103.4 The Dynamics of Encounters Within dynamic systems, and the C3 systems that support them, it is important to identify and clarify time scales involved. Military engagements range from sub-second events such as local missile point defense to the long-term development and implementation of global strategy. Each involves basic aspects of decision and control theory: objectives, observations, and feedback and control. In the military environment, the observation aspect is especially complex, requiring the placement, collection, transmission, and aggregation of data from numerous dispersed sources. Control and decision techniques derived for one echelon level may be inappro- priate for others, primarily due to the time available for the assessment and feedback process. Often, the impact f a decision will not be measurable before yet another control decision is required. Thus, the relative roles of utomation and humans will be different at different levels. The human may have to project a decisionmaking consequence long before the system hardware/software can obtain measures of it. As an example of encounter space-time domains, surface Navy echelon levels have order-of-magnitude scales Organization Level Time Scale of Interest Geographic Extent(km) Platform seconds. minutes Battle Group minuteshours hours-days 000s Theater 000s+ Service/National weeks-years Global At the platform level, the time scale range reflects engagement times which may include limited or local amounts of tracking. At the Battle Group level, the time scale corresponds to tasks such as maneuver, coordinated engagement, and track management. Any of the organizational levels may additionally have planning functions that precede the operational time scales by up to months or years. The planning side includes events such as logistics, maintainence, training, and exercises, all of which contribute toward becoming a more capable combatant. Figure 103.3 portrays the planning and the operational or execution phases as well as portraying the adaptive control loop approach to C3. The lighter shaded feedback path is employed when it is required to compare status with the current plan It is also available for adjustment when plans or objectives are modified. The execution phases are represented by the Stimulus-Hypothesis-Options-Response(SHOR) Paradigm suggested by Wohl [1981]. The control the oretic implications are apparent in the figure; the Stimulus-Hypothesis is a representation of situation assess- ment with its implicit uncertainty. Quickness and accuracy with which a military command organization can transverse the execution loop is a general measure of performance(MOP). Qualitatively it is generally accepted that the side with the best ability to transverse the SHOR execution loop will have a significant military advantage. In this light, attributes of the execution loop become a measure of effectiveness(Moe)of the C3 system in terms of operational outcomes. Rules of Engagement(ROE) impact tempo by reducing uncertainty or options available to the decisionmaker. Some scenarios develop with such quickness that the C3 system must react nearly reflexively(e.g, without consideration of possible options). One class of rules is made known to all the participants; if a particular manuever is observed, then a specified response will result. The SHOR Paradigm illustrates why counter-communications and counter-command and control are increasingly important operational and technical areas. Counter-C3 need only delay the process rather than disrupt or destroy it in order to be an effective technique. The Navy, for example, is now incorporating electronic warfare(EW)as a warfare area on equal status to the traditional anti-submarine (ASw), anti-aircraft warfare (AAW), and anti-surface warfare(ASUW)areas. Control of the electromagnetic spectrum is becoming as critical as the control of the physical battlefield Electronic counter-measures(ECM) such as jamming and deception are technical options available to the commander. Either adversary may elect to respond to the ECM threat by a series of electronic counter-counter measure(ECCM)techniques. Anti-jam(AD)communications can employ a variety of techniques such as spread spectrum, power control, adaptive coding and feedback, multiple routes, and adaptive antenna arrays. a signal e 2000 by CRC Press LLC© 2000 by CRC Press LLC 103.4 The Dynamics of Encounters Within dynamic systems, and the C3 systems that support them, it is important to identify and clarify time scales involved. Military engagements range from sub-second events such as local missile point defense to the long-term development and implementation of global strategy. Each involves basic aspects of decision and control theory: objectives, observations, and feedback and control. In the military environment, the observation aspect is especially complex, requiring the placement, collection, transmission, and aggregation of data from numerous dispersed sources. Control and decision techniques derived for one echelon level may be inappro￾priate for others, primarily due to the time available for the assessment and feedback process. Often, the impact of a decision will not be measurable before yet another control decision is required. Thus, the relative roles of automation and humans will be different at different levels. The human may have to project a decisionmaking consequence long before the system hardware/software can obtain measures of it. As an example of encounter space-time domains, surface Navy echelon levels have order-of-magnitude scales as shown: At the platform level, the time scale range reflects engagement times which may include limited or local amounts of tracking.At the Battle Group level, the time scale corresponds to tasks such as maneuver, coordinated engagement, and track management. Any of the organizational levels may additionally have planning functions that precede the operational time scales by up to months or years. The planning side includes events such as logistics, maintainence, training, and exercises, all of which contribute toward becoming a more capable combatant. Figure 103.3 portrays the planning and the operational or execution phases as well as portraying the adaptive control loop approach to C3. The lighter shaded feedback path is employed when it is required to compare status with the current plan. It is also available for adjustment when plans or objectives are modified. The execution phases are represented by the Stimulus-Hypothesis-Options-Response (SHOR) Paradigm suggested by Wohl [1981]. The control the￾oretic implications are apparent in the figure; the Stimulus-Hypothesis is a representation of situation assess￾ment with its implicit uncertainty. Quickness and accuracy with which a military command organization can transverse the execution loop is a general measure of performance (MOP). Qualitatively it is generally accepted that the side with the best ability to transverse the SHOR execution loop will have a significant military advantage. In this light, attributes of the execution loop become a measure of effectiveness (MOE) of the C3 system in terms of operational outcomes. Rules of Engagement (ROE) impact tempo by reducing uncertainty or options available to the decisionmaker. Some scenarios develop with such quickness that the C3 system must react nearly reflexively (e.g., without consideration of possible options). One class of rules is made known to all the participants; if a particular manuever is observed, then a specified response will result. The SHOR paradigm illustrates why counter-communications and counter-command and control are increasingly important operational and technical areas. Counter-C3 need only delay the process rather than disrupt or destroy it in order to be an effective technique. The Navy, for example, is now incorporating electronic warfare (EW) as a warfare area on equal status to the traditional anti-submarine (ASW), anti-aircraft warfare (AAW), and anti-surface warfare (ASUW) areas. Control of the electromagnetic spectrum is becoming as critical as the control of the physical battlefield. Electronic counter-measures (ECM) such as jamming and deception are technical options available to the commander. Either adversary may elect to respond to the ECM threat by a series of electronic counter-counter measure (ECCM) techniques.Anti-jam (AJ) communications can employ a variety of techniques such as spread spectrum, power control, adaptive coding and feedback, multiple routes, and adaptive antenna arrays. A signal Organization Level Time Scale of Interest Geographic Extent (km) Platform seconds-minutes 10’s Battle Group minutes-hours 100’s Fleet hours-days 1000’s Theater days-weeks 1000’s + Service/National weeks-years Global