Execution-time Decision Aids for Command and Control of Robotic Entities

Unmanned Systems are rapidly increasing in numbers and capabilities. From 2002 to 2008 the number of robots in the Pentagon arsenal has grown from 200 to 6,000, many of these supporting the soldier in the close battle. Contrasting this growth in unmanned assets, the Army’s future force tactical organization reduces soldier numbers and, by extension, the number of robotics officers. Other soldiers in the force structure take on the robotics officer role, increasing their workload and effectively hindering their primary warfighting role. SAIC has been working with CERDEC C2D over the last three years (and AMRDEC prior to this) to introduce Battle Command decision aids supporting (semi) autonomous execution and collaboration of unmanned assets. This paper takes a qualitative/conceptual style to describe a behavior management approach to command and control of multiple unmanned assets. INTRODUCTION I will tell you that a commander without the proper C2 assets commands nothing except a desk. You must have the ability to communicate with the forces under your command. You must have the ability to exchange information with them freely, frequently, and on a global basis. It’s one thing to have highly technical, sophisticated observation platforms, but if you can’t use the information in a timely manner, it’s wasted. General (ret) Ronald R. Fogleman Army RDECOM Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center (CERDEC) Command and Control Directorate (C2D) is the R&D arm of the Army addressing C2 technology objectives. CERDEC C2D manages the Army Technology Objective (ATO) Program entitled Command and Control of Robotic Entities (C2ORE) which focuses specifically on providing planning and execution tools to aid guidance and communication from the commander to the operator in the trench. The program goals included development of two software services enabling teaming and tactical control of unmanned air and ground assets as a risk mitigator for the Future Combat Systems Battle Command System. For the C2ORE program, SAIC held responsibility for development of execution-time decision aids to reduce warfighter workload for unmanned systems (US) control. In the context of this document, Execution-time decision aids refer to scheduling, tasking and routing of the asset while performing maneuvers. These capabilities were implemented in the field tested system, called the Behavior Management System (BMS). Contextually, in its simplest form, the BMS sits between a planning system and a set of unmanned systems. The BMS implements a set of activities or decision aids that accept plans and immediate taskings and turns them into actionable waypoint and payload inputs for unmanned systems. On the northbound interface, the BMS accepts telemetry and payload products and provides Situational Awareness and other systems access to the status of plans/tasks. Decision aids supporting US execution have taken on new importance for the Army in the last decade. DOD had more than 3,000 unmanned aircraft as of February 2006, compared to fewer than 50 unmanned aircraft in 2000. As of January 2006, more than 2000 of these aircraft were supporting ongoing operations in Iraq. Over 88 percent of the unmanned aircraft currently in inventory are small unmanned aerial systems (SUASs), those launched by hand or bungee with a weight less than 10lbs [1]. Unlike theatre level UAS, SUAS missions are conducted with limited to no planning. These small unmanned aircraft systems are allocated to the operators in the trenches. The mechanisms Proceedings of the 2009 Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposium (GVSETS) Execution-Time Decision Aids for Command and Control of Robotic Entities Page 2 of 10 to facilitate communication and status of asset progress or for coordination of plan modifications are limited. This same growth trend and use of decision aids for UGVs follows very closely the track of UAVs from a control and status perspective. This paper, nor the research and development that supports it, does not aim to address a particular algorithm or a particular function. Rather its aim is to explore the multitude of activities, and corresponding decisions, carried out across warfighter roles and echelons. The paper continues by extrapolating how (semi-) automation of some of these decisions better support warfighter focus in conduct of reconnaissance and surveillance. The reader should come away with the appreciation that the Army’s future problem is an issue of automating commander-to-foxhole command, control and communications for a brigade of reconnaissance and surveillance assets (as much as it is automation of a single asset). The following section addresses the operational need ofr a BMS. In Operational Architecture, the context for the BMS is identified by comparing/contrasting related activities with existing Army operational architecture. In System Architecture, the developed system architecture and driving architectural principles are discussed. Pulling from both the operational and system discussions, the Operational Benefits dialogue presents how the BMS provides a new paradigm for the warfighter.