DOCTRINAL AUTOMATION IN NAVAL COMBAT SYSTEMS: THE EXPERIENCE AND THE FUTURE

Abstract

ABSTRACTFor the last four years the most advanced surface combat direction system (CDS) of the U.S. Navy has employed a limited knowledge‐based control mechanism. Implemented in the Aegis Weapon System's command and decision element, this capability is called control by doctrine, and is a foundation for the Ticonderoga class cruisers' exceptional performance. Control by doctrine allows CIC personnel to direct that certain CDS functions be performed automatically upon tracks with specified characteristics. In effect, these CDS functions, from identification to engagement, can now be controlled through the specification and activation of general system response rules rather than by individual operator actions. The set of active rules, called doctrine statements, forms a system knowledge‐base.The Advanced Combat Direction System, Block 1, successor to today's Naval Tactical Data System, will also employ control by doctrine. As part of a larger effort investigating Aegis/ACDS commonality issues, a Doctrine Working Group was chartered to consider, among other things, implications for force‐wide interoperability of multiple systems with such rule‐based control mechanisms. The working group produced a set of design objectives for doctrine statement standardization across CDSs. Principal features of these objectives are described.The prospect of several such ships operating together in a battle group has raised questions as to the methods by which the actions of ships with those doctrinally‐automated systems can best be coordinated. Related questions deal with specific design features for the support of such coordinated action. Work is now being carried out to investigate these questions.Combat system automation through doctrine statements is only one kind of rule‐based control. Much work in the area of artificial intelligence deals with the use and maintenance of complex systems of rules, usually in non‐real‐time problem solving applications. Such systems are just now beginning to be applied to real‐time control problems. While the operational constraints of naval combat systems make them different in many ways from such traditional expert systems, lessons in each area can be learned from work in the other. In fact, a general spectrum of rule‐based control can be described, with certain design features related to application areas.