Interoperable Assets for Test and Training Instrumentation are aReality....Ready or Not.

Authors: John Smith, Tom Macdonald, and Nat Raimondo

Abstract: The test and training communities independently createdinstrumentation assets to meet their missions to test weapon systems and train

warfighters, respectively. The maturing of GPS, the development ofsophisticated data link systems, and the explosion in the commercial sector of

high density microelectronics, coupled with the need for multi-service, as well asmulti-national, test and training exercises, requires these communities to learn

how to share data, and build bridges between test and training. The paperdescribes some of the major differences between the test and training

communities, how these communities implemented the technologies to servetheir customer base, and how the maturization of these systems demonstratesthat there is now more commonality than differences in the instrumentation. Amajor multi-service and multi-national exercise is described that demonstrates

the progress that has been made in building bridges between testing andtraining, even though the instrumentation is not interoperable. The paper

describes two systems under development that can be used as the departurepoint for creating interoperable test and training instrumentation. The creation ofinteroperable instrumentation assets is nearly here. It is time to challenge thoseresponsible for infrastructure differences to bring these communities together.

Introduction

As testing and training disciplines developed, technology constraints andrigid mission definitions limited the development and use of interoperable testand training instrumentation. To appreciate these differences consider thefollowing range operational attributes and how the tester and trainer historicallyhave viewed them differently:

Environment:

Tester says: It must be controlled to evaluate ability of system under testto meet specification and determine if it is ready for service use.

Trainer says: The battlefield must be “free flow” so that I can evaluateability of warfighter to use the system as unplanned events arise in anuncontrolled environment.

Data Flow and Outages:

Tester says: I need all the data I can get, and I need it all of the time.Murphy’s Law says an interruption in data flow will occur when I need it the most.

U.S. Air Force T&E Days6 - 8 December 2005, Nashville, Tennessee

AIAA 2005-7621

Copyright © 2005 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

2

Trainer says: Outages can be tolerated as long as I can view and/orreplicate the flow of action.

Time, Space, Position Information (TSPI) Accuracy:

Tester says: It should be ten times the accuracy of the system under test.Trainer says: Relative positioning is more important than accuracy.

Instrumentation Independence:

Tester says: Instrumentation must be independent of what I am testing.To score my evaluation and determine the suitability of the system under test,except to support the collection of data, I must have no (or minimal) interplay withon-board systems.

Trainer says: Interplay with on-board systems may be necessary in orderto score the exercise. I am evaluating the warfighter and determining the need toestablish/modify tactics.

Note: Since test and training issues change in response to emergingthreats, the cost to continually modify a combat system, or platform, tosupport test or training exercises is most probably prohibitive from a cost,schedule, and technical practicality standpoint.

Real Time versus Post Mission:

Tester says: Cost of the exercise may prohibit redoing a test. Let’s rerunit, NOW! Post-mission analysis is typically reserved for validating the real-timetest.

Trainer says: Real-time viewing is required for the Range Training Officer(RTO), and is an asset to observers, but replay is essential so that warfighterscan understand what happened during the exercise.

Quality of Instrumentation:

Tester says: I am willing to accept less than perfectly operatingequipment if cutting edge technology supports my test.

Trainer says: When instrumentation is installed, it better be “bug free”. Idon’t want to interrupt an exercise because of faulty instrumentation.

Multi-Service test or multi-Service training exercises have been ongoing formany years. The complexity of these exercises is placing more demands onthese network centric exercises. Infrastructure limitations contributed to theinability to create a real and synthetic battlefield representing the emergingthreats to support combined test and training exercises. These infrastructurelimitations can be summarized as independent support funding lines, the lack of

3

tri-service commitments within the Defense Department, and the very nature ofhow testing and training activities are funded. In addition, the lack of aconsolidated security doctrine impeded the ability to combine testing and training.It is difficult to characterize test or training as having the more stringent securityrequirements, but they are truly different and often incompatible.

It was convenient not to face these infrastructure issues when technologylimitations stood in the way of creating the necessary diverse and non co-locatedtest and training battlefield. Now technology supports the creation of thiscomplex battlefield, but much needs to be done to make this battlefield moreefficient and responsive to support testing of capabilities and the creation oftactical doctrine for overcoming the enemy.

This paper demonstrates how technology has matured, allowing the creationof a realistic battlefield environment. A key missing element is interoperable testand training instrumentation assets to support this national and global battlefield.The paper will describe a path to interoperable instrumentation assets. Onceinteroperable instrumentation assets are in place, organizational and fundingobstacles can then be addressed to complete the development of an integrated,real, virtual, and synthetic battlefield.

Parallels of Instrumentation Development for Test and Training

The development of interoperable test and training assets and capabilitiesrequires an understanding of how weapons data, platform dynamics, andoperator actions are recorded, and/or passed to the ground.

Training community instrumentation development – In the 1970’s, thetraining community was tasked to develop an air-to-air combat training system forall Air Force and Navy fighter aircraft without modifying the on-board equipment.The most efficient way to develop this capability was to take the shell of a missilepod that is used by these aircraft, and install the instrumentation in this pod. Thispod would connect to the power bus available at a wing station, and any platformdata available to the missile at this wing station could be downloaded to the pod.Figure 1. shows an F-16 with a training instrumentation pod installed at wing tipstation.

4

Figure 1. F-16 with a later generation P4B Instrumentation pod

TSPI and communications to the Command Center was accomplishedusing specially designed pod-mounted transceivers and strategically locatedground-based towers. Once the data was received at the Command Center, itwas processed (using ground-based multilateration, augmented with abaroaltimeter) to derive TSPI, and recorded to support mission replay for thecrews and instructors. This approach does not require any changes to theaircraft. For aircraft participating in a training exercise that cannot supportexternal carriage, the equipment is mounted on plates that are relatively easy toinstall and remove after the training exercise.

During the exercise, the RTO monitors the exercise. After the exercise,participating pilots, instructors, and observers analyze the recorded visualizationsto determine what went right and what went wrong. This results in thedevelopment of new and better combat tactics.

Test community instrumentation development – For many years, testranges acted fairly autonomously from one another as their mission was insupport of the customer funding the test exercise. Land-based tracking radarsand cine-theodolites were used for TSPI. Telemetry systems were temporarilyinstalled on the platforms to collect the platform data. Similar to the trainingranges, the test range was limited in geographical coverage, operationalflexibility, and the availability of real-time TSPI. The introduction of GPS wasabout to change all this.

GPS and its impact on testing – In the early 1980’s, with the DODcommitment to a full constellation of GPS satellites, a Government-funded studyconcluded that GPS could solve as much as 95% of the TSPI accuracy for themajor open-air range test communities. Led by the Central Test & EvaluationInvestment Program (CTEIP) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, andsupported by the Major Range Test and Facility Base (MRTFB), the tri-serviceRange Applications Joint Program Office (RAJPO) was established at Eglin AirForce Base to develop these capabilities. There was no established

5

infrastructure for such a multi-service system so the planners could start with arelatively “clean piece of paper”.

Taking a page from the training community, the test community installed inan AIM-9 missile pod shell an integrated GPS-inertial suite, a state-of-the-art two-way controllable data link, a solid-state recording capability, and an encryptioncapability that protects the TSPI data. Plates were built to house this equipmenton participating aircraft that were not capable of external carriage of aninstrumentation pod. Now the range was not limited by restricted TSPI coveragebut by the participant data link coverage area. Remotely-located data link relaystations, and the use of air-to-air participant relays, aided in extending the rangecoverage area. In fact, with common assets and a similar ground structure at anadjacent range, participants could move to another range with no interruption inoperations. The two ranges could exchange data, thus further increasing thereach of an exercise. This highly successful program was a result of theforesight of the MRTFB, and the RAJPO, supported by a technical team made upof industry leaders and members from all of the major open-air ranges.

In support of the system under test, each range developed its ownconcepts of what was important, what should be recorded, and what should bedisplayed in real time, or in post mission. As a part of the RAJPO activity, afamily of standard messages was created. From this family, the tester couldselect a message suite to fit the mission at hand. If none of the standardmessages met the mission need, the tester could create their own message(s)from the flexible software that was provided. These unique messages werecreated with standard protocols so that when messages are received at adifferent range, the data could be understood. From these messages, eachrange created its own display capabilities meeting the test mission requirements.

In summary, since all the major test ranges have identical (or functionallysimilar) assets, the ability for different test ranges to participate together in anexercise became the operating norm. Alternatively, participants could travel fromone range to another with common instrumentation and readable messages.

GPS and its impact on training – Prior to the introduction of GPS, thetraining community had its own performance issues. Reliable and accurate TSPIlimited training exercises to a geographical area within the ground-based towercomplex. Pilots became too familiar with the operating area. Was success in atraining exercise due to pilot familiarity with the exercise area, or a result ofoutstanding tactics? GPS would remove these geographical constraints. Themultilateration TSPI system of the conventional combat training systems couldnow be used as a data link. In some cases communications were necessary toonly a single tower to support a GPS-based combat training system.

There were more than one thousand instrumentation pods in theinventory. Converting to a new TSPI (source with the associated changes to the

6

combat system operating software) was neither simple nor could it be doneovernight. The first GPS-based system modification happened at Nellis AFB,followed by an untethered system installed at Kadena AFB, Okinawa.Untethered systems use no ground Command Center to control the exercise andcollect data. Participating aircraft exchange data with one another. The pod’srecording system collects all the information from all aircraft within radiocoverage of the pod’s data link. Upon return to Base, the recording devices areremoved from the participants and the data merged to develop a singlevisualization of the exercise.

Over the years these systems matured to the point where many trainingrange systems locations now include: GPS for TSPI, modern data linkcapabilities, advanced interfaces to take platform information off the bus, updatedweapons simulations to predict fly-out characteristics after launch, sophisticatedcommercial off-the-shelf on-board recording capabilities, and advanced displaytechniques to render the visualization as realistic as possible. GPS-basedtethered training combat systems are in place as part of the Tyndall RangeExpansion, the Alaska ACMI Upgrade, and the Goldwater Pod ModificationProgram at Luke AFB. Four untethered systems are in place at USAF bases inEurope (USAFE). More ranges will be converted to use GPS-based TSPI astraining needs warrant the change.

Demonstrations at a National Range

Roving Sands – In Roving Sands 95, many of these GPS-based testassets were used in this joint exercise. The value in collecting and passing dataaround the communities was beginning to be appreciated. As a part of theexercise, real and simulated platforms were integrated to create a virtualbattlefield. These GPS-based assets were essential to demonstrating that anational range for test and training exercises was realistic.

Modeling and Simulation - With the maturing of GPS as the prime TSPIasset, more combined exercises were conducted. Some focused on testing whilemost focused on training. As the size of these missions grew, the ability to usereal assets became costly and unrealistic. Modeling and simulation techniqueswere implemented to enhance the battlefield and minimize the number of (real)weapons and combat participants. The specialties of various ranges andsimulation laboratories were brought together to create the desired battlefield.

TENA – After the success of Roving Sands 95, exercises increased incomplexity as more realistic multi-organization and multi-service exercises wereundertaken. The acknowledged necessity, and value, in exchanging dataresulted in a program to eliminate the technical barriers to achieving a networkpathway. Once again, this effort was led by CTEIP with MRTFB support. Theprogram established standard protocols and message structures that weresufficiently flexible to:

7

� Meet new and emerging requirements for passing data among allorganizations participating in an exercise

• Respond to undefined future range requirements.

Originally conceived as a test asset, the participants in this “design fromscratch” activity had the foresight to appreciate that the network structure shouldbe sufficiently flexible to invite the training community to enter the network. Theresultant Test and Training Enabling Architecture (TENA) has proven to be acost-effective conduit for transferring real and simulated data among ranges,simulation laboratories, observation facilities, and Command Headquarters insupport of national testing of weapons systems and training of warfighters in arealistic battlefield.

Joint Red Flag 05 (JRF 05) –This major exercise took place in FY05 andbecame the key effort for demonstrating a national combined services activitybringing together both national and international assets in a combined test andtraining exercise. The significant events of this exercise are as follows:

• Two JCS exercises were merged• It was the largest training event in FY 05• It was the first service-led Integrated Training Event under the Joint

National Training Capability (JNTC)• Largest distributed mission operations event in history• Robust coalition participation• First live air defense training at Nellis• Ten Joint Experiments, Test and evaluations, and Advanced

concept demonstrations (JETA’s) were conducted and supportedtraining.

The JNTC was designated as the lead organization in building a nationalasset for multi-service and multi-national range capabilities. The following areexcerpts from remarks made by Admiral Giambastiani on April 5, 2005 at theUSJFCOM/NDIA Industry Symposium 2005. Joint Red Flag ’05 (JRF 05)represented the first time that two major JCS training events were merged withother Service events to create a truly Service-integrated opportunity. JRF 05 andRoving Sands were merged to increase the size of the training audience thatwould benefit from the synergy of Service interoperability and JNTC investments.

ACC was designated the lead and executive agent for JRF 05, while theArmy’s FORSCOM was designated as the co-lead. This was the first JNTCintegrated training event with the planning and execution led by the Services.USJFCOM’s Joint Warfare Center, the lead agent for developing the JNTC,facilitated JRF 05 and the integration of the simultaneous training events to fit theServices’ joint training needs.

8

There were 10,000 participants from active duty, guard, reserves, andforeign forces. JRF 05 was the largest distributed mission operations trainingevent in our history with 34 real and 18 virtual sites linked together. The exerciseprovided realistic joint theater air missile defense operations, time-sensitivetargeting operations, training for aircrews, as well as command and controlagencies.

It was the first opportunity for 12th Air Force (12AF) and 32nd Army AreaMissile Defense Command (32AAMD) to train together in their doctrinalCombined Air Operations Center and AAMD roles. A robust joint integrated airdefense system was established over two geographically dispersed areas ofoperation. The Army forces operated in an operational environment, andrequired a tactical level coordination normally found only in a real-world theater.

JRF 05 provided an environment to evaluate the ability to conduct testingin an operational training construct. Ten JETA’s were successfully conductedand shown not to interfere, nor distract from, the primary training activity. Anexample of a highly visible JETA was PATRIOT positive identification. ThisJETA located with the PATRIOT at Nellis AFB worked to provide PATRIOTbatteries and their ICC with a positive identification capability that reduces thepossibility of friendly fire incidents. Another Army JETA provided significantintelligence analysis capability, while another provided communications networkanalysis. The Army’s SENTINEL Enhanced Target Range and Classification(ETRAC) JETA purchased cruise missile surrogates for the JRF 05 area ofoperation.

Obtaining Common Test and Training Instrumentation Assets

At this time there are two systems under development that will provide atest instrumentation capability and a training instrumentation capability that isstate-of-the-art, reflects all of the ‘lessons learned’ to date, does not rely onproprietary contractor designs, and has the inherent ability to grow/change asnew capabilities and threats are defined. Both of these ongoing efforts includespiral development activities to accommodate requirements with technologies notyet available or affordable (e.g., the software radio referred to as Joint TacticalRadio System (JTRS)). Studies are currently taking place on how to createinteroperable instrumentation suites from these systems. The following sectionswill review these two systems, delineate the differences and commonalitybetween them, and make suggestions for creating interoperable assets. Itshould be noted that both of these systems are being developed by the RangeInstrumentation Systems Squadron (RISS) at Eglin AFB. Having the sameorganization responsible for implementing both the next generation test andtraining programs eases the process for obtaining interoperable test and trainingassets.

P5 Combat Training System (P5CTS)

9

Figure 2. is an overview of this instrumented combat training system thatcan operate with a ground-based Command Center, or in an untethered mode.The Command Center can be at a fixed location, or be portable. The untetheredsystem permits total flexibility; i.e., a range can ne located anywhere on land orat sea.

Figure 2. P5 Combat Training System Overview

The P5CTS has the following general capabilities:

• Air-to-Air (A-A) and Air-to-Ground (A-G) data link• Live monitor, and live monitor with uplink control• TDMA data link operating at 1755-1850 MHz• 80 nmi A-A and 125 nmi A-G data link transmission range• Rangeless operation for up to 72 interactive participants• 8 simultaneous weapon simulations per participant• Trusted Data Guard, which limits data link transmission to

unclassified TSPI and Real-Time Kill Notification (RTKN)• PC and Laptop display systems compatible with latest

legacy display systems

10

• Data read capability from legacy recording systems• External wing carriage, Internal temporary mount, and rack

mounted configurations.

The data link in the P5CTS is an interim link until the JTRS software radiois sufficiently mature. This interim data link is an upgraded version of the datalink presently in use at all of the major open-air test ranges. U.S. TrainingRanges operate in the 1755-1850 MHz band. It is to be noted that training inEurope takes place in the 2200-2500 MHz band. The present P5 contract doesnot call for the data link to operate in this portion of the S-Band, but this capabilitymay be added at some future time.

A P(Y)-code GPS/inertial system provides the ultimate in militaryaccuracy. To meet training accuracy requirements, the selected GPS receiverincludes the Wide Area GPS Enhancement (WAGE) capability so that differentialGPS updating is not necessary. The additional accuracy afforded by differentialGPS updating will greatly benefit such activities as No Bomb Drop Scoring, air-to-ground engagements, and the future P5 spiral developments for ComputerGenerated Threat Simulators, and the Electronic Combat Environment.

It should be noted that the interim data link in the P5CTS pod receivesparticipant data from all aircraft in radio communications with the pod; thus,supporting rangeless operation.

In addition to the advancements in GPS and data link technologies, twoother technical breakthroughs in the commercial industry have aided inadvancing the capability of both test and training applications, and will be used inthe P5CTS. One is the use of high density flash memory systems that can beeasily removed from the pod when the participants return to base. The 530 MBFlash memory is sufficient to record all of the participant data, as well as datareceived from other participants. This memory system will record three, 2.5 hour,sixteen-platform missions without overwriting. These memory chips are thesame as those used in digital cameras.

.The second technical breakthrough is the enhanced capability of small

memory chips in the form of Pentium-based microprocessors, and FieldProgrammable Gate Arrays (FPGA). The Pentium processor used in P5CTS canaccommodate all the training activities while simultaneously executing 8 of 26weapon simulations. Pilot trigger-pull tones, RTKN, and Real Time PilotNotification Acknowledgement are provided and recorded by the system.

Internal mounts will permit this instrumentation to be used by participantsthat do not have pod stations. Low profile aircraft will use a combination of theP5CTS assets as well as platform assets. (GPS and data link antenna systemsare examples of platform assets.)

11

Enhanced Range Applications Program (EnRAP) for the T&E Community

Figure 3. is an overview of EnRAP, a CTEIP-funded program. EnRAP willsignificantly upgrade the technology and capabilities of the equipment deployedby the RAJPO in the early ‘90s.

Figure 3. EnRAP Overview

EnRAP will have the following general capabilities:

• A TSPI truth source that has very high update rates, and anaccuracy of at least one order of magnitude better than theaccuracy of the platform under test

• Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground (A-A and A-G) data link• Flexible high-capacity TDMA spectrally-efficient software

communication architecture SCA-compliant data linkoperating at 1350-1450 MHz. Note: SCA is the ‘operatingsystem for the JTRS radio

• 100 nmi A-A and 130 nmi A-G data link transmission range• Advanced encryption capability with new encryption

technology• Component miniaturization and modularity for enhanced

internal mounting flexibility• Open architecture design, and standard interface protocols

12

• External wing carriage, as well as two unique packages forinternal mounts.

T&E community requires that a GPS/inertial-based TSPI exceed theaccuracy of the system under test by an order of magnitude. Most existinginstrumentation accuracies requirements are approximately three feet. This levelof accuracy has been demonstrated with the careful selection of GPS receiversand inertial systems, together with differential GPS processing techniques. Foradvanced aircraft under development, it is expected that a TSPI positioningaccuracy of one foot in X, Y, and Z, as well as a velocity accuracy of 0.1foot/second in three dimensions is required. To attain the necessary testingaccuracies will require investments in advanced GPS (e.g., Kinematics) andinertial signal processing capabilities. It is possible that this high level ofaccuracy may only be required during developmental test (DT). Until this level ofaccuracy is a reality, it is difficult to state whether it will be useful for operationaltest (OT) and training exercises.

Frequency allocation issues on test ranges require that the data linkoperate in the 1350-1450 MHz range, and use bandwidth efficient techniques.The EnRAP data link will take advantage of ’lessons learned’ in nearly twentyyears of using GPS-based TSPI on the test ranges. The SCA-compliant data linkis designed to accommodate a range-specific JTRS waveform when it becomesavailable.

The flash memory system used by EnRAP is very similar to the designused in P5CTS, except that the memory has nearly twenty times the capacity ofthe memory used by the trainer. EnRAP is developing a device forpreprogramming the encryption capability prior to the start of a mission, or toaccept over-the-air keying of the device.

The overall EnRAP architecture calls for the use of plug-and-playconcepts in order to accommodate future capabilities with little-to-no designmodification, and to lessen the need to rely on contractor proprietary designs.

As has been stated, a review of the P5CTS and EnRAP sensor suitedemonstrates how the technologies and capabilities supporting testing andtraining are coming together. We can realistically look at these two baselines asproviding the direction for interoperable test and training assets.

The Interoperable Test and Training System

After a careful review of requirements, the evolution of legacy systems,and the P5CTS and EnRAP systems, certain conclusions can be drawn aboutthe ability to create interoperable test and training assets. To appreciate theapplicable pieces and how they can be brought together, consider the following:

13

• TSPI accuracy differences between EnRAP and P5CTS donot present a major obstacle to interoperability. Future DTrequirements may dictate a higher level of accuracy than ispresently stated for OT and training applications. It is theopinion of the writers that once this high accuracy isavailable, the OT and training communities will find a way togain value from it

• Different test and training frequency band allocations are asignificant impediment to interoperability. It is believed that acommon data link transceiver can be built to serve both thetest and training communities. This is achievable withtoday’s technology, but may be a significant investment. TheJTRS radio will help make this goal a reality. A plan is beingdeveloped to gain some level of interoperability with today’sradios as we await the maturization of the JTRS radio

• Data recording format differences between EnRAP andP5CTS are a minor barrier to interoperability. The memorycapacity of the flash memory in the EnRAP system issufficient to meet all existing test and training needs. Asrequirements grow in the future, it is expected that the sizeof commercially available memories will also increase

• Data recording protection techniques present a significantbarrier to interoperability. To resolve the issues of multi-levelsecurity (and to be certified by security officials) may make itnecessary to have more than one solution. This activityneeds more study to determine the optimum solution

• EnRAP does not use weapon simulations, but it does usethe same main processor that is used in P5CTS. Therewould be a hardware and software effort to accommodateweapon simulations in an interoperable system; it is believedthat this would not be a major obstacle to interoperability

• The capacity exists to host the different interfacerequirements for both EnRAP and P5CTS in the samesystem. Both systems are electrically and mechanicallyinterchangeable. Minor software changes will be necessaryto gain full transparency.

Discussions are ongoing on how to provide interoperable instrumentationassets from P5CTS and EnRAP. Once this issue is solved, there would be nobarriers to common test and training except for the organizational and fundingconstructs for these two communities; i.e.,

• Test ranges are funded by the combat system developing agency.The test range charge the developer for time and resources tosupport the exercise

14

• Test ranges must promote their capability to find users. It is to benoted that a training customer on the range will improve theefficiency of the test range.

• Test range funding for improvements and maintenance of assetsare paid by the range’s operational and maintenance budget. Thedevelopment of interoperable instrumentation assets will bejeopardized if common sustainment policies are not put in place

• Training ranges are funded by AF general funds. The user of therange does not pay for time on the range unless the exercise isbringing some unique demands upon the range.

• Training ranges are not required to promote their capabilities.• General AF funding lines pay for range improvements,

maintenance, and operations.

Summary

A multitude of technologies have all merged to aid in the creation of a battlefieldthat emulates the real-world battlefield; i.e.,

• GPS is providing a global time and positioning reference• Sophisticated multiple accessing and modulation communication

techniques allow for the transmission of data from a multitude ofparticipants to base stations.

• The maturing of modeling and simulation minimizes the number ofreal participants in an exercise, and the ability to create a virtualbattlefield.

• Data collection and dissemination standards allows for thedisciplined and orderly flow of these data between diverseorganizations

• Large scale integrated circuit technology supports collection andtransfer of data in packages that a few years ago were impossible

• JNTC, supported by the Services and the national laboratoryinfrastructure, has demonstrated that all of the technical and manyof the logistical elements for creating multi-service national test andtraining exercises are in place.

The range community is on the threshold for creating a network centricbattlefield to accommodate test, training, as well as combined test and trainingexercises, and the technical barriers for interoperable test and training rangesare ready to be taken down. Isn’t it time that the Services face the organizationalissues referred in this paper in order to achieve test and training ranges that aretruly interoperable?