Type of Research: Private Corporation (Soar Technology, Inc.); a spin-off from Laird’s University of Michigan work; funded by Army Research Institute.
Terms and abbreviations used in this paper:
CIANC3 = Cooperative Interface Agents for Networked Command, Control and Communications.
FCS = Future Combat Systems
BLOS = Beyond-Line Of Sight
COP = Common Operational Picture
SALUTE reports = Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, and Equipment of an observed enemy
OCU = Operator Control Unit
MMBL= Mounted Maneuver Battle Lab
UAMBL = Unit of Action Maneuver Battle Lab
ACL = Agent Communication Language
Summary:
“The vision of the Army’s FCS includes the use of mixed teams of human and robotic forces on a dynamic and rapidly changing battlefield.”
“The focus of this project… has been to identify the human-interface issues, design potential solutions and create intelligent agent software that support the commander... To accomplish this task we have implemented an agent architecture based on decomposing the command and control problem into three main task areas: Monitoring, Coordinating and Tasking.”
“Interface agents are a specific form of software designed to reduce the complexity of human-system interaction.”
These Interface Agents are “based on the roles found in current command staffs.” Command staffs commonly provide five basic functions to commanders in support of reconnaissance, security, offensive, and defensive operations (c.f. Army FM 17- 95):
- Provide timely and accurate information.
- Anticipate requirements and prepare estimates.
- Determine courses of action and make recommendations.
- Prepare plans and orders.
- Supervise execution of decisions.
In CIANC3 these functions are divided between three classes of agents: tasking, monitoring, and coordinating. This division aligns the agents with the three C3 concepts of command, control, and communication respectively. The goal is to provide a virtual command staff for echelons that do not current have that support.”
“Tasking agents will be used to assist commanders and controllers to rapidly issue battlefield commands.”
“Coordinating agents are responsible for facilitating communication and coordination across and within echelons within the command hierarchy.” “Monitoring agents are responsible for assisting the commander in maintaining an accurate awareness of the current situation (situational awareness) at all times.”
“The current CIANC3 system integrates Soar-based interface agents into a combined simulation and operational environment for robotic control. The agents communicate using the FIPA protocol and a user interface to the agents was created using Tcl.”
Comments:
This (FCS) is an extremely ambitious project. The DoD has been interested in utilizing more unmanned or robotic systems for a number of years. We have recently seen the RQ-1 Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle used in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Predator, however, is not an autonomous robot or Intelligent Agent. Rather it is “a system.... (with)… a ground control station (GCS), a Predator Primary Satellite Link (PPSL), and 55 personnel for continuous 24 hour operations.”
The CIANC3 system, however, envisions a very active system of agents that more-or-less seem to replace (or, perhaps, supplement) a command staff.