A Survey of Military Planning Systems

A. Boukhtouta†, A. Bedrouni†, J. Berger†, F. Bouak‡, A. Guitouni†

†Defence Research and Development Canada-Valcartier

2459 Pie-XI Blvd North
Val-Bélair, Quebec
Canada G3J 1X5
abdeslem.boukhtouta@drdc-rddc.gc.ca
abded@gmc.ulaval.ca
jean.berger@drdc-rddc.gc.ca
adel.guitouni@drdc-rddc.gc.ca

‡ Defence Research and Development Canada-Toronto

1133 Sheppard Avenue West
P.O. Box 2000
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M3M 3B9
fethi.bouak@drdc-rddc.gc.ca

1
 Abstract
Future military operations rely on increasingly complex joint and multinational
environments. This calls for innovative concepts, doctrine, and technologies to support the
emergence of new planning and execution systems that are more flexible, adaptive,
interoperable, and responsive to a time-varying uncertain environment. The ability to conduct
joint operations imposes shared information and interoperability requirements to operate
among coalition members as growing complexity and rapid pace of military operations
transit from a rigid vertical organizational structure to a more integrated, modular and
tailored one. In that regard, Network Centric Operations (NCO) offers a unique setting to
take on emerging challenges. Even though deliberate planning tools focus on providing “on
the fly” precise tailoring and time phasing of force deployment in crisis situations, suitable
coordinated responses are subject to a variety of real-time constraints, local views reflecting
incomplete time-varying uncertain information from multiple sources, bounded
computational resources and communication bandwidth. The combination of artificial
intelligence, operations research and data mining techniques to mention a few, and web-
based and information technologies, offer a great opportunity to address new planning
system design and integration requirements. In this paper pertinent mission planning and
scheduling systems designed to support relevant and specific Air Force and in a certain
extent Joint and Navy Forces needs were reviewed. The survey addresses various issues
associated with mission planning functions and provides a brief description of methods,
tools, and procedures used to plan and schedule complex military operations. Emerging
techniques used to build advanced mission planning systems are also examined.

1. Introduction
Recent Canadian Forces participation in military operations have provided some opportunity
to anticipate many challenges driven by uncertainty and rapidly emerging technologies. The
ability to conduct out-of-area operations requires far more than combat capabilities and
highly qualified personnel. Despite relative success, these operations have shown persistent
problems associated with planning and execution, suggesting an urgent need to develop
mission planning capabilities involving a more integrated view of the battlefield, more
accurate and timely force deployment and employment, and an efficient information system
infrastructure at multiple levels.
Deliberate planning procedures may require considerable time to evaluate a situation and
generate an adequate response whereas a fast breaking crisis reflecting a dynamic and
uncertain situation requires fast and timely decisions. Even though recent attempts in
deliberate planning tools focus on providing “on the fly” precise tailoring and time phasing
of force deployment in crisis situations, suitable responses generated by remote military
planners and commanders still impose incomplete time-varying information analysis from
dynamic uncertain sources of information, subject to a variety of constraints including
bounded computational resources and communication bandwidth as well as other real-time
requirements.
Distributed or collaborative planning issues are additional elements having an impact on the
resulting complexity of operational planning. However, the absence of a universal or
commonly accepted collaboration model among military planners resulted in the

2
development of a variety of technological approaches reflecting a wider operational disparity.
Therefore, collaborative mission planning is largely promoted in new information systems
and databases aimed at providing an integrated environment in which multi-level operators,
planners, and logisticians are able to coordinate their activities within and across
organizational boundaries while reducing the duration of the decision making process.
This paper reviews a number of missions planning and scheduling systems designed to
support relevant specific Air Force, and in certain extent Joint and Navy Forces needs.
Moreover, the study addresses various issues associated with the mission planning function
and provides a review of methods, tools, and procedures used to plan and schedule
increasingly complex military operations. It also examines emerging techniques used to build
advanced mission planning systems. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces
the basic military planning process describing the planning hierarchy, deliberate and crisis
action planning and, the Canadian military planning process. Section 3 then presents some
background information related to basic technologies used for the development of mission
planning systems. Taxonomy of the most important systems devoted mainly to air operations
planning is then given in section 4. Finally, some conclusions and remarks are given in
section 5.

2. Mission Planning Process

Usually the development of planning systems is based on a military doctrinal process, which
is used for creating and monitoring military operations. The planning process, as it will be
discussed later, begins with trigger receipt. After this step, the mission is analyzed and the
tasks that will be associated to the plan are identified. Using information from the mission
analysis1 the planners develop and analyze the Courses of Actions (COAs) dealing with plans
for friendly as well as enemy units. Several possible COAs for accomplishing the mission are
developed and compared using a set of criteria. The best ones are then presented to the
commander.
An obvious commitment to a successful planning process is that the commander, the staff
and all people involved in this action view the importance of the said process and are willing
to invest time and effort in it. This commitment facilitates the preparation and execution of
the mission. Monitoring the mission requires a continuous evaluation of the execution of the
plan. The commander is alerted when the current situation diverges from the original intent
of the plan.
A good mission planning is generally characterized by quick response, decisive action and
flexibility to adapt to the exogenous events and changing situations. A COA developed for a
mission must consider an employment plan for dealing with one or more enemy COAs and
should identify a deployment plan for moving forces and their equipment. By performing
mission planning, plans are developed to bring the appropriate combat and supporting forces
including their equipment and supplies to the operational field in time for the successful
completion of their mission Planning hierarchy, deliberate and crisis action planning and, the
Canadian Military planning process are presented next.

1
This step is called orientation in the Canadian Forces employment doctrine [1]

3
2.1 Planning Hierarchy
Three levels of planning are considered in the Canadian Forces (CF) doctrine, namely,
strategic, operational, and tactical. Each level of planning corresponds to a level of conflict.
The definitions of each level, as addressed in [1], are given as follows:

“The strategic level of a conflict is that level at which a nation or group of nations
determines national or alliance security objectives and develops and uses national
resources to accomplish those objectives. Activities at this level establish strategic
military objectives, sequence the objectives, define limits and assess risks for the use of
military and other instruments of power, develop strategic plans to achieve the objectives,
and provide armed forces and other capabilities in accordance with strategic plans.”

“The operational level of a conflict is the level at which campaigns and major operations
are planned, conducted and sustained to accomplish strategic objectives within theatres or
areas of operations. Activities at this level link tactics and strategy by establishing
operational objectives needed to accomplish the strategic objectives, sequencing events to
achieve the operational objectives, and initiating actions and applying resources to bring
about and sustain those events.”

“The tactical level of a conflict is the level at which battles and engagements are planned
and executed to accomplish military objectives assigned to tactical units. Activities at this
level focus on the ordered arrangement and manoeuvre of combat elements in relation to
each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives established by the operational
level commander.”

2.2 Deliberate and Crisis Action Planning

The planning environment is relative to the operational situation and conditions under which
a plan is produced (time available and the degree of urgency). Two categories of planning,
from an environment perspective, can be considered: deliberate planning and crisis action
planning or time-sensitive planning, as it is called in US army doctrine.
The deliberate planning process is not generally subject to the immediate time lines or
prevailing threats. It develops operation plans for contingencies and for later execution.
The crisis action planning process is needed when the degree of urgency of the crisis
demands an accelerated operation planning process. The most significant factor to consider
in such planning is time. Consequently, the crisis action planning process is characterized by
quick response, decisive action, and flexibility to adapt to the contingency situation.
The deliberate and crisis action planning can be interrelated, in the sense that the deliberate
planning contributes to crisis action planning. Deliberate plans establish a framework for the
transition to crisis response. Deliberate and crisis action planning are structured formal
processes. The planning process described below applies to any type of operational or
strategic operation; it applies to deliberate and crisis action planning (see Figure 1). The
deliberate planning process usually refers to the operational level of a mission.

4
2.3 Canadian Military Planning Process
Strategic and operational levels of planning are structured formal processes. The operation
planning process that will be addressed later applies to both. In contrast, the tactical level is
not a well-known structured process. This level of planning is not addressed in the CF
employment report [2] that covers the operation planning process. Tactical planning is a very
dynamic multi-dimensional process where the decision-maker must execute the decision
process within the timeframe of the enemy's decision cycle. By doing that, the decision-
maker forces the enemy to abandon its plans and objectives and drives him into a mode of
reactive decision-making process.
The output of the planning process is a plan or an Op O (Operation Order). A military
operation planning process (Fig. 1) is generally completed in five steps:

Deliberate planning
COA Plan Plan
DP Initiation Orientation
development development review

OPLAN
COP

OP O

COA Plan Plan

Crisis Initiation Orientation development development review

Crisis action planning

CONOPS Plan Execution
approved Approved

Fig. 1: The Planning Process [2].

Initiation: the initiation step starts with the reception, by the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS),
of a political direction from the Government. Designation and notification of the planning
staff and assembly of all relevant material are initiated in this step.

Orientation: at this step a commander orients the staff towards requirements of the initiated
operation and the mission is developed and analyzed. This mission analysis, which is usually
initiated with a brainstorming between the commander and his staff, determines the nature of
the problem and confirms the results to be achieved. The commander's planning guidance
regarding the tasks required are developed and issued at the end of this step.

COA development: The commander's planning guidance developed in the previous step is
used as a framework by the planning staff to develop the initial COAs. Factors, such as
theatre situation, opposing forces, military capabilities time and space, assessment of the

5
tasks are analyzed in the COAs development. Planners perform a comprehensive range of
COAs that focus on achieving the mission. Different COAs are compared in order to
determine the most effective one.

Plan development: Considerable expansion or alteration are considered at this step to

convert a developed COA into a Contingency Operations (COP) plan in the case of the
deliberate planning and an Operations Order (OP O) plan in the case of crisis action
planning.

The COP plans are prepared when contingency has important interest (national security), the
nature of contingency requires detailed prior planning for complex issues, detailed plans are
needed to support a multinational operation, etc. A COP plan is a complete and detailed
operation plan that includes:
• A full description of the concept of the operations
• Identification of specific forces and specific resources necessary to implement the plan
• Estimates of the forces movement in the theatre.

The concept of operation (CONOPS) "explains" how component forces will accomplish the
selected courses of action, but it is less detailed than the more formal Operations Order. A
COP plan can be converted into an OP O plan. An OP O is the plan where details of the
mission are filled in to include all supporting forces and activities. The OP O plans are
presented in the form of a directive issued by a commander to the staff or subordinate
commanders to effect the coordinated execution of an operation.

The COP plans developed for specific military operations in non-hostile environment (intra-
theatre logistics communications, and continuity of operations) or to address peacetime
operations such as disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, or peace operations are called
Functional Plans in US force doctrine [4].

Plan review: a COP and OP O plans must be reviewed by evaluating their corresponding
COAs through exercises, war gaming or other techniques such as logistics flow modelling.
The choice of the review method depends on the time and the availability of resources. COP
plans must be reviewed regularly due to the circumstances and the technological changes
upon which they were based. OP O plans must be continually reviewed.

Most of planning systems presented in this paper do not cover all of the above-mentioned
steps of the planning process. The planning process related to US army doctrine is very
similar to the Canadian one. The documentation associated to JOPES system gives a good
description of the US forces planning process (Jopes will be discussed later). The most
important paradigms and technologies used for military planning systems will be briefly
discussed below.

3. Paradigms used for Military Planning Systems

The technologies used to model a planning process depend on the structure of the problem
itself. Special structure can help simplifying considerably the approach to be employed.

6
For a long time, war gaming has been used by the military for planning operations. Germany
used war games to plan its successful invasion of France in 1940. Japan used war games to
plan its attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii in 1941 [3]. As outlined in the US Army Staff
Organisation and Operations manual [4], the military planning process, which consists in
developing COAs, is an ad hoc process developed by members of staffs and the commander
after discussing the various COAs. This ad hoc method suffers from a few weaknesses. The
effectiveness of the war-gaming approach is subject to the skills of the commander and the
individual staff members. Usually, a large percentage of the members of a planning staff
have no feel of the battlefield. On the other hand, the effectiveness of an analysis of a COA is
subject to the quality of the interaction between the various members of the planning staff.
Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of the COAs are analyzed by the same staff that
developed the COAs. Therefore, the members of the planning staff carry with them personal
biases about which plan is better than others (see [3] and [4]). War gaming is sometimes, if
time permits and resources are available, computer assisted using simulation models [1].
Whereas the ad hoc military planning process, based on war-gaming, is a manual planning
method.
Decision theory provides new tools to the planning process. It addresses the problem of how
a decision-maker could or should choose an action knowing the state of nature and about its
capabilities and preferences. Uncertainty, exogenous events, knowledge, and information are
usually modeled within decision-theoretic planning frameworks. The decision-theoretic
planning process in its original version tends to be extremely complex to solve. Exploitation
of the problem structure and abstraction techniques is usually used to reduce the complexity
of the decision-theoretic problem. Decision-theoretic planning models based on an Operation
Research (OR) paradigm usually use optimization techniques for the development of optimal
plans. The decision-theoretic planning is a field that was developed primarily within the
artificial intelligence community. The first problems addressed in decision-theoretic planning
were based on decision theory (the origin of decision-theoretic name). The probability theory
and the utility theory, belonging to decision theory, provide attractive tools for evaluating a
particular COA. Besides decision theory, other OR techniques such as mathematical
programming, graph theory, Petri networks and game theory are promising tools that have
been used in developing mission planning systems. The challenges now lie in understanding
relative strengths and weaknesses of the different technologies and to study how they can be
extended and combined to develop better approaches to model the planning process.
Artificial intelligence represents a popular alternate paradigm in building intelligent planning
system [5]. Plan generation algorithms have been developed since AI’s early age. An
overview of techniques adopted for developing them is presented in Yang [6]. Some planning
systems inspired from artificial intelligence (AI) rely on replanning-based methods to
develop deliberate plans. Such planners, reactive in nature, generate plans and then modify
them based on unexpected events or situations. Replanning approaches have been used in
developing many military planners: DART (Dynamic Analysis and Replanning tool)2,
TARGET (Theatre-level Analysis, and Graphical Extension Toolbox)3, and Cypress-SIPE2
[7], etc. Logic-based and hierarchical task network (HTN) approaches have also been
proposed in early and current planning systems and remain very popular. A different AI-

2
This system will be discussed later
3
DART and TARGET are developed by BBN Technologies for U.S. Department of Defense.

7
based method, namely, constraint programming [5] has also been the subject of investigation
in planning systems. Other Information Technologies (IT) such as data mining (used for
extracting hidden predictive information from databases), knowledge management, on-line
analytical processing (a way of presenting relational data to users) and business intelligence
tools have also been widely exploited in developing military planning systems.
On the other hand the research community has benefits from adequate commercial off-the-
shelf (COTS) components in developing planning systems. Implementing COTS hardware
and software into defence planning and scheduling systems would obviously result in
significant cost and time savings. However, a carefully controlled approach to pre-packaged
COTS software selection and integration within a larger system requires the need to develop
guidelines, verification methods, and assessment and acceptance criteria.
Taxonomy of the most important planning systems devoted mainly to air operations is
presented in the next section. Four categories of systems have been considered: Deployment
and battle operations systems, airlift resource allocation and transportation systems, flight
planning systems or route planning, and other specific military planning systems

4. Planning System Taxonomy

4.1 Deployment and Battle Operations Systems

i. FOX Genetic Algorithm (FOX-GA)

The Decision Support Systems Laboratory at the University of Minnesota and the Illinois
Genetic Algorithms Laboratory at the University of Illinois collaborated to develop the FOX
Genetic Algorithm (FOX-GA) [8] under the auspices of the US Army Research Laboratory
(ARL). This system provides an intelligent decision support tool for assisting US Army
planners and military intelligence in rapidly generating and assessing large numbers of
battlefield COAs. Indeed, since the battlefield environment is uncertain, dynamic,
incompletely known and risky, standard procedures are limited in addressing and exploring
sufficient number of COAs and less replanning happens than is desired. Thus, FOX-GA was
designed to provide the capability to automate and therefore speed up military planning and
re-planning process during execution (i.e. the course of the battle) in order to allow users
flexibility and control over planning objectives and options.
In this respect, the approach used by FOX-GA is based on the Genetic Algorithm (GA)
technology [8]. Indeed, this approach allows the decision support system to rapidly generate
a large numbers of potential COAs through crossover and mutation. Then, FOX-GA uses a
Wargamer based on coarse-grained representations to allow efficient assessments and
therefore, rapidly evaluate the “fitness” of the generated COAs. In this respect, this system
can evaluate up to 3000 friendly COAs per minute while manually, the process requires 10-
15 minutes to wargame one friendly COA against one enemy COA. Since standard Genetic
Algorithms has the tendency to generate a group of very similar or identical “best” solutions,
a scheme, called “fixed” niching strategy, is used in order to ensure diversity in the solutions.
In other words, newly generated COAs will be in fact different from the existing ones,
providing users with a more satisfactory range of choices. At the end, planners according to
their own judgment reevaluate the best few COAs provided and select a small group for
further development.

8
 Currently, FOX-GA provides the ability to develop offensive COAs for common grounded
force including mechanized infantry and armored units. However, due to its architecture, this
tactical system can be generalized to support the generation of defensive and enemy COAs.
Moreover, it can easily be adapted to other scenarios.

ii. Contingency Theater Automated Planning System (CTAPS)

The Contingency Theater Automated Planning System (CTAPS) [9-10] is a theater-level
battle management system developed to respond to specific needs of the US Air Force
USAF. It was established to meet requirements for a rapidly responsive Command, Control,
Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) system. CTAPS is a command and
control system designed to provide the ability to manage complex air/land battle operations.
As a complex system, CTAPS is developed to function at the heart of a decision support and
battle management process so as to help monitor a given situation and make appropriate
diagnosis. CTAPS thus offers the ability to generate, select, and execute operations plan.
The CTAPS development project has adopted a philosophy based on the use of a common
core computer system. This approach or methodology has been implemented so as to
provide mechanisms for the integration of mission-oriented software applications. Indeed,
the CTAPS core module is not designed to provide mission-oriented functions. Others
mission systems are created, tailored, and integrated into the core to provide mix
applications. In this respect, the CTAPS core module can continually adapt emerging
standards and technologies to meet evolving needs of all integrated applications.
The CTAPS core module is an open system, reusable software environment that has been
critical in the evolution towards a Department of Defense DoD-wide Theater Battle
Management Core Software (TBMCS). The TBMCS system is the future replacement for
the CTAPS applications and communication interfaces that allow ground commanders to
nominate, track, and verify targets in the Air Tasking Order. The CTAPS open module is an
open architecture that includes and provides the following fundamental components:
• Host, network, database, and security configuration software.
• A configurable support environment for functional user duty positions
incorporating discretionary access profiles, a top-level human-machine interface
(HMI), and communication utilities.
• US Message Text Format (USMTF) message parsing and preparation to be used
to send and receive messages.

iii. Joint Assistant for Development and Execution (JADE)

Based on novel techniques, the Joint Assistant for Development and Execution (JADE) [11] is
being developed to particularly suit increasing needs for rapid deployment planning in crisis
situations. This effort is conducted within the ARPA-Rome Planning Initiative to design and
produce a system that can be incorporated in the Global Command and Control System
(GCCS). Although the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) is currently
used in GCCS, military planners intend to move beyond JOPES-like tools to overcome
shortcomings associated with the speed at which Time Phased Force Deployment Data
TPFDDs are generated. JADE is thus being developed to respond to the need to use a system
that can provide required information in support of time sensitive planning. In this context,

9
state of the art technology is used to provide the ability to reduce the time required to build a
package commonly known as TPFDD.
Based on AI technology, JADE implements case-based and generative planning methods so as
to provide the ability to handle large-scale, complex plans. The system is designed to enable
rapid retrieval and reuse of previous plan elements. Using map-oriented drag and drop
interface, JADE is being designed to offer the opportunity to drag force modes used in
previous plans from the plan library so as to drop them into a geographic destination. In this
respect, JADE architecture (Fig. 2) integrates major software modules such as The Force
Module Analysis and Management Tool (ForMAT), “Prodigy”, and “PARKA”. The resulting
system is thus designed to enable a user to modify force compositions, describe force
capabilities, and tailor the evolving force deployment plan to changing mission requirements.
To build a deployment plan containing both forces modules and their attributes, JADE uses
mission guidance, task, and force information provided by the Adaptive Course of Action
(ACOA) tools.

Fig. 2: JADE Architecture [11]

iv. Dynamic Analysis and Re-planning Tool (DART)

The Dynamic Analysis and Re-planning Tool (DART) [12] is a user-interactive information
system that assists military planners in developing and analyzing war plans for deploying
large number of troops and equipment. Each deployment plan is indeed defined by a data
structure commonly called the Time Phased Force and Deployment Data (TPFDD) that
describes the movement requirements for troops and equipment.

10
In this respect, DART is part of a set of automated data processing tools and a database
management system designed to provide the ability to rapidly create, view and edit TPFDDs
and analyze the transportation feasibility of a plan. As a result, DART allows planners to
modify TPFDDs and to set up and run strategic transportation models in a period of minutes.
Consequently, using DART provides the ability to consider more alternatives and to produce,
in less time, a potentially feasible course of action.
The Integrated Feasibility Demonstration IFD-1 was launched in March 1990 as part of the
ARPA-Rome Planning Initiative to create DART, a system designed to support the U.S.
Transportation Command “USTRANSCOM”. Spurred by the needs of Operation Desert
Shield, the development phase was sped up in August 1990. After eight weeks of intense
effort conducted on site at USTRANSCOM in close proximity to military planners, a
sufficiently mature system was ready and moved to the U.S. European Command
“USEUCOM”.
Although the DART prototype showed satisfactory results at USEUCOM, it remained then a
fragile system. From January to July 1991 (Phase 2), a list of known problems in the
prototype was fixed, the user interface was improved and unified to enhance and harden the
system. October 1991 marked the start of the deployment phase (phase 4) of DART. The
system was thus fielded to 13 sites where it was used and evaluated by military planners on a
daily basis. In April 1992, phase 4 was initiated to transition DART into the World Wide
Military Command and Control (WWMCC) ADP Modernization system through the
Technology Insertion Project (TIP), which offered the opportunity to add numerous
enhancement to the system. Finally, in July 1992, DART was successfully completed and
transitioned to the Defense Information System Agency “DISA” as an operational system.

v. Anticipatory Planning Support System (APSS)

The Anticipatory Planning Support System (APSS) [13-16] has been developed by the
Department of Computer Science at Texas A&M University to provide a sophisticated
automated decision support system for the planning and execution of military operations. The
APSS prototype was built to mix planning and execution, and also to provide the capability
to anticipate events rather than reacting to them in a dynamic and uncertain battlefield
environment. In this respect, new techniques from several areas such as AI, planning,
inference mechanisms, evolutionary algorithms and software agents have been modified and
applied to tackle military planning in such a complex environment.
Indeed, while in the traditional planning process only one single COA is chosen for use
during execution this new approach allows the ability to develop and maintain as many
possible friendly actions against as many enemy actions as possible. In this context, the plan
is described, as shown in Figure 3, by a tree with nodes and branches representing,
respectively, actual or predicted states and transition between those states. Using inference
mechanisms for determining branches, the goal to reach is to develop as many reasonable
branches in the plan as possible in the initial planning process and dynamically modify and
update the plan during execution. Moreover, as the operation progresses invalid future
branches, according to the actual state, will be pruned and new ones will be developed and
predicted using simulations well before their execution state. In other words, the APSS
combines execution monitoring and planning by comparing anticipated states and the
planned states to predict deficiency and allow then replanning.

11
 Fig. 3: Plan Description [13].

As shown below, the overall architecture of the APSS prototype system (Fig. 4) includes the
following major components:
1. World View and World Integrator: Information on actual state of the operation is
monitored by the World Integrator, and passed to the World View module after it’s
processing.
2. Execution Monitors: Using forward simulation from the actual state, Execution
Monitors generate an anticipated state at the node of interest. In addition, the
Execution Monitor determines the significance of differences between the anticipated
state and the planned state at a particular node, and if replanning is necessary a
recommendation is then sent to the Planning Executive.
3. Planning Executive: Using the inputs from Execution Monitors, the Planning
Executive controls the overall operation of the APSS system. According to the
differences between the plan and the actual operation, the Planning Executive can
control the activities of Planners and Execution Monitors in anticipating future
branches to the plan.
4. Plan Description: Based on the inputs from Planners, Execution Monitors and
Planning Executive, the Plan Description is dynamically built to represent and
manage the plan tree. Possible alternatives of the operation progress can also be
shown. Using the Graphical User Interface (GUI), the plan can be manually modified
by a human planner.
5. Planners: Receiving a state (either planned, anticipated or actual) with a mission
objective from the Planning Executive, Planners develops representative new
branches and determine their viability measure as well. In this respect, a Branches
Generator using a genetic algorithm and inference mechanisms is invoked.

12
 Fig. 4: APSS Architecture [14-16].

vi. Time-Phased Force Deployment Data Editor (TPEDIT)

Developed by Ascent Technology [17] during Operation Desert Shield, the Time-Phased
Force Deployment Data Editor (TPEDIT) is a temporal constraint-based tool designed to
help military planners to plan troop deployment. In this respect, TPEDIT provides the
capability to enter, manipulate, and analyze force and movement requirements.
Operationally employed by U.S. Atlantic Command, TPEDIT provides the ability to
represent Time-Phased Force Deployment Data (TPFDD) graphically, using Gantt chart. It
also allows planners to modify their contents as well as provides the ability to build new ones
taking into account other successful scenarios stored in an ORACLE database.

vii. Collaborative Operational Planning System (COPlanS)

The Collaborative Operational Planning System (COPlanS) [18] is a workflow-based system
prototype developed at DRDC-Valcartier supporting the Canadian Force Operations
Planning Process. Mainly targeted to support the Operational Air Force, it can be applied to
more complex environment (e.g. joint operations). It mediates group decision-making in the
creation and selection of a common COA providing an integrated flexible suite of planning,
multi-criteria decision-aid and analysis tools. It is a mixed-initiative decision support
environment involving multiple users exploiting web-based tools as well as some capabilities
to integrate selected group decision-making commercial of the shelf technology software. It
also includes a variety of computerized tools and graphical user interfaces to facilitate
visualization and cognitive tasks (planning, simulation, information retrieval). Workload and
decisions in dynamic situations remain entirely devoted to humans though.

COPlanS provides the ability to plan an operation in a net-centric environment with

integrated collaborative tools. The system offers functions to design and manage multiple

13
concurrent distributed battle rhythms at different planning levels. It helps synchronize
workflows, document processes and replay the decision-making path. Planning tools allow
sketching COAs on maps, to perform time and space synchronization, to manage capabilities
and ORBAT, and to perform logistics analyses. The decision-aid tools rationalize the
process, improve the COAs evaluation and comparison, and rapidly produce documents to
support the Commander’s decisions.

COPlanS is based on distributed application architecture. It is Client-Server system

architecture with different Layers. It is developed using WEB-Technology concept. Different
Client configurations are engineered: Web, Light and Full clients. The data and meta-data
models used in COPlans are generated via Sylverun. Three databases are managed by
COPlanS: an Oracle 9i Database, an Application database and a Luciad GIS database. A data
business layer manages all the databases. COPlanS is then independent of dataset
management systems.
The system prototype has been tested during multiple international military exercises and is
currently subject to military trials.

4.2 Airlift Resource Allocation and Transportation Systems

Transportation is an important domain of military activities. It supports and makes possible
most other activities (logistics, deployment, air to air refueling, etc). Civil as well as military
transportation operations are one of today’s most important activities, not only measured by
the yardstick of their own share of a nation’s gross national product (GNP), but also by the
increasing influence that the transportation and distribution of goods have on the
performance of virtually all other sectors.

i. Joint Operations Planning and Execution System (JOPES)

The Joint Operations Planning and Execution System (JOPES) [19-25] has been designed to
support joint planning, execution and monitoring activities from the National Command
Authority’s (NCA)4 level throughout the Joint Planning and Execution Community (JPEC).
Indeed, this all levels, joint conventional command and control system is the principal system
within the US Department of Defense (DoD) that provides the ability to translate NCA’s
policy decisions into combatant commander’s joint operations. Developed to replace and
integrate the planning capabilities of deliberate Joint Operations Planning System (JOPS) and
crisis-action Joint Deployment System (JDS), JOPES is therefore a comprehensive and
integrated system of personal, policies, procedures, training and reporting structure supported
by automated systems and applications for planning and execution. In this respect, the Global
Command and Control System (GCCS)5 currently provides Automatic Data Processing
(ADP) support for the JOPES.

4
The NCA, which include the US President and the Secretary of Defense, sets the national policy and strategic
direction of the U.S. Armed Forces.
5
Developed to replace the World Wide Military Command and Control System (WWMCCS), the GCCS, is a
Command, Control, Communication, Computer, and Intelligence (C4I) system, is an integrated architecture of
telecommunications, software, and computer equipment.

14
Designed to support mobilization, deployment, employment, re-deployment and sustainment
associated with joint activities, the JOPES system is used for deliberate planning during
peacetime conditions to develop Operation Plans (OPLANs), Concept of Operation Plans
(CONPLANS) with or without Time-Phased Force Deployment Data (TPFDDs), and
Functional Plans. In crisis situation, JOPES is used for Crisis Action Planning to support a
time-sensitive development of Campaign Plans as well as Operations Orders (OPORDs) for
execution. The JOPES applications are grouped by functions as follows:
• Requirements: Requirements Development and Analysis (RDA) for TPFDDs edition
and analysis and COA transportation feasibility, Force Module Editor (FMEDIT), and
GCCS Status of Resources and Training System (GSORTS) for units status and
location.
• Transportation and Scheduling: Joint Flow and Analysis System for Transportation
(JFAST) feasibility of an OPLAN or COA, Scheduling and Movement (S&M), and
Transportation Component Command (TCC) External System Interface (ESI) links
JOPES and TCC scheduling systems.
• Sustainment Modeling: Joint Engineer Planning and Execution System (JEPES) for
civil engineering planning, Force Augmentation Planning and Execution System
(FAPES) for mobilization planning, Individual Manpower Requirements and
Availability System (IMRAS) for manpower and personnel planning, Logistics
Sustainment Analysis and Feasibility Estimator (LOGSAFE) for logistics planning,
and Medical Planning and Execution System (MEPES) for gross medical feasibility
and supportability assessments of OPLANs.
• Reports and Retrievals: Ad-Hoc Query (AHQ), Reports.
• System Resources: System Services (SS) for database management, Reference File
Administration (RFA) for reference table update and maintenance, and JOPES
Information Trace (JSIT) Commands.
• Communication: Internet News, Internet Chatter, and Secret Internet Protocol Router
Network (SIPRNET), Web (SWEB).
The JOPES allows US Military Departments and Commands to link with Joint War Planners
through the following automated systems:
6
• The Deliberate Crisis Action Planning and Execution System (DCAPES) is the new
interface between the Air Force planners and JOPES.
• The Computerized Movement Planning and Status System-Army (COMPASS-A), a
logistical system that supports deployments, re-deployments, mobilization planning,
and the execution of any military operation, provides accurate and timely strategic
transportation data to JOPES.
• The US Marine Corps (USMC) uses the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF II)
system between the USMC Family of automated information systems and JOPES.
• The Air Mobility Command (AMC) is linked to JOPES through the Consolidated Air
Mobility Planning System (CAMPS)7.

6
The Deliberate Crisis Action Planning and Execution System (DCAPES) replaced the Contingency Operations
and Mobility Planning and Execution System (COMPES) in March 2002.

15
 ii. System for Operations Crisis Action Planning (SOCAP)
The System for Operations Crisis Action Planning (SOCAP) [26-28] was developed by SRI
International to provide decision support for planning a COA in response to a crisis. In this
context, SOCAP was built to integrate mature AI planning systems so as to provide military
planners with advanced capabilities required to produce more flexible and accurate joint
military COAs.
As an overall system based on the integration of various independently developed AI
subsystems, SOCAP architecture, shown in Figure 5, incorporates advanced generative
planning, temporal case-based reasoning, scheduling techniques, and capacity analysis to
generate military operations plans. Through the integration of various mature AI based
subsystems, SOCAP was designed to provide the following capabilities:
• help planners select the correct operations to form a set of plans,
• maintain dependencies and check consistency among the operations in a plan,
• set up input for different feasibility estimators,
• support changes to the plan.

Fig. 5: SOCAP Architecture [27].

At the heart of SOCAP is SIPE-2 (System For Interactive planning and Execution), a
hierarchical, domain-independent, non-linear planning subsystem with powerful formalism
for representing domains and generating partially ordered plans. As a result, SIPE-2 provides
the core-reasoning engine for plan generation. The architecture and interactive abilities
specific to SIPE-2 offered the opportunity to integrate additional technologies into SOCAP as
way to satisfy the military domain requirements.
At the beginning, SOCAP was unable to reason about the utilization of resources or place
temporal constraints between actions in the plans. This shortcoming was associated to the
limited temporal reasoning capability of SIPE-2. In this respect, SOCAP’s ability to represent
and reason about time was extended through an additional layer placed on top of SIPE-2 so

7
The Consolidated Air Mobility Planning System (CAMPS) replaced the Air Mobility Command (AMC)
Deployment Analysis System (ADANS) in February 2002.

16
as to keep track of the temporal constraints within a plan. The added module is Tachyon, a
general-purpose constraint-based subsystem developed by GE’s R&D Center to provide
temporal reasoning.
On the other hand, a user of SOCAP had initially to rely on personnel preferences to select a
unit included in a list that meets the constraints of the operator. As a result, users expressed
the desire to be able to modify the units in the list. The need to select and tailor a force was
seen as a request that would be dealt with through the introduction of case-based reasoning
mechanisms. In this context, a case-based reasoning module called Case-based Force
Selection (CAFS) was incorporated to enhance the capabilities of SOCAP. CAFS was
indeed modified to handle SOCAP objects and operators. Instead of presenting a list of units
to the user, SIPE-2 was also modified to call CAFS module for major force selection.
To overcome SOCAP’s simplified model of resource management, a constraint-based
scheduler called Distributed Transportation Scheduling in OPIS (DITOPS) was thus
integrated to assess the feasibility of the partial plan, taking into account the transportation-
resource capacity requirements.
As shown in Figure 6, the input to the system includes a description of the mission, threat
assessments, terrain analysis, apportioned forces, transport capabilities, planning goals, key
assumptions, and operational constraints. Based on this data, SOCAP is set to generate and
address plans with known military employment and deployment actions. Then the system
generates a plan representation that can be displayed or excerpted in different ways to suit
different purposes: a network and map display, time-phased actions for transportation
analysis, or natural language.

Fig. 6: SOCAP Functional Representation [12]

17
 iii. Airlift (or AMC) Deployment Analysis System (ADANS)
The Airlift (or AMC) Deployment Analysis System (ADANS) [29] is designed to provide
the Air Mobility Command8 (AMC) with an integrated automated airlift and air refueling
planning, scheduling and analysis system to support peacetime, crisis, contingency and
wartime operations. Developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) this system is
currently maintained by Logicon Inc. as a part of the effort to merge its functionality and
capabilities with those of the Combined Mating and Ranging Planning System (CMARPS) to
create the Combined (Consolidated) Air Mobility Planning System (CAMPS).
One of the major goals of this system is to integrate the existing slower scheduling systems
into a faster single system that would have a common user interface and a centralized
database. In this respect, the first component of ADANS was operational in early 1990,
which allowed this system to replace the Advanced Mission Planning System (AMPS). Later,
it was successfully used to plan and schedule airlift missions for Operations Desert Shields
and Desert Storm, for refugee relief, and for disaster response.
Integrated into the Global Command and Control System (GCCS), ADANS provides the
mission planner with a set of decision support tools for matching movement requirements
with airlift resources in order to create a schedule for an airlift operation. In other words,
ADANS provides the ability to:
• Enter and evaluate cargo and passenger movement requests such as the use of
commercial or military aircraft.
• Allocate airlift resources, including aircraft availability and characteristics, crews,
airfield resources, and airlift network configuration.
• Create schedules for routine channel missions (regular routes to deliver mail, food,
etc.), Quick response missions (movement of critical items on extremely short
notice), civilian aircraft missions, and Time-phased airlift flow missions (movement
of multiple military units from one or more on-load airfields to one or more off-load
airfields).
• Analyze schedules using tools that allow mission planners to quickly and easily
evaluate any individual mission details. In addition to textual displays, movement
requirement deliveries, resources commitments, and aircraft activities can further be
analyzed using graphical displays such as the rainbow chart.
• Distribute the schedule to AMC’s worldwide command and control systems in order
to follow and manage each aircraft throughout its mission.

iv. Consolidated Air Mobility Planning System (CAMPS)

Logicon Inc, a Northrop Grumman Corporation company, and other companies and research
establishments such as BBN Technologies, Kestrel Institute and Carnegie Mellon University
developed CAMPS [30-34]. It is designed to support the rapid deployment of the Air
Mobility Command (AMC). Responsible for scheduling, executing, and monitoring airlift

8
The Air Mobility Command (AMC) is the successor of the Military Airlift Command (MAC) which was a
major command of the US Air Force and a component of the US Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM).

18
operations to carry out the global deployment of U. S. forces, AMC uses CAMPS for
planning and scheduling airlift missions. In this context, the CAMPS mission planner (MP)
provides the ability to rapidly build AMC’s portion of the Time Phased Force Deployment
Data (TPFDD) that supports the projection of combat forces required to enable the command
to deploy combat-ready forces.
Indeed, the CAMPS-MP is designed to work against an organization-wide database to
provide unified planning and control of AMC operations. Integrated into the Global
Command and Control System (GCCS), the CAMPS-MP provides the mission planner with
an integrated view for planning and scheduling AMC air mobility resources to support
peacetime, contingency, humanitarian, and wartime operations.
The CAMPS-MP provides advanced user capabilities for operational planning and allocation
management. In this respect, it has a graphical user interface for specifying input parameters
and a variety of views of the schedules produced, including maps, tables and charts. Based
on a set of requirements, the task faced by a user of the CAMPS-MP is to specify a set of
suitable aircraft resources, ports to be made available for refuelling (or locations for aerial
refueling), should that be necessary, and to ensure that the schedule produced moves all of
the requirements by their due dates.

v. Contingency Operations/Mobility Planning and Execution System (COMPES)

The Contingency Operations/Mobility Planning and Execution System (COMPES)
represents the US Air Force (USAF) planning system used to support the Joint Operations
Planning and Execution System (JOPES) [21-24]. Interfacing with JOPES, COMPES
provides USAF planners access to near real time logistics, manpower and personnel data,
including the entire Air Force – Active, Guard, and Reserve. While JOPES provides the
Time-Phased Force Deployment Data (TPFDD), COMPES translates and tailors the
operations plan for Air Force tasking. In this respect, COMPES supports deliberate planning
by translating joint tasking into detailed unit tasking and then defines and task manpower and
equipment required.
Indeed, COMPES is used to support planning functions not only within the Global Command
and Control System (GCCS) operating environment/architecture at Headquarters United
States Air Force (HQ USAF), Major Command (MAJCOM), and Numbered Air Force
(NAF) but also at the base/unit. Within the GCCS operating environment/architecture,
COMPES operates at the secret level to allow, as mentioned above, the USAF to support
service and joint deliberate/crisis action planning and execution operations. At base/unit
level, COMPES operates in the unclassified and classified modes to allow planners to receive
deployment-planning tasks that support service and joint operations. As a result, it is used to
provide tools required to support deployment operations by assisting with preparation of
personnel orders, cargo manifests/documentation, and tracking capabilities.
The COMPES system includes the following modules:
• Operational Tasking and Priorities (OT&P), and
• Logistics (LOGMOD).
OT&P is designed to coordinate the information flow between JOPES, Manpower and
Personnel MANPER, and LOGMOD during the Operations Plan (OPLAN) tailoring process.

19
On the other hand, LOGMOD is a computer program designed to manage the database
containing logistics equipment and supplies for Air Force Unit Type Codes (UTCs).

vi. Knowledge-based Adaptive Resource Management Agent (KARMA)

The Knowledge-based Adaptive Resource Management Agent (KARMA) [35] is a
prototype-automated mission planning system developed at Defence Research and
Development Canada at Valcartier. KARMA is indeed conceived to overcome or alleviate
concerns associated with a number of tactical mission planning tools operating in highly
dynamic and uncertain environments. Substantial development efforts focussed on
implementing advanced planning and scheduling technology concepts to automate the
sequence generation process while appropriately and reliably responding in a timely fashion
to a dynamic and unpredictable environment. Besides the ability to combine plan
construction and execution, KARMA provides other features that allow plan repair to support
continuous updating of a current plan in light of complex and changing operating conditions.
Motivated by the need to address requirements associated with real-time tactical mission
planning subjected to various constraints in complex and uncertain environments, KARMA
is designed to provide an open tool framework based on the blackboard paradigm. As a
practical approach, a parallel agent-based blackboard-style architecture is indeed
implemented to allow handling of complex tasks, multiple interactions among concurrently
executing agents, communicating agents with heterogeneous sources of information, and
resource-bounded reasoning issues.
As shown below, the overall architecture of the KARMA prototype system (Fig. 7) includes,
among other features, the following components:
1. The Blackboard Data Storage. Based on an object-oriented database management
scheme, the Blackboard Data Storage represents the common working memory used to
support information flow and transactions.
2. Knowledge Sources. KARMA is a parallel blackboard-based adaptive intelligent system
used to accomplish specialized tasks through an expertise embodied within knowledge
sources executed concurrently. The execution of a knowledge source corresponds to the
activation of the action part aimed at changing the state of the blackboard.
3. Control Unit. Embedded as a separate control thread, the control unit acts as a
mediating component between competing knowledge sources to support the serial
execution of various actions, namely, knowledge source triggering, goal management,
agenda management, knowledge source scheduling and execution.
The blackboard control cycle involves a triggering process, goal management, agenda
management, scheduling phase, and interpreting mechanism. Once a new generated
knowledge source instantiation (KSI) is stored on the agenda into a triggered state, the
agenda checks the obviation conditions for all KSIs, except those already deactivated.

20
 Domain BB vs Ctrl BB
Control BB: Domain BB:
Control Plan Domain Objects (World state)
Perf. libraries (anytime) Environment Model
Goals, Utility functions
Agenda ( KSi states: obv, trig, Action plan, etc.
executable, sched, exec)
GOAL STRUCTURE Messages I/O
Events(domain/ctrl)

Knowledge Basic Control Unit

sources Agenda Mgr Scheduler

activate/deactivate
Domain KS
KSIs
Goal Manager Interpreter Exec Thread
KSIs
Exec Thread
Control KS
KSIs
Trigger
Exec Thread

Time Services/ Synchronization

Communication Mgr

Interface

Dynamic Environment

Fig. 7: KARMA Architecture [35].

vii. Decision Scheduling System (DSS)

Optimal resource management has been recognized as a critical issue to be addressed by the
Canadian Air Force military community. In 1998, a joint venture involving university,
private industry and DND was created to address simultaneous aircraft and crew scheduling
(resource management) within the context of air operations management. The Decision
Scheduling System (DSS) [36] for Simultaneous Aircraft and Crew Scheduling is a project
for which the Defence R&D Canada at Valcartier is involved.
Research focused on the development of an open-loop decision support system using
innovative and promising algorithms and decomposition methods from Operations Research.
A mathematical programming methodology, based upon multi-commodity non-linear
network static model using column generation as a problem-solving technique, was used to
solve the Line Tasking problem tackled in DSS. The line-tasking problem consists in

21
selecting airlift requests and constructing strategic airlift missions to be achieved over a
specific time horizon, generating a periodic (monthly, yearly) airlift programme. More details
on the line tasking problem description and its formulation (problem modeling) may be
found Rancourt and Savard [36].
The DSS prototype includes six components, namely, the user manager, the input manager,
the mission manager, the scenario manager, the optimizer and the output manager. Figure 8
shows these components and their relationships in the functional model. These components
are briefly described next.
The user manager defines the user (planner) profile establishing privileges and preferences
managing interactions with databases and connections to local and remote systems. The input
manager support user interactions in specifying input information to be further submitted to
the optimization component. The mission manager supports user definition of airlift requests
(sequence of legs, time windows, travel time, etc.) and related constraints as well as explicit
missions to be imposed by the user if needed.

C entral D B
S cenario

1. S cenario U ser

0. U ser
Input M issions O p tim izer O u tp u t
M anager

2. Input 3. M issions 4. O ptim izer 5. O utput

U ser
: C o m ponent (F un ction) : D ata flow
: D ata storage
: D ata creation

Fig. 8: DSS functional model [36]

The scenario manager provides the basic tools to piece together scenario elements and then
organize or file the resulting scenarios created by the user on external data storage. Through a
user-system dialog capability, the optimizer manager provides the user with the commands to
activate and control the optimization engine for a specific scenario while monitoring its
working status. The output manager provides the user with capabilities to visualize the
computed solution based on different perspectives and formats.

22
4.3 Flight Planning Systems or Route Planning

i. In-Flight Planner (IFP)

The In-Flight Planner (IFP) [37] is a real-time, computer-aided mission replanning system
designed to greatly increase flight safety and hence the survivability and effectiveness of an
aircraft through continued reduction of exposure to threat. It is also designed to reduce pilot
workload associated with the complex and time-consuming task of replanning a mission
whilst operating the aircraft and weapon system.
The availability of an on-board replanning capability is critical as new events can
significantly change the course of a mission and force the pilot to replan the mission based on
the latest information. Initially, data output from ground-based mission planning systems
such as the Air Force Mission Support System (AFMSS) or the Navy’s Theater Automated
Mission Planning System (TAMPS) is transferred to an aircraft platform through a Data
Transfer Unit (DTU). As the system is initialized and the aircraft is airborne, the IFP can then
monitor various parameters associated with the environment, aircraft conditions, and pilot
commands.
Given the uncertainty of the threat environment, it is however unlikely that the mission plan
would be executed as generated by the ground-based planning system. Indeed, significant
events related to new threats, navigation errors, and pilot commands can occur and
consequently affect the initial plan. The response would be either to abort the initial mission
plan or accept a higher level of risk. In this context, the IFP is designed to provide the ability
to generate a new plan through a series of must-fly steer points, provided by the DTU or pilot
via the Pilot Vehicle Interface (PVI). When a new plan is proposed, the pilot is allowed to
accept or reject it.
Unlike the ground-based planning environment, the cockpit of a single-seat fighter cannot
obviously accommodate a large screen display and input devices. As a result, the IFP can
only operate with an appropriate screen display and reduced pilot input.
The Real-Time IFP system integrates different software packages. The most important
modules or subsystems include the terrain database, threat line-of-sight maps, a map data
reduction technique, an auto-router, a SAR planner, and a system executive designed to
control the entire system. The most fundamental element of the IFP is the line-of-sight map
generated in order to position an identified threat and allows the route planner to avoid it.
The line-of-sight maps generated are then merged into a single composite line-of-sight map
“CLOSM” so as to depict the required altitude of the aircraft before entering the line of sight
of an identified threat. The CLOSM can be very large and overwhelming. As a result, the IFP
uses a data reduction technique called quadtree compression in order to achieve real-time
performance. Unlike the image compression designed to reduce storage space, the data
reduction technique is a method of segmenting the route planning space into quickly usable
form. On the other hand, the route planner includes two important components:
• The route planning graph or network representing nodes and links.
• The route planning algorithm is designed to execute on the information associated to
the nodes and links.

23
The Real-Time IFP system has been evaluated and shown to be effective in reducing
dramatically the pilot’s workload related to replanning a mission. In doing so, the system
demonstrated its ability to greatly increase the survivability of the aircraft.

ii. Mission Support System -Computer Aided Mission Planning at Air Base Level
(MSS/CAMPAL)
The Mission Support System/Computer Aided Mission Planning at Air Base Level
(CAMPAL) [38], also known as MSS/C, is an automated tactical mission planning system
designed to support the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) flight operations. As a
computer-based system, MSS/C provides the ability to perform route planning for each
supported aircraft (up to four) as well as to give the opportunity to aircraft pilots to
familiarize with the battle theater.
Using electronic maps including intel overlays, MSS/C gives air mission planners the
capability to perform planning for the following missions: (i) offensive missions to/and from
the destination area, (ii) manoeuvring (e.g. attack and combat air patrol), and (iii) ferry
missions (the route from home to the destination base). The System also provides to execute
calculation for level flights, climbs and descents. Additional features and functions of MSS/C
lies in the possibility to perform in-flight refuelling; aircraft performance package (aircraft’s
capabilities and fuel requirements); and finally, generating the flight plan and Combat
Mission Folder in either peace, war or tension times. Data output from the planning system
(coordinates, fuel information, flight plan and overview map) is then transferred to the
aircraft via the Data Transfer Cartridge (DTC).
Using external command and control systems and/or database resident in MSS/C, the system
can retrieve data information for the actual scenario. This information is divided in three
main types: geographical and weather data, friendly, and enemy (intelligence data on enemy
defense systems) assets including aircraft and weapon system parameters. In the end, MSS/C
has been improved in order to be faster and to run on state-of-the art Commercial Off the
Shelf (COTS) hardware. The succeeding system has been named MSS/Pandora.

iii. Portable Flight Planning System (N-PFPS)

The Naval (or Navy) – Portable Flight Planning System, or Software, (N-PFPS) [39] is a
basic Navy-Marine Corps flight planning system. As an automated computer-based system,
N-PFPS provides the ability to perform route planning (time, distance fuel and aircraft
performance) taking in account the aircraft's configuration (weight, drag, speed, etc.) as well
as the environmental factors (altitude, wind, pressure, humidity, etc.).
Although N-PFPS does not support weapons, it provides however the capability to rapidly
generate plans from starting point to end point, end point to starting point or portions of a
route and allows to load aircraft navigation data such as the Global Positioning System
(GPS), the Digital Aeronautics Flight Information File (DAFIF), etc. In addition, flight data
can be transferred to aircraft computers by using Data Transfer Device (DTD). This data is
then used to initialize the database operated by the on-board aircraft computers.
Based on a modular architecture, N-PFPS includes software modules called Flight Planning
Modules (FPMs) allowing the mission planner to prepare missions that are exactly tailored to
each supported aircraft. Moreover, without changing the whole system, N-PFPS offers the

24
opportunity to develop new flight planning modules in order to include and support new
aircraft. Finally, N-PFPS functionality has been ultimately replaced by The Joint Mission
Planning System (JMPS) during the Year 2002.

iv. Tactical Automated Mission Planning System (TAMPS)

The Tactical Automated Mission Planning System (TAMPS) [40-42] is a US Navy-US
Marine Corps unit-level aircraft mission planning system. As a computer-based support
system, TAMPS is designed to provide the ability to load aircraft software with route-of-
flight data files including waypoints and sequential steering files, air-to-air radar presets,
navigation aid channels and identification files. In addition, TAMPS offers the opportunity
to load independent overlays for aircraft software and bulk files for missile software. As a
result, it enables the use of a variety of weapons while decreasing weapon system pre-flight
preparation time.
In this respect, TAMPS is a mission support system that can rapidly process large quantities
of digitized terrain, threat and environmental data, aircraft and weapon system parameters,
and imagery. Data output from the system can be transferred to aircraft platforms using Data
Storage Units (DSUs), Memory Units (MUs), Mission Data Loaders (MDLs), and Tactical
Tape Cartridges (TTCs).
Based on a modular architecture supporting common planning requirements of various
weapon systems, TAMPS includes core modules that allow the integration of independently
developed Mission Planning Modules (MPMs) and Mission Planning Functions (MPFs). In
other words, the TAMPS architecture offers the opportunity to add and update specific
modules without the need to modify the whole system or change the core module.

v. SAIC Mission Planning System (SAIC//MPS)

The SAIC Mission Planning System (SAIC//MPS) [43] provides the ability to conduct air
mission planning, analysis, replanning, and rehearsal. As a tactical planning system designed
for the air force, navy, marine, as well as the army, the SAIC//MPS is designed to give air
mission planners more effective and automated capabilities in developing mission plans for
fighters, bombers, transport aircraft and helicopters.
Using digital maps, imagery and elevation data, the system provides the ability to perform
route planning (time, distance fuel and aircraft performance) and calculate other key flight
parameters regarding weapons configurations, threat analysis, and weapons load effects on
weight and balance. In addition, flight performance of each supported aircraft (up to 32 in
each mission) can be changed for cruise, climbs, and descents. Another feature provided by
the SAIC//MPS lies in the ability to perform optional route segments such as refuelling or
orbiting. On the other hand, a user is finally allowed to assess the feasibility of a planned
route through mission pre-fly over 3D terrain. In the end, data output from the planning
system is then transferred to aircraft using data transfer cartridges.
Used in Command and Control, the SAIC//MPS is a portable system that can be integrated
with the SAIC Air Combat Evaluation System, a companion product for post-flight analysis.
It is also designed to incorporate RADSIM, a SAIC’s precision radar simulation capability,
so as to provide a total and effective mission planning package. Using C++ object oriented

25
Libraries, the SAIC//MPS system can indeed be configured on either a PC (desktop or
laptop) or a UNIX workstation, depending on customers’ needs.

vi. CINNA
The CINNA [44] provides the ability to conduct air mission planning from tasking to
debriefing. As a tactical ground-based planning system designed for the French9 air force,
this system is designed to give air mission planners and aircrews more effective and
automated capabilities in developing route planning, stand off weapon mission preparation,
target analysis, data base management and mission rehearsal.
In this respect, CINNA 4 can rapidly process large quantities of the following data type:
Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED), Satellite Photography (Photo), Intelligence Data
(Intel), Operational Data (Ops), and Radar Imagery (Radar). Therefore, the system provides
the ability not only to compute in real time fuel flow, heading, distance, etc. but also to
calculate other key flight parameters such as weapons delivery.
In the end, using variable speed simulation as well as dynamic events, a user is allowed to
assess the feasibility of a planned route through mission pre-fly over 3D (bird’s-eye) terrain
and 2D simulation/deconfliction.

vii. Air Force Mission Support System (AFMSS)

The Air Force Mission Support System (AFMSS) [45-48] comprises the following
subsystems:
• Portable Flight Planning Software (PFPS) (PC-based),
• Family of Mission Planning System (MPS) (UNIX-based)
The Portable Flight Planning Software (PFPS), a PC system of AFMSS, was first designed
independently of AFMSS by Air Force (AF) personnel and is currently government-owned
and developed with annual revisions by the 46th Test Squadron Mission Planning Flight
(TS/OGET).
The two systems, PFPS and AFMSS, can exchange flight plans (routes) and point libraries.
By using tools, PFPS is capable of supporting all missions (such as simple day-to-day
training proficiency flights, peacetime operational/exercise sorties, or conventional or nuclear
conflict) and all aircraft. PFPS also provides supporting planning for air-to-air, air-to-ground,
air refuelling, electronic combat, reconnaissance, special operations, conventional gravity
weapon releases from high, mid or low altitudes using a wide variety of release procedures,
to airlift and rescue missions.
The major system components are:
• Combat Flight Planning Software (CFPS)
• Falcon View (a government-owned mapping package)
• Combat Weapon Delivery Software (CWDS)
• Combat Airdrop Planning Software (CAPS)
• Cartridge Loader (selected aircraft)

9
Developed by Matra Systèmes & Information (a subsidiary of EADS, European Aeronautic Defence and
Space Company).

26
The software is available for download from the 46th TS/OGET web page. Currently used by
all US Air Force (USAF) aircraft except the B-2, it is also being fielded by the Navy and the
United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM).

4.4 Other Specific Military Planning Systems

i. The Rochester Interactive Planner System (TRIPS)
The Department of Computer Science at the University of Rochester in the United States has
developed The Rochester Interactive Planner System (TRIPS) [49-50]. This system
integrates speech recognition, natural language understanding, discourse processing,
planning and plan recognition and other features. It is designed to provide the human user
with an interactive, intelligent problem-solving assistant in a transportation/logistics domain.
TRIPS represents an integrated AI system based on previous experience gained in developing
the TRAINS system. However, TRIPS functions in a more complicated logistics domain
compared to TRAINS, a simple route-planning domain. In addition, TRIPS supports the
construction of much more complex plans than TRAINS could produce or understand, and
embodies a more complex model of collaborative problem solving.
The TRIPS system can be regarded as an assistant to a human manager where the two can
collaborate to construct plans in crisis situations. As shown in the figure 9, TRIPS includes
various modules that communicate by exchanging messages through a central message-
passing Input Manager. Indeed, TRIPS is based on an infrastructure designed to allow any
program that can read standard input and write standard output to exchange messages.

Fig. 9: TRIPS Architecture [49].

27
 ii. Deliberate Crisis Action Planning and Execution Segment (DCAPES)
The Deliberate Crisis Action Planning and Execution Segment (DCAPES) [51] is an
application of the Global Command and Control System (GCCS) designed to achieve the
Chairman’s, Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) goal: develop a Time-Phased Force and
Deployment Data (TPFDD) within 72 hours. Operating in a classified, shared data
environment on the SECRET Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET), the DCAPES
system is used to link Air Force Planners with Joint War Planners through the GCCS Joint
Operations Planning and Execution System (JOPES).
Developed (or being developed) by the Air Force to replace the Contingency Operations and
Mobility Planning and Execution System “COMPES”, the DCAPES system provides data
and data manipulation capability to Air Force planners and commanders to:
• perform rapid Operations Plan (OPLAN) development, and
• conduct feasibility and capability analyses
The objective behind the DCAPES system lies in the need to integrate the Air Force “stand-
alone” war planning systems into a single, logical database, so as to bring the Air Force one
step closer towards supporting the Integrated Command and Control System “IC2S” vision.
Designed to support deployment, re-deployment, sustainment, mobilization, and
reconstitution, the DCAPES operating as a single system eliminates duplication of efforts
and re-work and improves the response time while enhancing the overall data integrity and
accuracy.
Indeed, DCAPES supports all levels of command, across the operational continuum using
modern integrated tools, shared infrastructure, and common data consistent with the Air
Force C2 Vision. While supporting collaborative planning, DCAPES offers the ability to
track individuals and equipment from home station through deployment. Designed to be
standard compliant, DCAPES is capable of coexisting with other established data systems.

iii. Joint Maritime Crisis Action Planning (JMCAP)

The Joint Maritime Crisis Action Planning (JMCAP) [52] System is still under development
as a combined effort of the U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center
(SPAWAR), formerly Naval Research and Development (NraD). Sponsored by the Office of
Naval Research (ONR), the JMCAP prototype was built as part of a project designed to
ensure a transfer of the technology and applications developed by SRI International and other
supported research institutions into operational navy systems. The idea behind this project
was to conduct user-centered, participatory design of end-to-end systems, supported by both
commercial technologies and advanced research prototypes that were already shown to be
feasible for military planning and execution problems.
Based on available information, the present description can only briefly report the applied
research undertaken within the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) that
led to the development of systems and concepts called Extending the Littoral Battle space
(ELB). Indeed, these systems and concepts were considered at the time as likely to provide
the basis for a JMCAP prototype. The problem addressed by this research was to provide the
ability to semi-automatically generate crisis response options, in the presence of multiple,
competing objectives and constraints, within a distributed computing environment that
includes multiple agents collaboratively solving the overall planning problem.

28
In this respect, the efforts undertaken within this project were focused on the development of
a technology for distributed, collaborative, continuous planning in a maritime campaign
domain. The problem addressed consists in developing advanced knowledge-based
technologies required to provide the ability to generate crisis response options, in the
presence of multiple, competing objectives and constraints. The whole planning process is
indeed designed to be conducted within a distributed computing environment that includes
multiple agents collaboratively solving the overall planning problem.
Based on these requirements, the technical challenges associated with the JMCAP project lie
in the need to:
• identify a common plan representation that allows distributed plan authoring, plan
generation, and execution monitoring components to share knowledge about the
evolving plan,
• develop techniques for distributing the planning problem, managing the distributed
planning and plan de-confliction process, and merging the resulting component plan,
• develop and apply a hybrid approach to plan generation that integrates AI generative
planning and case-based reasoning methods, and
• provide support for re-planning as a result of conflicts that may arise during planning,
or execution failures.

iv. Joint Strategic Planning System (JSPS)

The Joint Strategic Planning System (JSPS) [53] represents the primary formal means by
which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), in consultation with the other
members of the Joint Staff and Unified Commanders in Chiefs (CINCs), carries out
planning and policy responsibilities detailed in Title 10, US Code. Through the JSPS
system, the CJCS can, as the primary military advisor to the National Command Authorities
(NCA), provide:
• assistance to the US President and Secretary of Defense on matters regarding the
strategic direction of the Armed Forces,
• military strategy and strategic plans and assessments in support of strategic national
objectives,
• advice to the Secretary of Defense on US Forces capability deficiencies and
strengths in conducting national security objectives,
• recommendations on defense programs and budget proposals.
In addition, the JSPS system can also provide the ability to monitor strategic environment so
as to identify changes in conditions or trends that may justify changes in the strategic
direction of US Armed Forces. The Joint Strategic Planning System is designed to help the
CJCS to prepare and review strategic and contingency plans and advice both the US
President and Secretary of Defense on programs and budgets. The JSPS is also used to assist
the CJCS in his task of providing advice to the President and Secretary of Defense on matters
related to provision of net assessment on the capabilities of the US Armed Forces. Integrated
into JOPES, the Joint Strategic Planning System indeed provides extended flexibility in
interacting with other Department of Defense DoD systems such as the Planning,
Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS).

29
 v. Open Planning Architecture (O-Plan)
The Open Planning Architecture (O-Plan) resulted from a project conducted at the Artificial
Intelligence Applications Institute (AIAI) [54] of the University of Edinburgh around
computer based generative planning. The O-Plan project grew out of a research work into AI
planning conducted in the late 70s and 80s. O-Plan inherited features from NOAH, NonLin,
Deviser, Molgen, and OPM. Its architecture or framework was designed and built to
incorporate all these borrowed features into a single system.
O-Plan1 represents the initial project conducted in order to build a knowledge-based system
capable of generating plans. The idea behind stemmed also from the need to develop a
system to experiment with and integrate novel ideas and concepts. Indeed, the system was
tailored to suit particular applications. In this respect, time and resources constraints were
handled to restrict search and still work within an activity based plan representation.
Launched in 1989, O-Plan2 was designed to offer a generic domain independent
computational architecture suitable for command, planning and execution applications. The
O-Plan2 research provided the opportunity to gain a complete vision of a modular and
flexible planning and control system incorporating artificial intelligence methods.
In O-Plan2, the task assignment process consists in enabling a user to specify a task, which
can be performed through some suitable interface. On the other hand, the execution system
seeks to carry out the detailed tasks specified by the planner while working with a more
detailed model of the execution environment. Indeed, the system is designed to operate both
as a planner and a simple execution agent.
The O-Plan2 agent oriented architecture (Fig. 10) consists of the following components:
• Domain Information – this component contains the information required to
describe an application and the tasks to the agent,
• Plan State – the identified tasks associated with the emerging plan to carry out,
• Knowledge Sources – the processing capabilities of the agent,
• Support Modules - functions designed to support the processing capabilities of the
agent and its components,
• Controller – controls the order in which processing is done.

Similarly to SIPE-2, O-Plan technology has been used to support various military projects
undertaken within the ARPA-Rome Planning Initiative. The approach was designed to
incorporate O-Plan as a subsystem to assist military users in generating plans and reviewing
qualitatively different solutions. O-Plan can be used to perform concurrently different task
assignment, planning and execution monitoring. Indeed, multiple users can interface to this
planning system and each other via Open Planning Process Panels that are configurable
interfaces through any World Wide Web browser.

30
 Fig. 10: O-Plan2 Architecture [54].

vi. Joint Standoff Weapon - Mission Planning Module (JSOW-MPM)

The prototype Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) Mission Planning Module (MPM) [55] was
developed under a contract with the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) to improve
JSOW mission planning by using real-time Meteorological and Oceanographic (METOC)
data. In this context, the developer has collaborated with JSOW mission planners and
METOC personnel in order to provide the mission planner with a tactical display and a tool
for environmental data management.
This planning module provides the ability to edit the missile's route (route information) and
modify preferences. Moreover, using Metplan (the Meteorological and Oceanographic data
management server), JSOW MPM allows the capability to edit data management preferences
as well as view METOC products. Finally, the mapping functionality of Falcon View is used
to provide the user with up-to-date charts, drawing routes and objects.

5. Conclusion
A number of mission planning and scheduling systems addressing specific military needs has
been surveyed. The review covered various issues associated with mission planning function,
methods, tools and procedures used to plan and schedule complex military operations.

31
Emerging techniques involved in the design of advanced mission planning systems were also
examined. The Canadian military planning process describing the doctrinal elements driving
the development of planning systems was first presented. Key paradigms and technologies
characterizing such mission planning systems were then depicted. Finally, taxonomy was
proposed to classify the most important joint and air operation planning systems.
Despite a wide variety of systems and prototypes currently available and relevant to military
operations, new challenges emerge in the progressive evolution or trend toward the network
centric operations era. This dictates requirements to achieve adaptive planning on a continual
basis, interleaving plan construction and execution in distributed environments. In addition to
plan generation and execution monitoring tasks, distributed continual planning includes
critical issues associated with shared plan representation, adaptive coordination, and
interoperability. Developing, selecting, and incorporating suitable technological innovations
to provide integrated and interoperable systems and tools can enhance military capability to
accomplish multi-level operational planning and execution.

6. References

1. National Defence (2000), Canadian Forces Operations, B-GG-005-004/AF-000

2. National Defence (2002), CF Operational Planning process, Edition2, Ratification
Draft, B-GJ-005-500/FP-000, October 2002.
3. Perla, P. (1990), The Art of Wargaming, Annapolis, MD, Naval Institute press.
4. US-Army (1997), FM 1010-5, Staff Organization and Operations, Washington, DC.
5. Zweben, M. and Fox, M. (1994), Intelligent Planning, pp. 3-28, San Francisco,
California.
6. Yang, Q. (1998), Intelligent Planning: A Decomposition and Abstraction Based
Approach, Springer Verlag.
7. Wilkins, D., Myers, K. and Lowrance, J. (1995), Planning and Reacting in Uncertain
and Dynamic Environments.
8. Schlabach, J.L., Hayes, C.C. and Goldberg, D.E. (1998), FOX-GA: A Genetic
Algorithm for Generating and Analyzing Battlefield Courses of Action, Evolutionary
Computation, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 45-68.
9. Maybury, M.T., Distributed, Collaborative, Knowledge Based Air Campaign
Planning, NATO/AGARD Lecture Series 200 on Knowledge-Based Functions in
Aerospace Mission Systems, November 6-17, 1995.
10. Britten, S.M., Reach back Operations For Air Campaign Planning And Execution, Air
War College Air University, April 1997.
11. Mulvehill, A.M. and Caroli, J.A., (Online). JADE: A Tool for Rapid Crisis Action
Planning. www.dodccrp.org/1999CCRTS/pdf_files/track_6/041carol.pdf (15 Jan.
2002).
12. Bienkowski, M.A., Demonstrating the Operational Feasibility of New Technologies,
IEEE, 1995.
13. Hill, J.M.D., Surdu, J.R. and Pooch, U.W., Implementation of the Anticipatory
Planning Support System, Advanced Simulation Technologies Conference
(ASTC2001): Military, Government and Aerospace Simulation Symposium, Seattle,
Washington, April 22-26, 2001, pp. 76-81.

32
14. Hill, J.M.D., Surdu, J.R., and Pooch, U.W., Anticipatory Planning Using Execution
Monitoring and a Constrained Planning Frontier, Applied Simulation and Modeling
2000, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 24-26 July 2000.
15. Surdu, J.R., Hill, J.M.D., Ragsdale, D.J., and Schafer, J.H., Anticipatory Planning to
Support Information Operations, ” Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Workshop on
Information Assurance and Security United States Military Academy, West Point,
NY, 6-7 June, 2000.
16. Hill, J.M.D., Surdu, J.R., and Pooch, U.W., A Methodology to Support Anticipatory
Planning, Advanced Simulation Technologies Conference: Military, Government, and
Aerospace Simulation, Washington, DC, April 17-20 2000.
17. Description of TPFDD Editor by Ascent Technology.
18. Guitouni A.., COPlanS: A Collaborative Operational Planning System, Technical
report- DRDC-Valcartier, 2004, to appear.
19. A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement, July 1994. The White
House (ISBN 0-16-045153-1).
20. Maybury, M.T., (1995) Distributed, Collaborative, Knowledge Based Air Campaign
Planning, NATO/AGARD Lecture Series 200 on Knowledge Based Functions in
Aerospace Mission Systems, November 6-17 1995.
21. JOPES Volume 1, Planning Policies and Procedures, CJCSM 3122.01, 14 July 2000.
22. JOPES Volume 2, Planning Formats and Guidance, CJCSM 3122.03, 1 June 1996.
23. JOPES User’s Guide for JOPES, 1 May 1995.
24. Doctrine for Planning Joint Operations, JP 5-0, (Online) www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-
bin/atdl.dll/jt/5-0/5-0toc.htm (11 March 2002).
25. GCCS/JOPES Environment, Lesson 1, (Online)
www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/jopes/jfm_1.htm (11 April 2002).
26. SOCAP: System for Operations Crisis Action Planning, (Online) AI Center, SRI
International, www.erg.sri.com/projects/socap (9 January 2002).
27. Bienkowski, M.A., and desJardins, M.E., and Desimone, R.V., (1994) SOCAP:
System for Operations Crisis Action Planning, ARPA/Rome Laboratory Planning
Initiative Workshop.
28. Bienkowski, M.A., and desJardins, M.E., (1994) Planning-based Integrated Decision
Support Systems, Second International Conference on AI Planning Systems.
29. Hilliard, M.R., Solanki, R.S., Liu, C., Busch, I.K., Harrison G., and Kraemer, R.D.,
Scheduling the Operation Desert Storm Airlift: an Advanced Automated Scheduling
Support System, Interface 22, January-February 1992.
30. Burstein, M.H., Ferguson, G., and Allen, J., Integrating Agent-Based Mixed-Initiative
Control with an Existing Multi-Agent Planning System, IEEE, 2000.
31. Emerson, T., and Burstein, M.H., Development of a Constraint-Based Airlift
Scheduler by Program Synthesis from Formal Specifications.
32. Smith, S., CAMPS Mission Planning and Barrel Scheduling, TIE 97-4, 10 October
1998.
33. Consolidated Air Mobility Planning System (CAMPS), Command and Control
Applications, Compendium of Systems, Command and Control Systems School, US
Marine Corps, 1999, www.fas.org/irp/program/99compv10.htm#CAMPS (11 Feb.
2002).

33
34. Global Command and Control System, Consolidated Air Mobility Planning System
(CAMPS), http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/gccsiop/interfaces/camps.htm (11 Feb. 2002).
35. Berger, J., Lamontagne, L., and Bélanger, M., (1997) Toward an Adaptive Intelligent
System for Tactical Mission Planning, C2 Symposium.
36. Rancourt, E. and Savard G. "Decision Support Systems for Simultaneous Aircraft and
Crew Scheduling, The Line Tasking Problem at Air Mobility Forces", Technical
Report, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Montreal, January 2001.
37. Leavitt, C.A., Real-Time In-Flight Planning, IEEE, 1996.
38. The mission support system MSS/CAMPAL (Online) National Aerospace
Laboratory NLR www.nlr.nl/public/facilities/pandora/ (03 Jan. 2002).
39. Naval Mission Planning System (Online), www.avtechtra.navy.mil/pdf/navmps-
d.PDF (03 Jan. 2002).
40. Tactical Automated Mission Planning System (Online),
www.avtechtra.navy.mil/pdf/Tamps-1.pdf (21 Jan. 2002).
41. Tactical Automated Mission Planning System (Online),
www.dote.osd.mil/reports/FY00/navy/00tamps.html (03 Jan. 2002).
42. Tactical Automated Mission Planning System (Online), www.fas.org/man/dod-
101/sys/ship/weaps/tamps.htm (03 Jan. 2002).
43. SAIC//Mission Planning System, (Online),
www.saic.com/products/aviation/saicmps/SAICMPS.pdf (03 Jan. 2002).
44. CINNA 4, (Online), Matra Systèmes & Information, http://www.matra-
msi.com/ang/air_prepa_cinna4_d.htm (16 Jan. 2002).
45. Kriegel E. K. and DeRosa J. K., (1991) Technology and Standards for a Common Air
Mission Planner, AGARD Conference Proceeding 504, Air Vehicle Mission Control
and Management.
46. Air Force Mission Support System, BAE Systems, (Online)
www.iews.na.baesystems.com/mission_mgmt/afmss.htm (04 Jan. 2002).
47. Mission Planning Software, (Online) http://tisf.hill.af.mil/missionplanning.htm (18
Jan. 2002).
48. Air Force Mission Support System, (Online)
www.fas.org/irp/program/core/afmss.htm (04 Jan. 2002).
49. Ferguson, G. and Allen, J.F., (1998) TRIPS: An Integrated Intelligent Problem-
Solving Assistant, American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
50. Burstein, M.H., Ferguson, G., and Allen, J., Integrating Agent-Based Mixed-Initiative
Control with an Existing Multi-Agent Planning System, IEEE, 2000.
51. Valle, C.R., (2000) Toward a Single, Integrated Planning & Execution System-
Deployment Planning in the Expeditionary Aerospace Force, Research Report
AU/ACSC/178/2000-04, Air Command and Staff College, Air University.
52. DesJardins, M., Joint Maritime Crisis Action Planning, (Online)
www.erg.sri.com/people/marie/papers/jmcap-summary.html (10 Jan. 2002).
53. Barthelmess, B., Joint Strategic Planning System (JSPS) and Planning, Programming,
and Budgeting System (PPBS), Course Description, May 2001.
54. Austin Tate, O-Plan-Open Planning Architecture, (Online) www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~oplan
(08 Jan. 2002).
55. Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) Mission Planning Module (MPM). (Online)
www.wagner.com/technologies/missionplanning/metplan/index.htm (10 Jan. 2002).

34