Ontology-based Conceptual Modeling of Military Mission Spaces

Ontology
-
based
Conceptual Modeling of Military
Mission S
pace
s



Haeran Kang*,
Young Min Bae*
*, Kyong
-
Ho Lee*, Young Hoon Lee**

and
Jai
-
Jeong Pyun
***

*Dept
.

of Computer Science

**Dept
.

of Information & Industrial Engineering

Yonsei University
,
134, Shinch
on
-
dong, Sudaemoon
-
ku, Seoul, 120
-
749, Korea
.

***
5
th

R&D Institute

Yuseong P.O Box 35, Daejeon, 305
-
600 Korea
.

hrkang@icl.yonsei.ac.kr
,
miso517@yonsei.ac.kr
,
khlee@cs.yonsei.ac.kr
,
youngh@yonsei.ac.kr

jjpyun@add.re.kr

Keywords:

Conceptual
m
odeling
;
m
ission
s
pace
m
odel;

military o
ntology;

t
ask
o
ntology;

CMMS.


Abstract

In order t
o improve
the
interoperability and reusability of
future defense models and simulations
, the

Conceptual
Models of the Mission Space
-
Korea (CMMS
-
K)

is being
developed.
CMMS
-
K is an ontology
-
based conceptual
modeling f
ramework
for

military

mission space
s
.

This
paper proposes a semantic language for describing a
mission space model (MSM) as a main component of
CMMS
-
K.
A
MSM is a
conceptual
model for
military
business
process
es

and scenarios
.
Compared to
previous
approach
es, t
he proposed MSM description language

is
designed to
maximize

the
interoperability and reusability

of
MSMs.
Specifically
,

i
t
provides a scheme to represent

military
scenarios

meaningfully
with domain ontologies
,
which consist of entity and task ontolog
ies
.
A
MSM
may be

composed of
an
atomic process

(action)

and/or
a
composite
process.

The proposed method
identifies and reuses military
actions
and
tasks
, which play a critical role in military
scenarios,

through the proposed task ontology. A task is
defin
ed as a composition of actions conducted by the same
subject.

To show the expressivity of

the proposed MSM
description language
, a case study on a
close air support
scenario

is illustrated
.


1.

I
NTRODUCTION


The use of modeling and simulation in the military
domain
is increasing.
An efficient

method
of
acquir
ing
,
representing,
and maintain
ing

domain
knowledge with the minimum
effort is
required
.
Particularly
,
the utilization of conceptual
models facilitates
the interoperability and reusability of
simulation mo
dels

in modeling and simulation
.

Principle
efforts in the
conceptual modeling
of

military
mission space
s

include t
he Conceptual Models of the
Mission Space (CMMS) [1] of
the
American
Defense
Modeling and Simulation Office

and the
Defen
s
e
Conceptual Modelli
ng Framework

(DCMF)

[2~4] of the
Swedish Defen
s
e Research Agency (FOI).
They

are
ontology
-
based conceptual modeling frameworks in the
military domain.

Th
e

overall objectives
of

CMMS and DCMF

are to
capture authori
z
ed knowledge of military operations; to
ma
nage, model and structure the obtained knowledge in an
u
nambiguous way; and to preserve and maintain the
structured knowledge for future reuse.

However, i
t
is

revealed that
some

specifications of CMMS
are

vague
in
published materials
and some part of DCMF
such as its
process description language
still

has

a lot of room for
improvement.

In order t
o
support
the
semantic
interoperability and
reusability of simulation

models
, we are developing the

Conceptual Models of the Mission Space
-
Korea (CMMS
-
K)
.
CMMS
-
K is

an ontology
-
based conceptual modeling
framework
for

military

mission space
s
.

In addition to the overall introduction to CMMS
-
K, we
propose a semantic language for describing a mission space
model (MSM) as a main component of CMMS
-
K. A MSM
is a conceptual
model for military business processes and
scenarios. It is a simulation and implementation
-
independent description of the real world entities and
processes in the military domain, which can be used as a
frame of reference for simulation development.

BOM++
[5], the representative MSM description
language proposed by FOI, provides two alternative
methods to extend
the Basic Object Model (BOM)
.
BOM

is
a Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization
(SISO) standard and encapsulates information needed to
de
scribe a simulation component.
T
he first
method extends
the

BOM schema

structure and
refer
s

to an external
ontology.
In t
he
second one, an independent BOM++
ontology is
proposed based on

OWL
-
S [6]
.

OWL
-
S is a de
facto standard for describing the semantic i
nformation of
Web services. The service model of OWL
-
S is used to
compose component
processe
s to perform a composite
business process
.

Compared to
previous
approaches, the proposed MSM
description language

is designed to
maximize

the
interoperability and
reusability

of MSMs.
Specifically
,

it
provides a scheme to represent

military
scenarios
meaningfully with domain ontologies, which consist of
entity and task ontologies
.
A
MSM
may be

composed of
an
atomic process

(action) and/or a
composite process

with th
e
adoption of the
control and

data flow mechanism of OWL
-
S.

Unlike
the
conceptual models of general

domains which
are object
-
oriented or object
-
centered
,
conceptual model
ing
in the
military
scenarios

should be

action
-
centric.
However,
previous
approaches

have limitation
in terms of

describ
ing

military actions sophisticatedly
and reus
ing them
systematically.

The proposed method identifies and reuses military
actions and tasks, which play a critical role in military
scenarios. T
his paper
proposes

a task onto
logy as a
component of CMMS
-
K to represent and reuse actions and
behaviors. Specifically, the task ontology provides a scheme
for representing domain
knowledge

about an action or a
task, which is a group of actions performed by the same
subject.

Furthermor
e, the conceptual modeling of
MSM
s
based on the predefined
set of
actions and tasks would
permit the semantic interoperability and reusability of
military

simulation models.

To assess the feasibility of the proposed
conceptual
modeling approach, the paper
illustrates a case study on
developing a conceptual model for close air support
scenarios
. From the case study, it is found that our approach
expresses mission space models effectively.

The
rest of th
is

paper is

organized

as follows.

Section 2
introduces

t
he overview of CMMS
-
K. Secti
on 3 describes
the proposed
domain

ontologies
, which
represent the
semantic hierarchy of

nouns and verbs in military scenarios
.
Section 4
explains the proposed

MSM
description language
in more detail
. Section 5
shows the feasibi
lity of the
proposed MSM
description

language with
a case study on a
close air support scenario.
Finally, conclusions and future
works

are summarized in Section 6.


2.

CMMS
-
K O
VERVIEW


CMMS
-
K

is a standardized conceptual modeling
framework for

military missio
n space
s
. Its goal

is to
improve the interoperability, reusability and composability
of future simulation models. CMMS
-
K is being developed
through a

research project of the Agency for Defense
Development (ADD)

of South

Korea.

CMMS
-
K

consists of domain on
tologies (entity and
task), a MSM description language, a MSM modeling
method, and a CMMS
-
K management system (see Table 1).
To represent the know
ledge of military domain, the entity

and task ontologies, which

support the semantic
interoperability among si
mulation models
,

are designed
.

Entity and tas
k ontologies conceptually model

nouns
and verbs in the military domain, respectively. By using

Table 1
.

CMMS
-
K main components

Component

Description

Entity

ontolog
y

Specif
ies

reusable
military entities
such as
organization, personnel,
facility, etc.

Task ontology

Specifies reusable actions and tasks

MSM description
language

Describes process
es

u
s
ing
components of
domain ontologies

MSM modeling
method

D
isplays

guidelines for conceptual
modeling and provides gr
aphical
user interface

CMMS
-
K
management
system

Stores and retrieves conceptual
models


entity and task ontologies, reusable units of nouns and verbs
can be predefined and reused. MSMs can be dynamically
modeled utilizing these predefined reusable compon
ents of
entity and task ontologies. More information about CMMS
main components is described in our previous paper [7].



Figure
1
.

Storing and searching
for

conceptual model
s


The process of storing and searching
for
conceptual
models using the CMMS
-
K ma
nagement system is shown
in
Figure
1
.

A MSM provider describes
MSM
s

using
domain ontologies.
To share MSMs, the service provider
stores the
MSM
descriptio
n
s in the CMMS
-
K directory. A
MSM requester specifies her

(his)

needs using domain
ontol
og
ies
. The

use
r requirement

is represented with a
semantic template based on domain ontologies.

An example

data flow among CMMS
-
K components
and their rel
ationships are shown in
Figure 2
. Th
e data flow
of CMMS
-
K is
developed based on

DCMF.

The explanation
of the task on
tology is d
escribed in detail in Section 3
.2
.


3.

CMMS
-
K DOMAIN ONTOLOGIES


The ontology
configuration

of CM
MS
-
K is shown in Figure
3.
T
he structure of our domain ontologies is shown in
Figure 4. The entity

ontologies are used in the task ontology.
Domain

ont
ologies are
described

in the

form of
Web
Ontology Language (OWL)

[8].


Figure 2.

The data flow and relationship among CMMS
-
K main components



Figure 3.

CMMS
-
K
ontology
configuration



3.1 CMMS
-
K Entity Ontology

The proposed entity ontology is divided

into Organization,
Facility, Materiel, Personnel and Location as shown in
Figure 4.
The proposed
entity

ontology has been built by
applying Methontology
[
9
], which is one of the prominent
ontology development methodologies.


Methontology includes
a
proces
s for the ontology
development

and the techniques required at each stage

of
the process
.
The
ontology development process

of
Methontology
consists of five steps: specification,
conceptualization, formalization, implementation, and
maintenance
.

Methontology

further divides the
conceptualization step into eleven phases and provides
de
tailed guidelines of each phase
.


Figure 4.

The structure of CMMS
-
K domain ontologies

A few phases of conceptualization step for CMMS
-
K
entity

ontology

is illustrated
as follo
ws.


(1)

To b
uild

the

glossary of terms
.

We

built

a glossary
including all terms related to the domain

and
their
synonyms and acronyms.



Figure 5.

An excerpt from

the concept taxo
nomy graph in
our materiel ontology


(2)

To
Build concept taxonomies
.

We

built
a hi
erarchy
between concepts in the
glossary of terms

(see Figure
5).

(3)

To b
uild ad hoc binary relatio
ns
.
In this

step, ad hoc
binary
relationships between concepts are illustrated

(see Table 2
)
.


Table 2.

An excerpt from

the ad ho
c binary relations in our
entit
y

ontology

Concept

Relation

Concept

A
rtillery battalion

support

Task force

is supported by

Squadron

command

Fighter

is commanded by

Master control and
reporting c
enter

command

Squadron

is commanded by


3.2 CMMS
-
K Task Ontology

This
section

de
scribes
the proposed task ontology which is
o
ne of

the
domain ontolog
ies of

CMMS
-
K
.

A
ction
s play a
critical role
for describing
military
simulation
scenario
s.
This paper define
s a group of actions performed

by the
same subje
ct as a task. The proposed task
ontology

describe
s information about a
ctions and tasks, both of

which

are reusable units.

There exist

groups of actions
which are used together frequently in military scenarios.

T
he proposed t
ask ontology allows

us to store and reuse

these groups of action
s.

The task ontology is composed of actions (atomic
processes
), t
asks (AKA

composite processes), control
constructs, parameter bindings, and properties among
actions and tasks
. An action is a minimum unit of activity
which constitutes a task. A task is a g
roup of actions
conducted by the sam
e subject to fulfill a mission.

Missions
, military goals,

could be classified
from ones
of strategic national

level to ones of tactical level according
to their performers. Th
is mission classification is developed
referr
ing

to the

Universal Joint Task List

(U
J
T
L) [10]. For
example, strategic national

mission
s are conducted by
t
h
e
h
igh
est

level commander
s

such as a chairman of t
he joint
chiefs of staffs and
tactical level mission
s are

carried out by
low level personnel suc
h as soldiers.

The proposed task on
tology is layered following the

mission classification. The task ontology is four
-
layered:

Strategic Nationals

(SN),
Strategic Theater

(ST),

Operations

(OP) and Tactical (
TA
) as shown in

Figure 6
.

Dependency

relation
ships

m
ight

exist

between tasks in
different layers. If

Task
1

of Layer
1

depends on Task
2

of
Layer
2

and

the definition of
Task
2

is modifi
ed, the definition
of
Task
1

must be modifie
d.

For instance
, SN task
l

depends
on ST task
m
. Thus, to change the definition of

S
N task
l
,

the
definition of

ST task
m

must be also changed
.

The
proposed
tactical task ontology
, which is being
developed,

is based on the Korean tactical

task

list. The
Korean tactical task list consists of ma
neuver, intelligence,
fire,
c
ombat
s
ervice
s
uppo
rt
, co
mmand and control, and
defense.
Therefore, the top level tasks of the tactical task
ontology are
classified into the corresponding classes:
maneuver, intelligence, fire
, c
ombat
s
ervice
s
upport
,
command and control, and defense.


4.

CONCEPTUAL MODELING O
F MIL
ITARY

MISSION SPACES


This
section

focuses on

the proposed MSM modeling
approach.
A MSM is a military process model.
To describe
a MSM, CMMS
-
K utilizes predefined reusable units in the
entity and task ontologies. Using the predefined static
informatio
n, a MSM could be described dynamically
according to the change of circumstances and user needs.

The proposed MSM d
escription language is shown

in
Figure 7.
The MSM description language consists of
processes (atomic, simple, composite), control constructs
,
parameter bindings, and properties among MSM
components.

In this paper
, a MSM
may
consist

of atomic process
(action), simple process
,

and
/or

composite process. This
process hierarchy is based on
the
OWL
-
S [6] service model.

An a
tomic process

correspond
s

to t
he process

a
service can
perform by engaging it
in a single interaction
.
A c
omposite
process
indicates a process

that require
s

multi
-
step
protocols and/or multiple server actions
.

A process is d
ecomposable into other (noncomposite or
composite) process
es
. A process can

be viewed at different
levels of granularity, either as a primitive, undecomposable
process or as a composite process
. In the former case
, a
simple process can be used to represent it
.





Figure
6
.

The four
-
layer of task ontology


Fig
ure
7
.

The
proposed MSM description language

A

simple process may be used either to provide a view
of (a specialized way of using) some atomic process, or a
simplified representation of some

composite process (for
a
purpose

of planning and reasoning). In

the former case, the
simple process is
realized

b
y

the atomic process; in the
latter case, the simple process
expands

t
o

the composite
process

[6].


The proposed MSM description language utilizes
control constructs and parameter bindings of OWL
-
S. The
mai
n properties of atomic and composite process
es

in

our
MSM description language are

represented in Table
s

3

and
4, respectively
.


Table 3.

The main properties of atomic process in the
proposed MSM description language

P
roperty

Description

Range

hasActivity

a verb which
constitutes

an
action

verb

hasSubject

a subject which
(who) performs an
action

organi
z
ation

or personnel

hasDirectObject

a direct object

(action)

of an
action

object or
action

hasIndirectObject

an indirect object
of an action

object

usesR
esource

resource which a
subject uses to
perform an action

object

takesPlaceInLocation

a place where a
subject performs an
action

location

hasI
nput

input information
which is necessary
for a subject to
perform an action

input
parameter

hasP
recondition

a

condition which
must be true before
a subject performs
an action

precondition

hasO
utput

output information
which is generated
as a result of that a
subject performs an
action

output
parameter

hasE
ffect

an effect that
occurs as a result
of that a subject

performs an action

effect





Table
4
.

The main properties of composite process in the
proposed MSM description language

P
roperty

Description

Range

hasSubject

a subject which (who)
performs a composite
process

organi
z
ati
o
n

or person
nel

hasActionList

ac
tions which constitute
a composite process

action

hasPurpose

a purpose of performing
a composite process

object

hasDuration

duration while a subject
performs a composite
process

d
uration

hasPrecondition

a condition which must
be true before a subject
pe
rforms a composite
process

precondition

hasEffect

an effect that occurs as a
result of that a subject
performs a composite
process

effect

d
ependsOn

another composite
process whose definition

must be modifi
ed if a
composite process
definition
is modifi
ed

composite
process

usesResource

resource which a subject
uses to perform a
composite process

object

hasI
nput

information which is
necessary for a subject
to perform a composite
process

input
parameter

hasO
utput

information which is
generated as a result
of
that a subject performs a
composite process

output
parameter


T
he
main properties of atomic and composite process in
the proposed MSM description language
provide

grammar
s

that can express more

meaningful

information

in military
simulation scenarios

th
an previous military conceptual
models.

For instance, t
he
pro
pert
y such as
‘
dependsOn
’
,
‘
hasDuration
’

and
‘
hasEffect
’

express the dependency
relationships between composite process, duration and
effect of the composite process, which

cannot be expressed
w
ith p
revious
military
conceptual models
such
as BOM++
.

In addition
, action propert
ies

‘hasIndirectObject’,
‘takesPlaceInLocation’ and ‘hasEffect
’
describe an indirect
object, location and effect of an actio
n
,

respectively
,

which
are not expressable with

BO
M++
.



5.

Case Study
: Close Air Support

(CAS)


This

section
illustrate
s
an

example CAS scenario
using the

proposed MSM description language

based on the task
ontology.


Figure 8
.

Example CAS scenario

1. Unit detects target.

2. Unit decides to request CAS.

3.

Unit passes CAS request to commander of squadron.

4. Commander of squadron coordinates with ground
center commander.

5. Commander of squadron commands to scramble
aircraft if there is no on
-
call aircraft.

6. Commander of squadron commands to scramble
CAS
if there is on
-
call aircraft.

7. Commander of squadron commands to send aircraft
to a control/contact point.

8. Approaching the control/contact point, pilot contacts
to commander of squadron to receive briefing.

9. Pilot bombs on target.


Figure 8

shows
an example

CAS scenario [1
1
] wh
ile

CAS scenarios
could

be described in
various forms in a real
world.
Table 5

shows

the
actions and tasks

extracted from

the

example CAS scenario
.


Table 5
.

A
ctions

and tasks

which constitute the example
CAS scenario

in
Fig
ure 8

TASK ‘Target detection and CAS request’

䅃qf低l
‘Target detection’

䅃qf低l
‘CAS request decision’

䅃qf低l
‘CAS request’


TASK ‘Coordination and aircraft sending’

䅃qf低l
‘Coordination’

䅃qf低l
‘Aircraft scrambling command’

䅃qf低l
‘CAS scrambling command’

䅃qf低l
‘Aircraft sending command’


TASK ‘Receiving briefing and target bombing’

䅃qf低l
‘Receiving briefing’

䅃qf低l
‘Target bombing’


CMMS
-
K
adopt
s
control constructs

and parameter
bindings of OWL
-
S when

describ
ing

MSMs. Figure 9

shows a MSM diagram repres
entin
g the example CAS
scenario
utilizing

the actions and tasks

in Table 5
.

In
Figure 9
,
control construct
‘
sequence
’

is used to
connect actions and tasks. Control construct
‘
if
-
then
-
else
’

is
used to connect
action ‘Aircraft scrambling command’ a
nd

action

‘CAS scrambling command’
.

If there is no on
-
call
aircraft, action ‘Aircraft scrambling co
mmand’ is performed
.

Otherwise,

action ‘CAS scrambling command’ is carried out.


Figure 9
.

MSM diagram of the example CAS scenario

in
Figure 8


Using
the
parameter b
i
nding

mechanism

of OWL
-
S
, the
following

information

could be described. In compo
site
processes, the input to
a

process com
ponent can be obtained
from

the outputs of a preceding step, or the outputs of a
composite process may be derived from outputs of some

of
its components [6].

The MSM description language of CMMS
-
K utilizes
the
parameter binding

grammar of OWL
-
S
to describe

the

data
flow

of a MSM
. As shown in
Table 6
,
output ‘Target
info
rmation’ of action ‘
Target detection
’

becomes

input
‘
Target informati
on
’

o
f action ‘
CAS request decision
’
.
O
utput ‘CAS
request information’ of action ‘
CAS request
’

is
also
used as input
‘
CAS request information
’

of action

‘
Coordination
’
, action

‘
Aircraft scrambling command
’
,
action
‘
CAS scrambling command
’
, action
‘
Receivin
g
briefing
’

and action
‘
Target bombing
’
.


6.

C
ONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS


There is growing

importance of a conceptual m
odel which
improve
s

the
i
nteroperability
, reusability and composability
of simul
ation models
. Thus,

this paper presents
CMMS
-
K
,
which is an
ontology
-
based

conceptual modeling framework
of military mission spaces.

The kernel of CMMS
-
K is a MSM, a military process
model. The main contribution of this paper is the proposed
MSM description language which
expresses

more
meaningful information in m
ilitary simulation scenarios
than previous approaches. The MSM description language
of CMMS
-
K adopts control and data flow mechanism of
OWL
-
S.

Military

scenario
s are

action
-
cent
ric. Thus, the proposed
task ontology predefines
action
s and
task
s, both of whi
ch
are reusable units. This paper defines a
group of actions

carried out by the same subject as a task. The task ontology
provides a scheme to describe actions and tasks

systematically and exquisitely
which is absent in previous
conceptual models in the mi
litary domain
.
Utilizing the task
ontology,
action

groups of

the same subject

could be stored
and reused
.


Table 6
.

Parameter bindings in the example CAS scenario

in Figure 8


To show the feasibility of the proposed conceptual
model
ing approach, this paper illustrate
s a case study on
developing a conceptual model from close air support
scenarios
.
I
t is found that our approach describes mission
space models systematically and effectively.

In the future, we will extend our conceptual model
s that
they
represent abundant meaningful contents of the military
domain. Our team will al
so develop a MSM model
ing tool
and
a
CMMS
-
K manag
ement system for storing and
searching

for
conceptual models.


Acknowledgement

This work was
supported by Defense Acquisition Program
Administration and

Agency for Defense Development under
the contract (UD110006MD
).


References

[1] Defense Modeling and Simulation Office Information
Paper
. 1998.

“The

Conceptual Model of the Mission
Space,”
Department of Defense, Office of

the Director
of Defense Research and Engineering, Defense
Modeling and

Simulation Office
, Washington, DC,
11
J
une
.

[2]
FOI

(S
wedish Defence Research Agency)
. 2005.

“DCMF
-
Defence Conceptual Modeling Framework,”

Report ID FOI
-
R
--
1754
--
SE
.

[
3
] FOI

(Swedish Defence R
esearch Agency)
. 2005.

“DCMF
-

Survey of related Research and Approaches,”

Report ID FOI
-
R
--
1858
--
SE
.

[
4
] Kabilan
, V.

and Mojtahed
, V.

2006.

“Introducing
DCMF
-
O: Ontology Suite for Defence Conceptual
Modelli
ng,” Report ID 06E
-
SIW
-
028
.

[5]

Mojtahed,

V.,

Andersson,

B.,

Kabilan
, B. and

Zdravkovic
, J. 2008.

“BOM++, a semantically enriched
BOM
,
”

In
Proc. Spring
Simulation Interoperability
Workshop (SIW)
,

Providence, USA,

14
-
18 April
.

[6] Martin
, D.
, Burstein,

M.,

Hobbs,

J.,

Lassila,

O.,

McDermott,
D.,
McIlraith,
S.,
Narayanan,
S.,

Paolucci
,
M.,
Parsia,

B.,

Payne,

T.,

Sirin,

T.,

Srinivasan
, N.

and
Sycara
, K. 2004
.

“OWL
-
S: Semantic Markup for Web
Services
,
”

http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL
-
S/
,

22
Nov
.

[7] Kang
, H
., Lee, J. H., Baek, J. R., Lee, K.
-
H. and Lee, Y.
H.

2012.

“
Semantic Conceptual Modeling for
Military
Simulation Scenario
,
”
In Proc. Int’l Conf. Modelling
and Simulation
,

223
-
230.

[
8
]
WORLD WIDE WEB CONSORTIUM
. 2004.

OWL
Web Ontology Language Overview; W3C
Recommendation,
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl
-
features/

[9]
Go´mez
-
Pe´rez,

A.,

Ferna´ndez
-
Lo´pez
, M.

and Corcho,
O.

2003.

Ontological engineering: with examples from
the areas of knowledge management, e
-
commerce and
the semantic web
,
Springer
-
Verlag
.

[
10
] Joint Staff
. 2005.

“Universal Joint Task List
,
”
Chairma
n of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual

(CJCSM)
3500.04D. 1 August
.

[1
1
] Joint Publication 3
-
09.3
. 2009.

“Close

Air Support
(CAS),” 8 July
.

Action

Input

Output

ACTION


‘Target

d整
散瑩tn
’

fn瑥汬tg敮捥
楮form慴楯n

q慲g整e
楮form慴楯n

䅃qf低

‘CAS request
decision’

q慲g整e
楮form慴楯n

CAp

r敱u敳琠
d散楳楯n
楮form慴楯n

䅃qf低

‘CAS request’

CA匠p敱u敳琠
d散楳楯n
楮form慴楯n

CA匠p敱u敳琠
楮form慴楯n

䅃qf低

‘Coordination’

CA匠p敱u敳琠
楮form慴楯n

Coord楮慴楯n
楮form慴楯n

䅃qf低

‘Aircraft
s捲amb汩ng
command’

佮
J
捡汬⁡楲捲慦琠
楮form慴楯n
⼠
CA匠p敱u敳琠
楮form慴楯n

A楲捲af琠
s捲amb汩ng
楮form慴楯n

䅃qf低

‘CAS scrambling

command’

佮
J
捡汬⁡楲捲慦琠
楮form慴楯n
L

CA匠p敱u敳琠
楮form慴楯n

CA匠獣pamb汩ng
楮form慴楯n

䅃qf低

‘Aircra
f琠s敮ding
command’

CA匠p敱u敳琠
楮form慴楯nL

A楲捲af琠
汯捡瑩tn
楮form慴楯n

A楲捲af琠獥nd楮g
楮form慴楯n

䅃qf低

‘Receiving
briefing’

CA匠p敱u敳琠
楮form慴楯nL

A楲捲af琠
s敮ding

楮form慴楯nL

B
r楥i楮g
楮form慴楯n

B
r楥i楮g
楮form慴楯n

䅃qf低

‘Target

扯b
b
ing
’

CA匠p敱u敳琠
楮form慴楯nL

B
r楥i楮g
楮form慴楯n

q慲g整eBomb
ing

楮form慴楯n