) to represent Mission input to
Geospatial and Sensor Products. An example of components for creating these products are those in the Battlespace
Terrain Reasoning and Awareness (BTRA) system. These standards and components enable interoperability between
force elements that address not only syntactic consistency, but consistency of both a lexical and semantic representation
to realize shared, coherent awareness. This paper presents a systemic approach for successful resolution of these
challenges and describes an Actionable Geo-environmental Information Framework (AGeIF).
Access to the requested content is limited to institutions that have purchased or subscribe to SPIE eBooks.
You are receiving this notice because your organization may not have SPIE eBooks access.*
*Shibboleth/Open Athens users─please
sign in
to access your institution's subscriptions.
To obtain this item, you may purchase the complete book in print or electronic format on
SPIE.org.
INSTITUTIONAL Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.
PERSONAL Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.