European Journal of Operational Research 26 (1986) 217-228 217

North-Holland

Models of naval command and control systems

Dale F. COOPER*, John HOLT and Jonathan H. KLEIN
Department of Accounting and Management Science, University of Southampton, Southampton SO9 SNH,
United Kingdom

Abstract: This paper demonstrates the, flexibility of a command and control modelling approach based
upon system structure. The approach is part of a broader scheme for command and control modelling.
Qualitative models of four different naval command and control systems are presented: a shipboard
Anti-Air Warfare Section; a Type 42 destroyer; a shipboard weapons system; and a Maritime Headquarters
unit. The common modelling framework allows the systems to be compared.

Keywords: Command and control, structural models, Type 42 destroyer, Aegis, naval systems

Introduction models of a similar nature are not widely available

Command and control (C2) is increasingly being
recognised as an area of critical importance in the
design of military organisations. Its concern is
with the structures, functions and technologies of
decision-making in military organisations. It is
generally considered to cover the entire process of
decision, from the sensing of the environment of
the organisation to the implementation of effects
in the environment. Such a process involves both
personnel and machines. The combination of per-
sonnel and machines involved in the decision
processes of an organisation constitutes a com-
mand and control system.
In a naval context, the investment in C2 sys-
tems is nowadays comparable to that in weapon
systems. When new weapons systems are pro-
posed, it is standard procedure to use sophisti-
cated mathematical models, simulations and ex-
ercises to examine whether the equipment is likely
to meet defence requirements. This allows suitabil-
ity to be assessed and modifications to be made
early in the design process. However, assessment
* Now with: Spicer and Pegler Associates, Friary Court, 65
Crutched Friars, London EC3N 2NP, United Kingdom.
The work described in this paper was supported in part by the
UK ministry of Defence.
Received September 1983; revised May 1985
for C2 systems. There is currently no adequate
theory of C2, and ,hence there are no criteria for
evaluation or design
The last few years have seen notable efforts to
fill this theoretical gap, with far more emphasis
than previously on the whole process of C2 rather
than the purely technological aspects. Hwang et al.
[l] provide a representative selection of recent
work in the area of C2 theory, and developments
based on system dynamics also deserve attention
PI.
The work described in this paper is based on an
approach to C2 theoretical development. The
long-term aim of this approach has been to de-
velop a method of constructing models for the
testing and evaluation of proposed naval C2 sys-
tems. While this rather ambitious objective is not
yet fulfilled, a useful qualitative modelling ap-
proach has been developed. This paper gives ex-
amples of this initial descriptive modelling ap-
proach. Our first models were directed towards
strategic C2 systems, and in particular a naval
Maritime Headquarters (MHQ). Although in an
unsophisticated stage of development, the modell-
ing scheme gave a number of insights into the
functioning of the MHQ. To examine the flexibil-
ity of the modelling approach, the scheme was
applied to an implementational grouping, the
Anti-Air Warfare Section of a Type 42 destroyer,
where again interesting insights were obtained.

0377~2217/86/$3.50 Q 1986, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

218 D.F. Cooper
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the
flexibility of the command and control modelling
approach, by providing examples of models of
four different C2 systems. The next section out-
lines a structural mode&g scheme for C2 sys-
tems, and subsequent sections in turn show how it
can be applied to a shipboard Anti-Air Warfare
Section, a type 42 destroyer, a US shipboard
weapon system (Aegis), and a Maritime
Headquarters. A general discussion follows in a
concluding section.
A command and control model
The approach to command and control modell-
ing that we have developed has been described in
detail elsewhere [3]. It comprises a set of linked
models, which emphasise different aspects of a C2
system: its structure, its function, its memory and
its goals (Figure 1). This paper is concerned prim-
arily with the Structural Model, which illustrates
the internal structure of each C2 unit, its func-
tional components, and the links between them.
(Modelling an existing system in terms of structure
is a more straightforward preliminary approach
than the alternative, functional, approach that our
Memory Structural
model model
Figure‘ 1. Two C2 units represented by a linked set of C2 models, emphasising structure, function, memory and goals
et al. / Models of naoal command and control systems
scheme allows; on the other hand, for a props
yet-to-be-built system, we would suggest the
posite is true.)
In the Structural Model, a C2 unit contains
kinds of component (Figure 2). A unit ga
data by means of Sensors, which both sense
environment of the unit (e.g. radars) and ac
communications from other units (e.g. data lil
The central component of a C2 unit is one or I
Decision-Maker components, which provide (
mand decisions based on data which the
possesses. Decisions are passed to Effecters,
as weapons systems, which attempt to pro1
controlled changes in the environment. Effec
may also transmit communications (mess;
orders, data) to other units.
Data (e.g. for decision-making by a Deck
Maker, or for targeting by an Effector we2
system) is stored in Memory components. T
components may encompass a variety of sto
modes, ranging from explicit computer datab
to descriptions of standard operating proced
or Rules of Engagement, and the experience
knowledge of the personnel of the unit.
Decision-making must be based on a se
Goals, the fifth component of a C2 unit. G
may be stored in the minds of commanders, c
Functional Goals
model model
 D. F. Cooper et al. /‘Models of naval command and control systems 219

Figure 2. Structural representation of a C2 unit, illustrating the

five kinds of component

Figure 3. Two C2 units linked hierarchically

written orders, or as doctrine statements within a

C2 computer system.
In the Structural Modelling scheme, a C2 sys-
tem considers of a number of C2 units. These may
be linked hierarchically, according to the com-
mand structure of the organisation which the sys-
tem controls (Figure 3).
To identify part of a real, physical system as
just one of the five kinds of component we have
described above may sometimes be inadequate to
capture its detailed workings. In such cases the
component can be modelled recursively as a C2
unit in its own right (Figure 4).
Hierarchic and recursive structuring can be
continued to any level desired. In general,
hierarchic modelling is used when the subordinate
unit is a distinct C2 unit, while recursive modelling
is used when the subordinate unit fulfills a single
component function of the superior unit. There
will be cases in which it is not clear which modell-
ing mode is most appropriate, and in other cases
the mode employed is dependent on the precise I I

purpose of the modelling exercise. Examples of t

both modes will be given in this paper. Figure 4. A C2 unit in which the Sensor component is modelled
To model a C2 system structurally, it is first recursively
220 D.F. Cooper et al. / Models
necessary to identify the units in the system, the
components within them, and the links between
the components. At this stage, modelling is quali-
tative: the concern is to identify the components in
the system and the way in which they fit together,
to ‘draw a picture’ of the system. Such pictures
allow different systems to be discussed and com-
pared in a systematic fashion.
Although this paper is confined to discussing
qualitative mode&g of systems, it is envisaged
that these models could be developed subsequently
into quantitative models, which would permit a
more thorough consideration of the actual sys-
tems. Quantitative modelling would be an essential
part of any complete system evaluation technique.
We have developed a specification of how such
quantitative modelling would proceed [4], but
quantification of models will not be discussed
further here.
An anti-air warfare section
In this section the Structural Model is used to
describe the Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) Section of a
Type 42 destroyer. The AAW section is concerned
with detecting and countering airborne threats to
the ship and other ‘ships in the group to which it
belongs. In practice, this means correctly identi-
fying enemy aircraft and missiles, and responding
to the threats with the ship’s weapons systems.
This aspect of Type 42 operations is controlled by
the AAW team in the ship’s Operations Room,
under the command of the Anti-Air Warfare
Officer (AAWO).
Possible airborne threats (aircraft or missiles)
are detected by the ship’s radar systems. A subsec-
tion of the AAW team, the Air Picture Team
(APT), identifies the raw data on the radar screens
to the ship’s computer system, the Action Data
Automated Weapons System (ADAWS). Informa-
tion in ADAWS is displayed on a radar display,
with descriptive text accompanying the tracks on
the plot. The AAWO uses the display provided by
ADAWS to assist in the assignment of weapons to
targets. On the Type 42 destroyer the weapon
systems that are available are the Seadart Guided
Missile and the 4.5 inch Gun [5]. Although there is
some overlap in the use of these systems, the
Seadart is generally used against distant targets,
and the Gun against closer targets. Sea Harrier
of naval command and control system
aircraft may also be directed by the AAWO, both
to observe and to attack targets. The AAWO can
also direct the use of chaff (a means of confusing
enemy sensors) and advise on the positioning of
the ship.
The Model
The AAW section is most easily modelled as a
single C2 unit. For some purposes, a single level of
recursion may be appropriate (Figure 5).
The decision-maker in the AAW Section is the
AAWO. The decision-making that is required in
operations can be specified in general terms as:
make a tactical appreciation of the enemy air
threats, assign priorities to them, and allocate
weapon systems to deal with them. The threat
picture is supplied by the system Sensors; threats
are dealt with by the Effecters.
The Decision-Maker component in the AAW
Section is therefore composed of the AAWO and
the data communication equipment which he uses
in combat. It occupies the central position in the
Structural Model of the unit in Figure 5.
The function of the Sensor is to provide the air
E
missiles E E
+ aircraft A&O Reporters
gun
1 1 t t
I I I I
Figure 5. Structural model of an Anti-Air Warfare Section.
(APT = Air Picture Team, ADAWS = Action Data Automated
Weapons System; AAWO = Anti-Air Warfare Officetj
 D.F. Cooper et al. / Models
picture for use by the Decision-Maker. The Sensor
function is structured into a number of tasks car-
ried out by different personnel and equipment in
the Air Picture Team, and it is therefore of interest
to model the Sensor of the AAW Section as a C2
unit in its own right, nested recursively within the
superior unit (this Sensor unit is shown in Figure
6). In this embedded unit, there are two kinds of
Sensor component. The more important of these
are the several radar systems. However, Reporters,
who receive and process data from other ships,
also constitute a significant part of the Sensor
function. The Decision-Maker in the Air Picture
Team is the Air Picture Supervisor, who uses the
data from the Sensors to identify and characterise
the threats. This information is recorded on the
ADAWS computer, which constitutes the Effector.
It also constitutes one of the Memory components
of the system; the other Memory component is the
training and experience of the personnel of the Air
Picture Team. The Goals of the Air Picture Team
are to compile as accurate and complete a picture
as possible of the area under consideration.
Returning now to consideration of the entire
AAW Section (Figure 5), we identify the Memory
of the system. The AAWO receives most of the
Figure 6. The Sensor of Figure 5 (the Air Picture Team)
modelled as a C2 unit. (APS = Air Picture Supervisor)
of naval command and control systems 221
data for his decision-making activity from ADAWS
computer displays. The ADAWS system, which
stores the pictures compiled by the Air Picture
Team, is the major Memory component of the
system. Virtually all the input to the Decision-
Maker comes not directly from the Sensor but via
this Memory. The experience and knowledge of
the AAWO constitute a second Memory compo-
nent of the unit.
The AAW weapons systems on a Type 42 de-
stroyer are the missiles, guns and aircraft under
the control of the ship. The AAWO makes the
target allocation decisions for these weapons. De-
cisions concerning Sea Dart missiles and the 4.5
inch Gun are communicated to the Missile and
Gun Director (MGD), who controls these weapon
systems. The Fighter Controller plays a similar
role for the Harrier aircraft. Both these weapons
functions constitute separate Effector components
of the AAW Section. Both could be modelled
recursively as embedded C2 units, as with the
Sensor component of the Section.
The AAWO himself directs the use of chaff and
communicates advice concerning the tactical posi-
tioning of the ship to the Captain or Officer of the
Watch. In these roles he is an Effector. The Air
Picture Team Reporters, in their role as trans-
mitters of data to other ships, also act as Effecters
(but note that input to this function comes from
the Sensors via the ADAWS Memory, rather than
from the Decision-Maker).
The Goals of the AAW Section are those of
ship survival and the survival of the ‘group to
which the ship belongs. In practice, the AAWO
has to work with far tiore specific goals than
these. Operational goals, which specify the tasks of
his Section, are concerned. with the identification
and destruction of enemy air threats, and serve to
facilitate the general goals. It is likely that these
goals will have been worked out in detail, prior to
combat, probably in conjunction with other
officers, and they will not change during combat
unless something unexpected occurs for which no
plan has been made. ’
To obtain a full picture of the C2 of the AAW
Section, it is necessary to take a wider view than
that provided by merely considering how the unit
functions in combat. Much of the decision-making
to do with the function of the unit wilI have taken
place prior to combat. Since this will in general be
in consultation with other officers on the Type 42;
222 D. F. Cooper
we should properly consider this activity in the
context of the ship’s C2 system. In the next sec-
tion, the C2 of the Type 42 destroyer as a whole is
considered in terms of the Structural Model.
The Type 42 destroyer
The Type 42 destroyer is the primary anti-air
warfare ship in the UK fleet. Its main duty in a
group of ships is to protect the group from enemy
aircraft and missihzs. It also has some surface and
subsurface weapons capabilities, mainly for its own
defence. A review of the ship at the time of its
introduction described it as ‘compact and work-
manlike’ [5].
The ship is under the overall command of the
Captain. The Principal Warfare Officer (PWO) is
.
responsible for the direction of combat action.
There are three areas of responsibility: anti-air
(already examined in the previous section); surface;
and subsurface. Of these, the anti-air function is
the most important. All combat is directed .from
the ship’s Operations Room. In addition to the
combat functions of the ship, there is also a pilot-
ing and navigation function, controlled from the
Bridge.
Command
Navigation AAW
Figure 7. Structural model of a me 42 destroyer,illustrating
et al. / Models of naval command and control systems
The Model
The Type 42 destroyer may be modelled using
two hierarchical levels (Figure 7). At the higher
level, command decision-making is carried out
jointly by the Captain and the PWO. At the sub-
ordinate level are four C2 units. One of these is the
AAW Section, modelled in the previous section.
There are two other C2 combat units, Surface
Warfare and Subsurface Warfare, the internal
structures of which resemble that of the AAW
Section. In both these units, the PWO is the Deci-
sion-Maker.
The fourth subordinate C2 unit is the Naviga-
tion Unit. The piloting and navigation function
appears as a distinct unit in this C2 model, al-
though there is no corresponding unit in the physi-
cal organisation of the ship. Here the Captain or
the Officer of the Watch is the Decision-Maker.
Sensor data comes both from navigation consider-
ations and from combat C2 units, which may
request changes in ship heading or speed.
It has already been noted that some of the
decision-making concerned with anti-air warfare
takes place before combat. This applies also to the
other combat functions. This decision-making is
the province of the higher command level, which
decides on operational policy prior to action. This
Surface Subsurface
two hierarchical levels. The AAW unit corresponds to Figure 5.
 D.F. Cooper et al. / Models of naval command and control systems 223

may include interpretation of Rules of Engage-

AN/SPY-1A Other sensors: Data
ment, identification of likely threat types and ap- radar -helicopters links
propriate responses, and so on. These decisions are -radars
not made in isolation. Normally officers of the -lFF
- ESM
combat units are included in the decision process, -satellite
and in many cases the ship’s policy must be coor- -sonars
---I
dinated with other ships (including other Type I
42s) in the group.

Command & Decision System - Display

The Aegis Weapon System

The Aegis Weapon System was developed in

the USA to carry out similar duties to the systems
on board a UK Type 42 destroyer. However, Aegis
was built more recently than the Type 42 systems
- the first ship to carry Aegis, the cruiser USS
‘Ticonderoga’ (CG-47), underwent sea trials in the
autumn of 1982 - and consequently it is rather
different from the system described in the previous
two sections, which were designed well over a
decade ago.
The Aegis Weapon System is carried aboard
one or more cruisers in a naval battle group. It is
intended to protect the group and its aircraft
carriers from attack: “Aegis has been designed to
cope with a coordinated saturation attack involv-
ing many enemy surface ships, a number of sub-
marines and hundreds of aircraft and missiles in
engagements lasting several hours” [6]. Both in its
size and its scope of operation it is a more
sophisticated system than those on board the Type
42 destroyer.
Aegis is centred around two linked computer
systems: a Command & Decision System and a
Weapon Control System. The Command & Deci-
sion System is linked to a variety of sensors,
including conventional radars, satellite navigation
equipment, sonars, and communications from
aircraft and other ships (Figure 8). The most cru-
cial sensor, however, is the AN/SPY-IA ‘phased-
array’ radar, which uses four fixed detectors rather
than the familiar rotating antennae, permitting
extremely fast and powerful general scanning cou-
pled with very responsive target tracking.
The Command & Decision System reports to
the Commander controlling combat via the Aegis
Display System. The Command & Decision Sys-
tem can also be programmed with combat doctrine,
allowing some aspects of its operation to be fully
automatic. The Command 8r Decision System is
/ Weapon Control Syste; 1 / Sonars-ASW
Figure 8. Organisation of the Aegis Weapon System. (IFF=
Identification, Friend or Foe; ESM = Electronic Support Mea-
sures; ECM = Electronic Counter Measures; ASW’ = Anti-
Submarine Warfare)
linked directly to the Weapon Control System,
which controls the wide variety of weapons at the
disposal of the ship. Descriptions of -the Aegis
Weapon system and its display system are availa-
ble in the open literature [6,7]. Despite the advance
in shipboard weapon systems that Aegis repre-
sents, its most controversial aspect appears to have
been whether its weight could be too great for the
ship into which it is built [8,9].
The Model
The Aegis unit is modelled as a C2 unit on the
operational level of a two-tiered ship model which
also identifies command and navigation functions
(Figure 9). There are two Decision-Maker compo-
nents in the Aegis system, the human Commander
and the computer Command & Decision System,
the relative roles of which are variable. At one
extreme, the Commander is the sole Decision-
maker, with the computer system fulfilling a Mem-
224 D. F. Cooper et al. / Models of naval command and control systems

I I I
S s -- s
ANISPY- other data links
radar sensors

Navigation

M D D G
C&DS - C&DS - Comd -

Aegis

Figure 9. Aegis modelled as a C2 unit within a two-tiered ship model. (C&DS = Command & Decision System; WCS = Weapo
Control System)

ory role analogous to that of ADAWS on the Type
42. More usually the Aegis system is programmed
with combat doctrine, and it effectively shares the
decision-making with the Commander. At the other
extreme, decision-making can be fully automatic.
In the Type 42 model, Sensors in the system
were modelled recursively as units in their own
right. Components may be modelled in this way
even if they are entirely machine. For example, in
the Aegis system, the AN/SPY-1A phased-array
radar, although entirely automated, can be struc-
tured as a C2 unit. Its beam reception equipment
may be regarded as the Sensor, while the sending
equipment constitutes its Effector. A radar control
computer acts as Decision-Maker (and also as
Memory), since it is this that follows a target with
a number of narrow beams and rapidly enables it:
path to be established. Controlling Goals are pro,
grammed into the radar control computer.
The Aegis Memory is the Command & Decisior
System computer. All data from Sensors passe!
through the Memory before reaching the
Decision-Maker. Much of the data that reache:
the Decision-Maker has been collected and
processed automatically, without the intervention
of human personnel.
At the level we are considering, the Effector of
the Aegis system is composed of weapons systems
plus the Weapon Control System. At a lower level
of recursion, however, the Effector may be mod-
elled as a unit with the Weapon Control System as
Decision-Maker, and the weapons systems as a
 D. F, Cooper et al. / Models of naval command and control systems 225

number of Effectors. These weapons systems may
be modelled separately as units at a second level of
recursion.
As with the Type 42, the Aegis Goals are set
prior to combat, in consultation with higher levels
of command and the commands of other ships.
A Maritime Headquarters
of two main sections. One section fulfills an intelli-
gence function; it receives signals, updates the
computer database, and passes data to various
levels of command. The other section is the deci-
sion-making section. It receives signals, uses them
as input to decisions, and transmits appropriate
command signals.
There is a functional split between those officers
and equipment concerned with naval decision-

The purpose of a Maritime Headquarters Command

t _ t
(MHQ) is to provide a strategic command
headquarters for national maritime forces. It is Sl s2 s3
responsible for the command and control of the
nation fleet as a unit or as a number of subunits. It
is responsible to Government, and thus it is prob-
ably the highest predominantly military rather than
political link in the chain of naval command.
The MHQ is a decision-making headquarters
which provides electronic message-handling and
database support by means of a sophisticated
computer system. The MHQ control room consists

Table 1
Components of the Maritime Headquarters model illustrated in
Figure 10

Command Unit

Sl Communication from Maritime Air Command

Staff
S2 Communication from superior decision-makers (e.g. t t _ t
Government)
S3 Communication from Staff Unit s4 55 S6
Ml Computer database
M2 Knowledge and experience of personnel
Dl Command level decision-makers
Gl Goals specified at fleet operational level
El Communication to Maritime Air Command
M3
E2 Communication to superior decision-makers
E3 Communication to Staff Unit
D2 G2
Staff unit
M4
S4 Communication from fleet: updating of computer data-
base
SS Communication from fleet: filtering
S6 Communication from Command Unit
M3 Computer database
M4 Knowledge and experience of personnel
D2 Staff level decision-makers .
G2 Goals specified at group operational level
E4 Communication to fleet.
E5 Communication to Command Unit Figure 10. Structural model of a Maritime Headquarters. (Ta-
ble 1 provides a key to the model components)
226 D.F. Cooper et al. / Models
making and those concerned with the coordination
of maritime air operations. For simplicity we
consider here only the naval decision-making func-
tion.
In the control room, decision-making is
organised into three levels. The lowest level re-
ceives signals and passes them to the next level as
appropriate, performing an important filtering role.
The second level is a Staff level, performing staff
functions for the highest Command level. Tasks of
‘Staff level decision makers include the drafting of
signals and situation appraisal., Command level
decision makers are responsible for the overall
command function of the MHQ; in addition, a
large part of their time is spent in conference with
decision-makers higher in the chain of command.
Although the MHQ is conventionally regarded
as a single unit we have found it clarifies its
operation to model it as two hierarchical C2 units,
roughly analogous to Command and Staff levels.
The model is pictured in Figure 10, and its compo-
nents are listed in Table 1. In this model the
lowest ‘decision-making level is shown as perfor-
ming a Sensor function for the Staff. A more
detailed desciption of this particular model is given
by Klein and Cooper [3].
Comparison of models
In this paper a Structural Modelling scheme has
been used to construct qualitative models of four
different C2 systems. The Anti-Air Warfare Sec-
tion on the Type 42 destroyer may be termed an
‘implementational’ C2 system. The Aegis system is
both implementational and tactical, since it in-
tegrates the entire combat decision-making of its
ship. The C2 of the Type 42 destroyer (and also of
the cruiser carrying the Aegis system, which has
been mentioned only in passing in this paper) is a
tactical system, and the MHQ is a strategic C2
system. Yet, despite these wide differences in the
implementational/tactical/strategic natures of the
systems, the common modelling framework allows
the systems to be compared.
The models identify the command levels within
the systems. Both the implementational systems
have single overall command levels in the models
- subordinate units are modelled recursively rather
than hierarchically. The commanders at these levels
have direct control over all the system under their
of naval command and control systems
command, and the subunits have relatively 1
autonomy. Although in the organisations there
clear chain of command, decision-making is
most entirely under the control of the C2 L
sion-Maker component; subunits are part of
unit team.
Command does not display this integratio
higher levels. There is a clear split between
command and implementational levels on bc
the Type 42. At the strategic level, the M
model shows distinct command and staff It
where a single integrated decision-making 1
might have been expected.
The models also illustrate that in both the ‘1
42 AAW Section and the Aegis system, the syz
databases (Memory components) are the most
portant means of communication between Sen
and Decision-Makers: the Sensors communi
with the Decision-Makers via Memory. All (
entering the ADAWS and’Aegis databases CQ
assessed by the Decision-Makers. In the M.
however, there is more direct communication
tween the Sensors and Decision-Makers. (In
MHQ the computer system is the prin
communication mode, but not in its database I
the computer is both a database and a mess
handling system.) In the implementational C2
terns, the Sensors do not have a filtering rob
they do in the MHQ; rather, they are encoder
It seems that these differences reflect differe
in the nature of the decision tasks with which
systems are required to cope. The Aegis and
Type 42 AAW systems are both reactive, defer
systems - what constitutes a threat should 1
been well defined by the time combat begins,
it may be possible to define a satisfactory met
of dealing with it. For these systems, in a g
scenario, goals can be well-specified. Time
have been spent before combat in communica
with higher C2 units, developing the goals to
point where they can be implemented swiftly.
implicit hierarchy of goals will have 1
formulated. In this implicit hierarchy, overall g
of protection and survival will have been reca!
goals of threat identification, avoidance and
struction, in quite specific, operational terms.
necessary that goals be specified like this, bet,
the short time spans available for decision do
allow specific actions to be related to ove
general goals. It is fortunate that the kinc
environment in which these systems are desif
 D.F. Cooper et al. /: Models
to operate permits this advanced specification of
goals: this is in part because most of the threats
are mechanical (the same features that give them
their speed make them easily classifiable), and in
part because the systems are reactive - their action
can be seen, broadly, as state-maintaining rather
than environment-changing. The lesson here is that
the processes prior to combat must be regarded as
essential, critical parts of the C2 process for these
kinds of systems.
For the kinds of threats with which Aegis and
the Type 42 AAW systems are supposed to deal,
the encoding of the threats into the Memory of the
systems is an integral part of the C2 process. The
MHQ, on the other hand, is dealing with situa-
tions where implementational goals are hard to
specify, and where the environment rarely permits
the specification of predetermined responses. In
addition, the goals of the MHQ will often be to
change the environment in a positive way, not
merely to maintain a current state. Much the same
arguments apply to a ship, considered as a whole.
Direct communication between Sensors and Deci-
sion-Makers is more important in such systems.
The above arguments serve to identify two im-
portant variables in C2 systems: the time frames
within which the C2 systems operate, and the
definition and structuring of system goals. Both of
these are related to the kind of decision-making
that a C2 unit may successfully undertake, and the
kind of structure that it should possess in order to
do so. This suggests that it may be possible to
classify C2 systems in terms of critical features
identified in the modelling process.
Discussion
The Structural Modelling scheme considered in
this paper provides a means of reducing extremely
complex C2 systems to conceptual models
composed of only five types of component, and
the links between them. A great deal of simplifica-
tion and abstraction must go into the creation of
such models, but we believe that both the modell-
ing process and the models themselves, by virtue
of the simplification and abstraction, can lead to
insights concerning the structure and functioning
of the systems so modelled.
In the systems we have studied, we have found
the Structural Modelling scheme easy to apply.
ojnaval command and control systems 221
Our assumption has been that one of each of the
five types of component is the minimum necessary
in any C2 unit. From this starting point, it appears
simple to identify the personnel and machines that
constitute various components of the system. In
practice, when considering a C2 unit, we have
found it useful to identify the Decision-Maker
component (or components) first, and then iden-
tify the decision processes with which the compo-
nent is involved, in terms of data from outside the
unit (via Sensors), internally stored data (Memory),
the aim and objectives of the Decision-Maker
(Goals), and the ways in which decisions are im-
plemented (via Effecters). Care should be taken to
consider parts of the overall decision process of
the unit which do not involve the Decision-Maker
component explicitly (e.g. routine procedures).
It is common to find that a particular grouping
of personnel and machines fulfills the role of more
than one component. In such cases the system is
modelled accordingly; for example, in our model
of the Type 42 AAW Section, the AAWO
constitutes both the Decision-Maker component
and one of the Effector components. Such a proce-
dure has caused no difficulties.
In identifying how C2 units are combined into
recursive or hierarchical structures, we have usu-
ally started by following a conventional command
unit structure for the system under consideration.
Recursive modelling seems appropriate when we
wish to consider a particular function of ,a C2 unit
in more detail, when we are putting a particular
component of the unit under the magnifying glass.
Hierarchical modelling is generally appropriate
when a distinct subordinate unit, not logically part
of the superior unit, can be identified. It is not
always possible to distinguish clearly between the
two situations. Under such conditions we recom-
mend the simpler alternative, although the choice
may be determined in part by what aspects of the
C2 system the model is being designed to il-
lustrate.
Although we may start out by identifying units
in the model with conventional command units, as
the modelling proceeds it may be of interest to
deviate from this structure. This has been the case
with our MHQ model, where the two-unit struc-
ture that we have developed has proven simpler
than the single-unit model with which we started
and which the real system itself suggested. That a
principle of parisimony so applied has such conse-
 D.F. Cooper et al. / Models
quences for the model might seem rather surpris-
ing - we believe it does illustrate an important
implicit hierarchical structure in the system which
is not obvious on inspection of the system itself.
This illustrates that there can be no definitive,
unique, model of a C2 system, unless we invoke
‘arbitrary’ principles such as parsimony. At this
stage in the work we do not regard this as a
problem. The models provide insight and offer
simple, highly abstract views of systems. They are
not supposed to be perfect representations of sys-
tems.
This leads us to the question: what do the
models represent? This issue may best be consid-
ered by asking what has been ‘abstracted out’ of
systems in the process of modelling them (for a
discussion of abstraction in models, see Klein (10)).
Clearly, what has gone is the specific nature of C2
components - for example, we no longer dis-
tinguish between electronic radar and human re-
porters (plus their communications links) - they
are both reduced to the common status of Sensors.
(In the qualitative models presented here, perfor-
mance parameters are also absent, although it is
envisaged that these would be included in quanti-
tative models and would vary from Sensor to
Sensor. In other words, a system is reduced to a
consideration of what it does - not how it does it.
The models are representations of C2 structures in
terms solely of the features on which all complete
decision processes must be based, and considera-
tion of the structures of these models enables us to
examine C2 systems in terms of these fundamental
general features. We can see what kind of decision
processes a system exhibits, as distinct from the
means whereby the processes are implemented.
of naoal command and control sysiems
The modelling scheme that has been presentec
here is a tool for qualitatively picturing the strut
ture of C2 systems. As this paper illustrates it car
lead to new views of C2 systems and thus provide
valuable insight. It emphasises the commonality 01
C2 systems rather than their diversity. This feature
will be valuable if it enable C2 designers to take
into account a wider range of C2 knowledge .and
experience than a single application area would
provide.
References
PI Hwang, J., Schutzer, D., Shere, K., and Vena, P. (eds.),
Selected Analytical Concepts in Command and Control,
Gordon & Breach, New York, 1982.
PI Coyle, R.G., “A model for assessing the work processing
capabilities of military command and control systems”,
Proceedings of 5th AFCEA European Symposium and
Exposition, Brussels, October 24-26, 1984.
131 Klein, J.H., and Cooper, D.F., “A modelling framework
for naval command and control systems”, in preparation.
[41 Klein, J.H. and Cooper, D.F., “A quantitative command
and control model”, Report DNOS/9/83/T, Department
of Accounting and Management Science, University of
Southampton, 1984.
151Preston, A., Moore, J.E., and Pretty, R.T., “The Sheffield
class - The Type 42 design goes to sea”, Navy Interna-
tional 80(3) (1975) 7-24.
161Geddes, J.P., “Aegis protects the fleet”, International De-
&se Reuiew 16(2) (1983) 147-154.
[7] Tennent, J.H., “Aegis display systems - The commanders’
battle picture”, Surface War/are 7(3) (1982) 2-6.
[8] Morrs, S., “Ticonderoga: Another Hood?‘, US Naval
institute Proceedings 108/8/954 (1982) 116-17.
[9] Guilbault, R.G., “Ticonderoga: First and formidable”, US
Naval Institute Proceedings, 108/D/957 (1982) 113-115.
[lo] Klein, J.H., The abstraction of reality for games and
simulations, Journal of the Operational Research Society
36(8) (1985) 671-678.