Friendly Force Tracking COTS solution

14 IEEEA&ESYSTEMSMAGAZINE JANUARY2013

INTRODUCTION

The military community is redefining the way wars will be fought in the future, evolving toward a network-centric war-fare (NCW) paradigm. In this paradigm, force is improved through the extensive use of the communications network and information sharing and fusion, with the main goal to achieve information superiority on the battlefield and gain agility and assure mission effectiveness. The key component to fuse all the information and distribute it to the appropri-ate destination is an adequate command and control (C2) tool, supported by a tactical communications network [1].

Generally, C2 systems of land armies have as a main goal the generation of the common operational picture (COP) at a large unit level, i.e., battalion and above. However, in most current conflicts, includ-ing peacekeeping missions, the majority of operations are per-formed by small units: compa-nies, platoons, or even squads. It is relevant to highlight in the framework of asymmetric conflicts two special kinds of operations like urban warfare or antiterrorist operations. Ad-ditionally, in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, C2 functions have to be executed over small units, even individu-als, belonging to different COIs, e.g., military, civilian, or NGO, sometimes belonging to different nationalities, and holding differ-ent training and doctrine levels, with different C2I systems (e.g., a multinational operation in a conflict country with Spanish, Italian, and French vehicles in the control area of the Ger-man Army). In such operations, from the C2 point of view,

it is fundamental to acquire a global vision of the situation (situational awareness [SA]) by sharing each unit situation perception. Starting from perception sharing among units (shared awareness), collaboration among them and better effectiveness in reaching the mission goal are obtained. The information between national components of a unit is not difficult; the main problem arises with the exchange of infor-mation between units of different countries forming a com-bat group. Standards like NATO Friendly Force Information (NFFI), MIP, or JIDS have been developed in order to achieve interoperability in these terms [2].

Blue Force Tracking is a United States military term used to denote a GPS-enabled system that provides military com-manders and forces with location information about friend-ly (and despite its name, also about hostile) military forces.

Currently, it has evolved to a friendly force tracking (FFT) as an equivalent term [3]. FFT sys-tems consist of a computer, used to display location information, a satellite terminal and satellite an-tenna, used to transmit location and other military data, a posi-tioning system, usually GPS, but in a near future like GALILEO or any indoor positioning system, command-and-control software (to send and receive orders and use for many other battlefield support functions), and mapping software, usually in the form of a GIS that displays FFT devices on a map. The system displays the location of the host element (ve-hicle or individual unit) on the

computer’s terrain map display, along with the locations of other platforms in their respective locations. Friendly units can be automatically geolocated, and enemy units are lo-cated in terms of observations from the battlefield. FFT sys-tems can also be used to send and receive text and imagery messages or to fuse sensor data, for example, the location of mine fields, battlefield obstacles, bridges that are damaged, and broadcasting of alerts and threats [4].

There is a need for user-friendly FFT and SA systems that can provide information to and from troops quickly and reliably even in the smaller operations. It is the respon-sibility of the system designers and program managers to

Friendly Force Tracking COTS SolutionManuel Esteve, Israel Pérez-Llopis, Carlos E. Palau Universitat Politècnica de Valencia

Authors’ current addresses: M. Esteve, I. Pérez-Llopis, and C. Palau, Universitat Politècnica de Valencia, Departamento de Comunicaciones, Camino de Vera S/N, Valencia 46022 Spain. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. Manuscript SYSAES-2009-0043 was received June 6, 2009, and ready for publication July 14, 2012. Review handled by H. Liu. 0885/8985/13/ $26.00 © 2013 IEEE

Each individual vehicle carries a computer that fuses data acquired from different sensors (video or infrared cam-era, GPS, biosensors, and enemy and neutral unit location identifiers).

JANUARY2013 IEEEA&ESYSTEMSMAGAZINE 15

ensure soldiers have the most current information on their engagement area and the location of the surrounding units (friendly, enemy, and neutral). Soldiers will then have the most advanced COP on the battlefield and the most up-to-date information at their disposal. A system like SIMACOP would provide greater visibility of assets, access to infor-mation for decision makers in rear areas, and a trustwor-thy communication link to troops on the ground. Military users, in particular, face a significant risk of friendly fire when operating in environments with low visibility of oth-er units. Minimizing the risk to troops and increasing the amount of real-time battlefield intelligence depends on the operator’s ability to have easy access to the SA system. Sys-tem scalability needs to reach users in rear areas, vehicles, and dismounted situations, and data need to be compatible with legacy C2 applications [5].

FFT NEEDS AND PRODUCTS

Military command means giving orders, whereas military control means ensuring that the orders are executed in a prescribed manner to achieve a goal. Therefore, military C2 includes how to generate an order and how to guaran-tee that the order is delivered safely, accurately, and in a timely manner; it also looks at how to remedy the situation if unexpected events occur. Military C2 is a decision-mak-ing process that covers a sequence of tasks, which includes planning, directing, coordination, and control functions [6]. Within a classification of C2 systems, three large levels could be distinguished:

C Large unit C2 systems, brigade and above.

C Small unit C2 systems, battalion and below. Usually these systems are known as battlefield management system (BMS).

C FFT systems, which allow automatic positioning of units over a GIS, by receiving their position over the corresponding tactical networks [3].

A common misunderstanding is that in current sophis-ticated battlefields, where individual units (soldiers and vehicles) are equipped with sensors, video cameras, per-sonal combat radios, IP data transmission, tactical routers with multihomed connections, a commander can control concurrently several tanks and unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) and have a clear awareness of enemy positions and capabilities, like in a computer video game. The COP

takes the primary form of an annotated map that can be displayed, in identical form, by units or individuals at a given organizational level. The COP is intended to provide one picture of the battlefield so that there is no disconnect in knowledge, from the infantryman on the battlefield up to the general in command. This concept is said by those in the military to the increase soldiers’ SA and increase the likelihood of mission success.

The reality is rather different because usually the individ-ual soldier is not aware of his own location. Even command-ers have at best a general idea of where their various units are at any given time. In command posts, troop positions are designated by pins stuck into maps, and advance lines are depicted using grease pencils, with the accuracy dependent on how often the units’ radio their own positions and how well they read their maps.

Regarding interoperability, it is basic in current warfare scenarios. Friendly fire prevention technology is complex—different countries have different weapons and procedures with varying levels of sophistication, with the problem that a large number of companies are developing different products. NFFI and MIP Block II have proved their capa-bility of supporting multinational operations. Figure 1 rep-resents the logical communications architecture, including different layers of heterogeneous networks from wireless sensor networks and personal area networks to strategic area networks.

To develop all these objectives, the FFT systems should rely on two hypotheses: availability of a combat network capable of delivering digital data with the appropriated

Figure 1.Communications schema.


Fr iendlyForceTracking

bandwidth and automated information acquisition for COP generation. All these processes must be performed transpar-ently to the troop units, without their intervention in data gathering and elaboration and without interfering in their tasks [6].

To avoid systems redundancy, there is a clear conver-gence between BMS and FFT systems, mainly automatic po-sitioning of units should be accompanied by C2 tools, e.g., threat and alarm management, sharing of information over dynamic objects in the battlefield, configuration and recon-figuration of ad hoc units during mission time, and messag-ing and planning. FFT and battlefield SA systems provide vital information to commanders in the operation area, help-ing them to make more informed decisions. Current imple-mented systems are unwieldy, and unable to be dismounted with troops. Military operations are steadily moving more towards dismounted operations with smaller and more ca-pable units that require a greater degree of flexibility and reliability in their technology [7].

The military has an operational requirement to main-tain real-time SA, C2, and combat identification of both friendly and enemy troops in the battle area. A troop’s need

for electronic information about opposing forces, neutrals, and noncombatants, terrain maps, spot reports, and mes-sages is essential to SA. This can also include the collec-tion and dissemination of intelligence information, such as imagery, positioning information, and threat detection information, to and from troops on the ground. The abil-ity of troops to be continually aware of their surroundings, while efficiently operating in threatening or hostile envi-ronments, improves their SA, lethality, and survivability [6]. Figure 2 represents two screenshots of two operational uses of the system. Therefore, to obtain the adequate SA, it is required to have

C knowledge of the exact location of units and individ-ual elements at the operations theatre, by means of a GPS device carried by every individual element. The possibility of using other devices for indoor position-ing and inertial navigation also exists.

C multimedia information gathering, mainly video, from every individual element. Therefore, every individual element must carry a video or infrared camera. Cur-rent C2IS systems allow the integration of other sen-sors and sensor networks, which can provide alerts in areas not covered by troops. An example is the integra-tion of UAV video information.

C the ability to collect biomedical information, such as an electrocardiogram (ECG) or body temperature. These biomedical signals will provide additional information to the people at command to issue the adequate orders to the adequate people.

C fusion and transmission of gathered data to the C2IS application through the combat network, using the best network in each situation [8].

Some good examples of systems located in the bor-der of BMS and FFT are Force XXI Battle Command Bri-gade and Below (FBCB2), battlefield combat identifica-

Figure 2.Screenshots of two exercises.

The COP is intended to provide one picture of the battlefield so that there is no disconnect in knowledge, from the infantryman on the battlefield up to the general in command.


Esteve,Pérez-Llopis&Palau

tion (BCIS), and the commander’s independent thermal viewer (CITV) from the US Army, in which is also based the NATO IFTS used in Afghanistan and also the French EADS Imp@ct and French Thales MAESTRO system. To make command decisions easier at all layers, real-time availability of networked sensor information, following the NATO Network Enabled Capability (NEC) concept is a must. Access to video and telemetry information from a UAV or from independent cameras or terrestrial vehicles is a fundamental goal of modern C4ISR systems, prefer-ably integrated in the FFT/BMS [9].

OVERVIEW OF THE SYSTEM

SIMACOP stands for Sistema de Información para MAndo y COntrol de Pequeñas unidades [10], which in English is small unit C2 information system. The main included functional-ities are

C alarms.

C threat inclusion and broadcasting.

C short messaging in tactical chat format.

C orthophotos marking and broadcasting.

C ORBAT generation.

C unit filtering.

C NFFI and MIP Block II interoperability.

SIMACOP differentiated features are [10]

C obtaining the COP at platoon and squad level and vir-tually locating friendly, neutral, and enemy units over an operations theatre cartographic database with the suitable scalability at each level.

C facilitating C2 decisions to platoon and squad level, from one or from many tactical C2 locations, forward or rear.

C allowing self-synchronization among platoons, shared awareness based.

C acquiring individualized data from troop units, which act as sensors and actors simultaneously.

SIMACOP, similar to FBCB2, georeferences vehicles in the HMI, and allows access to specific information. An ex-tension for the dismounted soldier has been developed and has been tested using MANET-based personal combat radio (PCR). On the logical side, a database based on a C2IEDM data model has been used in SIMACOP; its structure is rep-resented in Figure 3.The functional approach of the system can be summarized in the following points:

C Each individual vehicle carries a computer that fuses data acquired from different sensors (video or infrared camera, GPS, biosensors, and enemy and neutral unit

location identifiers) and generates a unique informa-tion stream per individual element.

C Individual vehicles are connected by available radio means. The unit leader receives, fuses, and forwards each vehicle stream (and its own stream) to the upper level. In case of unit leader equipment failure, the net-work self-configures electing another node as a link point with the upper level node.

C Company-level C2 application (installed in the com-pany commander vehicle) generates the COP, as it receives data flows from platoons that constitute the company. The connection of this company C2 post with different squads is performed with the available radio means; usually VHF radios. The C2 application is executed on a ruggedized computer.

C At the battalion level, the C2 node fuses the data com-ing from the company nodes. Exchange of information within nodes is based in the use of a database and opti-mized distributed replication mechanisms.

C A C2 node can receive and fuse streams from other nonhuman sensor sources such as managed aerial ve-hicles (a helicopter flying over the operations theatre) or nonmanaged (UAV) or fixed sensors distributed in

Figure 3.C2IEDM used in SIMACOP.



the operations field (cameras with streaming capacity and presence sensors).

The dismounted soldier application for the mechanised unit will provide the squad commander with a ruggedized ultramobile PC, where the squad soldiers’ positions will be shown on an operation theatre GIS. The unique information represented to the squad commander will be the squad sol-dier’s positions and some operational information like threats and alarms. More information on his squad and, of course, from the rest of squads will not be useful in a combat stress situation for the squad commander. The rest of the squads participating in the action will be managed in the command post at section level. The squad will be linked to the SIMA-COP network by means of the PCR tactical network.

A SIMACOP node can operate in the following three ways: (i) isolated from the others when, due to the dimen-sion of the mission, no more hierarchical levels are required. A unique COP at platoon/squad level is generated; (ii) in an autosynchronized manner with other nodes involved in the mission. To achieve this mode of operation, full connectiv-ity among involved nodes is required. The COP is generated by the different SIMACOP nodes; and (iii) under the hierar-chy of a higher-level command post that coordinates several company/platoon level nodes. Full wireless network con-nectivity among SIMACOP nodes and higher-level C2 post is required. The COP is generated by the different nodes and the higher-level node. This tree-like hierarchical structure can be extended with vertical levels as needed.

The following are some operational characteristics ob-tained through different field testing:

C The commander’s orders are transmitted by voice us-ing the combat radio network.

C A number of SIMACOP nodes, their operation, the number of platoons and squads, and the squad compo-nents are easily configurable with very simple dialog boxes, granting the global system huge usage flexibil-ity for each tactical scenario.

C The connection with other higher-level C2l nodes can be done throughout the tactical network, although oth-

er possibilities could be considered depending on the operational environment.

On the other hand, SIMACOP has integrated the com-munication capability with other FFT from allied countries by means of the NFFI standard in its IP1, IP2, and SIP3 ver-sions. This capability has been extensively tested in Coali-tion Warrior Interoperability Demonstration (CWID) 2007, 2008, and 2009 with all NATO countries involved.

The system allows sensor integration associated to an individual unit and possible access to other units if trans-mission means have enough bandwidth available. Integrat-ed sensors are (i) video and infrared sensors, (ii) telemetric binoculars, or (iii) deployable wireless sensor networks to detect presence (acoustic, seismic, and infrared) and also temperature.

Regarding communication networks, SIMACOP in-cludes communication modules, allowing interaction with tactical communication means:

C VHF band radios, used in different armies.

C HF band radios, for long range communications.

C X-band military satellite means: TLB, TLX, and Satcom on the move (SoTM).

C MANET-based personal combat radios.

SIMACOP has been developed to use regular civilian communications means. These means are frequently used in military and coordinated missions when confidentiality is not an issue:

C L-band global coverage satellites: Inmarsat, Iridium, and Thuraya.

C Tetrapol.

C UMTS/GPRS.

C WiFi and WiMAX.

Finally, it is important to highlight the friendly HMI that has been designed to alleviate the operator’s cognitive over-head, with all the functionalities easily accessible by means of a tactile screen, even with gloves and vehicles in move-ment. Every action is, as much as, two clicks away. Versions for PC, tablet PC, and PDA have been developed, and they run over different operating systems. This kind of HMI is broadly used in all kind of tactical applications.

Within the military community, there is a need for a user-friendly FFT and SA system that can provide information to and from troops quickly and reliably. A system like this would provide greater visibility of assets, access to infor-mation for decision makers in rear areas, and a trustworthy communication link to troops on the ground.

Military users, in particular, face a significant risk when operating in environments with a low visibility of other units. In particular, friendly units have an increased inci-dence of fratricide due to lack of SA. Minimizing the risk

Military C2 includes how to generate an order and how to guarantee that the order is delivered... and how to remedy the situation if unexpected events occur.



to troops and increasing the amount of real-time battlefield intelligence depends on the operator’s ability to have easy access to a SA system that is readily available in any situa-tion. System scalability is needed to reach users in rear areas, vehicles, and dismounted situations, and data need to be compatible with legacy C2 applications. SIMACOP provides all this, and it is implemented using COTS technology.

FIELD TRIALS

The system has been tested and evaluated in its early stages by the Spanish Army, in the Spanish Coalition Warrior In-teroperability Demonstration (CWID) 2006 event. Later, during 2006, new interoperability tests were performed in the 2007 and 2008 NATO CWID events in Lillehammer (Nor-way) with the French FFT systems (Imp@ct and Maestro) so as with the German, Italian, Norwegian, and Romanian FFT systems. Regarding non-national FFT systems, SIMACOP-FFT also was tested with the LTIS infrastructure developed by NATO NC3A.

Moreover, the system supported the exercise performed in CWID 2008 and 2009 on the Spanish side, allowing the NFFI interoperability of a virtual Spanish battalion provid-ed by Spain to the corresponding NRF of the exercise. The system currently holds a certificate of interoperability, more than 100 tests have been performed, and interoperability has been achieved in all of them.

The viability of the system to be used in an operative en-vironment was evaluated by the Spanish Army in April 2008 in a deployment of nearly 20 vehicles, working in scenarios with a combination of VHF, HF, and global coverage satel-lites. Ninety-seven percent of the tests were passed, and the 3% were solved in the following months.

However, as fundamental field trials, we have to high-light two main exercises performed by the Spanish Army:

C LIVEX exercise performed by the Eighth Light Cavalry Regiment “Lusitania” in May 2008.

C The scenario implemented by the Signal Brigade of the Spanish Army (Marines, Valencia) during the practical CIS training (EPCIS).

LIVEXEXERCISE

This exercise was performed by the Eighth Light Cavalry Regiment “Lusitania.” This fact allowed the research team to evaluate the capabilities of the FFT system on the field in a simulated environment as similar as possible to real opera-tions. The unit was simulating a peacekeeping trial in a third country. The unit counted nearly one hundred vehicles, APC, reconnaissance vehicles, and HMVE, and all of them were equipped with FFT systems and interfaces. The main conclusions extracted from this trial were the following:

C SIMACOP capability to operate in highly dynamical units, with little support from computer and commu-

nication specialists and a high facility of installation, maintenance, and use.

C Dynamic ORBAT generation provide high flexibility in the composition of combat groups for different operations.

High degree of usability and ease of use for non IT-trained personnel, such as cavalry CO and NCO. With a little train-ing time, the military were able to use the system.

C Appreciable reduction in voice communication by the teams involved in the exercise to provide positioning and situation reports, so as to provide command orders.

A dramatic reduction in the flow of reporting messages and orders was detected, upwards and downwards, respectively, in the hierarchical structure of the unit. The positioning of ve-hicles had been done until that moment with pins and maps on the wall; positions were periodically transmitted by voice, and accuracy depends on the period and the speed of the units. With an FFT system, positioning is provided in near real-time as a background operation, avoiding friendly fire and mistakes in the location of units. One of the main goals in transforming the Army is the process of moving away from the use of paper maps and grease pencils into more embedded and computer-oriented forms of C2. There are currently many weapons plat-forms and entities in different countries trying to achieve this function; however, each platform is developing their own solu-tion to meet individual needs. Each army as a whole needs to standardize a single path forward to ensure that all systems can communicate across the digitized battlefield and allow for each platform to have a “common picture.” Once this “com-mon picture” is achieved, the armed forces will have the infor-mation needed to have the control of the battlefield.

EPCISSCENARIO

EPCIS is a training exercise performed by the Signal Bri-gade of the Spanish Army every year. This exercise is very interesting because all communication means of the Spanish Army are tested at the same time, and different scenarios in which communications are a key component are simulated. Currently, the Signal Brigade provides communication sup-port to the Spanish units deployed in operation zones. Sce-narios were simulated, and over the communications struc-ture SIMACOP-FFT was successfully tested.

The main goal of the SIMACOP-FFT scenarios, carried out during EPCIS, was the evaluation of two concepts:

C FFT system usability in operation zones and support for remote C2 from Spain.

C The management and integration capability of visual sensors (video) within the FFT system in real opera-tions, specifically video streaming information coming from UAVs, like the Spanish MoD UAV SIVA.

The first goal was fully successful, and it was possible to test the working capability of the FFT system over different



combined transmission means (HF, VHF, and military and global geostationary satellites), so as the replication between the command post of the FFT information from the opera-tions zone to the main command post in Spain by means of X-band satellite means currently in use in the Spanish army: TLB and TLX terminals. Positioning was transmitted with less than 2 minutes periodicity, depending on the amount of units in the radio network and the hierarchical structure (e.g., a battalion with three hierarchical levels is different than a combat group with one level). Position losses were low and recovered by a retransmission mechanism.

Regarding the second objective, the viability of the NEC concept “sensor within the network” was fully and success-fully tested. Traditionally, each sensor on the battlefield is associated with the weapon platform that makes use of it. Nevertheless, in the C2 NEC concept, sensors, making use of the high connectivity degree provided by the network in use, are no longer linked to an individual platform and are available to any system that needs and wants to make use of them in each instant in time. This information management paradigm is known as “post and smart pull.”

A video flow received from the SIVA UAV (Spanish Army UAV) could be presented simultaneously in the advanced command post in the operation zones, in the command post in Spain, and in a vehicle in movement equipped with the

corresponding FFT terminal. The latter is the one that really would need the images and the telemetry captured from the UAV, even when this vehicle is connected to a subnet differ-ent from the one of the SIVA land control station. Available bandwidth is the main bottleneck of this concept.

Figure 4 presents two screenshot of the video module of SIMACOP. On the left can be seen the FFT interface with the location of the troops and an enemy element, identified as the target. The APP6a icon represents an UAV. Video sent by the UAV is received in the UAV console and retransmit-ted through the strategic network to the different command posts. FFT capabilities allow the location in real time of the units and the access to different metadata associated with them. On the left corner of the HMI video, information is presented, and through the same interface, the commanders can access the location of their units and video submitted by them. Video is presented on demand, in order not to suffer from unnecessary bandwidth consumption.

Video information is processed by means of video serv-ers that have been deployed usually in vehicles and in com-mand posts close to video cameras. The main tasks carried out by the video servers are the following: (i) video capture from the cameras; (ii) video compression, using different standards (we have used MPEG4 codec from the libavco-dec library); (iii) packetize the compressed video and attach timestamps within the packets, using MPEG-TS; and (iv) to stream packets over the communication network on-de-mand. Cameras on the soldiers have been connected directly to MANET-based personal combat radios.

On the right side of Figure 4 an enlargement of the video information is presented. The information is from the cam-era of the vehicle in a convoy. The unit transporting the cam-era has been selected, and instead of viewing the location and the video at the same time, it has been enlarged. This is an alternative possibility in case the commander prefers a larger frame size. As FFT capabilities are the most important features of SIMACOP, the general map with friendly force position is never hidden. Video information from the cam-eras can be recorded to perform after action analyses.

Figure 4.Screenshots of video transmission through SIMACOP.

Each army as a whole needs to standardize a single path forward to ensure that all systems can communicate across the digitized battlefield,...



CONCLUSIONS

The SIMACOP system developed at UPV, with its differ-ent versions, offers several additional capabilities as part of localization and navigation. Acting as a very small unit C2 system, with the additional benefit of reduced complexity and cost compared with the different BMS currently on the market, one of the key design concepts of the system is its capability of using any communication mean (HF, VHF, and satellite) besides its full software conception. This design makes the system fully independent from the underlying hardware, including the transmission mean.

SIMACOP provides new features for different tactical situations (moving vehicles and dismounted soldiers). So as the capability of integrating sensors, video, and telemetry al-low the development of the most advanced NEC concepts in the Spanish Army. The paper indicates how a small- to medi-um-sized army like the Spanish Army can solve the problem of having a FFT system interoperate with allied forces and avoid friendly fire by means of cooperation with a univer-sity, using COTS technology and profiting from all the com-munication means available in the Spanish Army.

Field trials have proved its capability to operate in highly dynamical units, with little support from computer and com-munication specialists and an appreciable reduction in voice communication to provide positioning and situation reports, so as to provide command orders. At the same time, the FFT system provides the management and integration capabil-ity of visual sensors (video) in real operations, specifically video streaming information coming from UAV and other tactical sensors. To summarize, the FFT system provides to command elements and operating units, a shared perception of the situation, making autosynchronization possible and definitively reducing the flow of reporting messages and or-ders, upwards and downwards, respectively, in the hierar-chical structure of the unit.

Other FFT and BMS systems like FBCB2, the ITA sys-tem, or IMP@CT have a higher update rate (usually over 10 minutes). They also lack sensor inclusion and only provide positioning of units and some management data. They do not provide, as SIMACOP does, as many radio means (e.g., decoupling from the hardware equipment) because the ra-dio means integration is not transparent to the users. An-other meaningful difference with SIMACOP is that they do not provide replication mechanisms to encourage agility by means of autoconfiguration and flexibility.

Regarding FFT system utility, friendly fire will probably never be eliminated. New technologies, such as SA and combat identification (like RBCI), play a part in a collective consensus to reduce the odds but equally important is improved interop-erability between nations, along with better training, tech-niques, and intelligence. NFFI deployment or any other similar system is crucial to reducing losses among allied units.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We are very grateful to the Spanish Army, especially the Sig-nal Brigade and the 8th Cavalry Regiment for their support and collaboration during the development of the system and the execution of the trials.

REFERENCES

[1] Alberts, D. S., and Hayes, R. E. Power to the Edge. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense Command and Control Re-search Program, 2003.

[2] Alberts, D. S., and Hayes, R. E. Understanding Command and

Control. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Defense Com-mand and Control Research Program, 2006.

[3] Bitar I., and Felsman, B. L. Blue Force Tracking in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Technology Review Jour-

nal, Vol. 13, 2 (2005), 79–97.[4] Dekker, A. H. Measuring the agility of networked military forc-

es. Journal of Battlefield Technology, Vol. 9, 1, (Mar. 2006), 19–24.[5] Dodd, A., Richardson, T., Alston, S., and Beautement, B. Investiga-

tion into the C2 arrangements for Edge Organisations. In Proceed-

ings of the 11th International Command and Control Research and Tech-

nology Symposium, Cambridge, United Kingdom, September 2006.[6] Rider, T. L. Blue Force Tracking to expand across force. Army

Acquistion, Logistics and Technology (Sep.–Oct. 2004), 2–5.[7] Paul, J. L. Smart sensor Web: tactical battlefield visualization

using sensor fusion. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Maga-

zine, Vol., 1 (Jan. 2006), 13–20.[8] Robinson, B. T. Who goes there? IEEE Spectrum, Vol. 40, 10 (Oct

2003), 42–47.[9] Sass, P. Communications networks for the force XXI digitized

battlefield. Mobile Networks and Applications, Vol. 4, 3 (1999), 139–155.

[10] Esteve, M., Perez-Llopis, I., Hernández-Blanco, L. E., Palau, C. E., and Carvajal, F. SIMACOP: small units management C4ISR system. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on

Multimedia and Expo, Beijing, China, July 2–5, 2007, 1163–1166.

Friendly Force Tracking COTS solution

Documents

Transcript of Friendly Force Tracking COTS solution