Military Messages that don't have symbology

[joebayles]

A Change Proposal should be created that adds messages with geospatial information to the MIL-STD and creates standard symbology for them. Examples are:

• MEDICAL EVACUATION REQUEST (MEDEVAC)
• SPOT REPORT (SPOTREP)
• CALL FOR FIRE (FM.CFF)
• UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE REPORT (UXO)

References

• FM 6-99 US Army Report and Message Formats (New)
• FM 101-5-2 US Army Report and Message Formats (Old)
• DA PAM 25-7 Joint User Handbook for Message Text Formats (2000 Baseline)

FYI @ottenw @mepler @wmcgrane @Dbarnes1

[ottenw]

On the surface this makes perfect sense. As we have found many times though, the symbol set a system or group of like systems implement can be different, so mandating the pairing of a formatted message with specific MIL-STD-2525/APP-6 symbol quickly becomes a dead end. For example, systems that exchange data via MIL-STD-6016 (Link 16) most often use a cockpit symbology standard, while those whose feet are usually in contact with the ground exchange data via xml schemas, MIL-STD-6017 VMF and to a small extent, MIL-STD-6040 USMTF (the message abbreviations in the ( ) in your post indicate those are USMTF). Within the Army we have system of systems requirements that covers the expected symbol to be displayed upon receive and parsing of a message. We have a symbology implementation guidance document (USAS) that is a build to test to document for a common set of MIL-STD-2525 symbols; all of your examples are included. That's about all I can say in this forum; I can talk about how we exchange which messages at the tactical level and what symbols are displayed, but that gets into Distribution Statement "C" standards which we cannot get into on GitHub. I'd be happy to explain it to you at the Fall SSMC meeting.

[ottenw]

For •MEDICAL EVACUATION REQUEST (MEDEVAC):

[joebayles]

@ottenw thanks for the explanation. I would like to continue the discussion, but bottom line is that I see the need for a restricted companion document to either 2525 for additional messages or 6016/6017/6040 for symbology, and that should probably be under the auspices of the SSMC/SSMMCB/JSP/etc.

[ottenw]

@joebayles 6016 and 6017 are under the Joint Multi Tactical Data Link Configuration Control Board (JMTCCB). 6016 has a ratified companion document, STANAG 5516; 6017 has an unratified STANAG 5519 companion document. 6040 is under the USMTF CCB. There is a NATO MTF as well; the two are identical in some messages but one of the two is lagging behind in others. Our SSMC Joint Staff representative is an MTF SME. I don't see the JMTCCB as an organization receptive to adding any 2525 documentation. That's a topic best discussed in person. The SSMC is going to create an implementation guide; that could be the place to document what you described. We would need help from the SSMC membership in determining if message titles from Distribution Statement "C" documents could be in an approved for public release symbology implementation guide. Alternatively, the symbology implementation guide could be Distribution Statement "C". There are many ways to do this, we just need to discuss then gain concurrence from the group.

[joebayles]

MEDICAL EVACUATION REQUEST (MEDEVAC)

• Use MEDEVAC entity in Event Frame
• [ ] Draft CP to include black medical cross into Activities/Events Symbol Set

SPOT REPORT (SPOTREP)

• Use graphic for reported unit with appropriate credibility, reliability, or identity

CALL FOR FIRE (FM.CFF)

• Use Field Artillery Observer entity in Event Frame
• [ ] Draft CP to include Field Artillery Observer into Activities/Events Symbol Set

UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE REPORT (UXO)

[mepler]

The correct image for Field Artillery Observer is

[ottenw]

Military symbology should support military doctrine. We have a symbol for a medical evacuation request and we have symbols for calls for fire - symbols for point targets, linear targets and area targets. A Field Artillery Observer is one of many originators of a CFF. What is being discussed is not acceptable and would put MIL-STD-2525x out of sync with doctrine. As Nancy Regan said, "Just Say No".

[joebayles]

This was my argument, but the US Army representative suggested the above.

To be clear, I believe a Medical Evacuation Pickup Point does not always equal a Medical Evacuation Request. While it could be the same, an MEP by doctrine is a templated location where we would bring casualties, where as a MEDEVAC Request is the real-time location where the request is made (Line 1 in the 9-Line).

Agreed on CFF.

Issue with both of these is how do we show the difference between an emergent request and an already templated location? Even if it's just implementation guidance to highlight a regular point/linear/area target to show that it's a new/emergent request, this is important.

[ottenw]

Doctrine has evolved. Army does not use "9 line" for much of anything; that's pretty much a CAS term. In our approved mission threads / test threads, we use mostly VMF not USMTF; USMTF usage is very limited to specific functions, usually with Joint systems. The MEDEVAC Request message in VMF has been updated and is now the MEDEVAC Request and Response message. BLUF: The receiver of the MEDIVAC Request can respond and direct a different pick up point. That's about all I can say on this forum; we can talk more about this verbally or via email. Similar issue with CFF; we have US and NATO doctrine behind what we display, approved mission threads and approved test threads.

[PhDWarren]

@ottenw Hi, ottenw! I now need 6017 to do a research project, but I can't get this agreement. So could you help me get this agreement? If you can, I hope you can send this agreement to my mailbox xiashichao65@outlook.com. Best regard! Very thanks!

[ottenw]

@PhDWarren 6017 is a limited distribution document; I do not have the authority to release copies.