Architectural work for modeling and simulation combining the NATO Architecture Framework and C3 Taxonomy

Abstract

To provide modeling and simulation functionality as services is strategically leveraged in the defense domain and elsewhere. To describe and understand the context, the ecosystem, wherein such services are used and interoperate with other services and capabilities, one needs tools that capture the simulation services themselves as well as the capability landscape they operate in. By using the NATO Consultation, Command, and Control (C3) Taxonomy to structure architecture design in the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF), cohesive descriptions of modeling and simulation capabilities within larger contexts can be given. We show how a basic seven-step approach may benefit architecture work for modeling and simulation at the overarching, reference, and target architectural levels; in particular for (1) hybrid architectures that embed simulation architectures within a larger service-oriented architecture and (2) for architectural design of simulation scenarios. Central to the approach is the use of the C3 Taxonomy as a repository for overarching architecture building blocks and patterns. We conclude that the promotion of technical functionality as capabilities in their own right helps delineate simulation environment boundaries, helps delineate services within and outside the boundary, and is an enabler for defining the service concepts in cloud-based approaches to modeling and simulation as a service (MSaaS).

Queuing Over Ever-Changing Communication Scenarios in Tactical Networks

“…2 as a guideline to define the fundamental concepts related to the three problems being addressed in the present investigation and within the related literature. In this figure, the main functional blocks from NATO's Consultation, Command and Control (C3) taxonomy [21] are placed side-by-side with a flow diagram listing the core services implementing our hierarchy of queues. There are annotations using letters for user(s) data flows (A) and for the tactical network (B), and the core services implementing our hierarchy of queues are numbered from (0) to (4), summing up seven components defined as follows:…”

Model-Based Evaluation of the System of Systems Architectures Used to Perform Trade Studies and Sensitivity Analyses

“…Figure 15 shows the sensitivity analysis results when the criteria were increased by 20% and the sensitivity index was calculated according to (6). The sensitivity analysis revealed that the most sensitive criteria were the ''maximum fluctuations allowed'', ''CO2 emission reduction percentage'', and ''diesel fuel reduction percentage''.…”

“…Architecture frameworks (AF) and modeling languages help manage the complexity in defining system architectures, particularly if the systems are complex. Several architecture frameworks are used widely for SoS today, such as the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) [5], [6], Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) [7]- [9], or Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) [10]- [13]. However, despite the established standard practices for collecting the The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and approving it for publication was Shihong Ding .…”

Quantizing Radio Link Data Rates to Create Ever-Changing Network Conditions in Tactical Networks

“…For example, Fig. 1 lists the main functional blocks from NATO's Consultation, Command and Control (C3) taxonomy [14], [15] side-by-side with the military equipment used in the experiments reported in this investigation. In this figure, the hierarchy of functional blocks is in between the user-facing applications (A) and the tactical network (B) and is composed of five blocks, namely 0) radio(s), 1) communication services, 2) core enterprise services, 3) Community of Interest (COI) and 4) cross-layer information exchange (vertical).…”