Army Model and Simulation Office TEMO Perspective on

Army Model and Simulation Office TEMO Perspective on XMSF 6 September 2002 MAJ David Laflam Training Exercises and Military Operations AO Army Model and Simulation Office David. laflam@hqda. army. mil www. amso. army. mil

Why Simulation is Army Mission Critical Good News Army Readiness Training M&S Acquisition (Analysis, Development, T&E, etc. ) Military Operations (COAA, MR, etc) Personnel M&S • Hundreds of examples of successful M&S applications exist • Range expansion via DBST • Application to T&E • Joint Virtual Battlespace • RDEC Federation • etc. Challenges M&S • State of the Art being pushed • Lack ‘best practices’ • Technology immature • Modeling emerging military needs immature • Practices/policy immature • OJT trained workforce • M&S Cost too much, too hard to use too hard to understand results • Duplication still an issue AMSO Strategic Goal Institutionalize modeling and simulation within the Army by making M&S so effective and efficient it becomes the primary tool of choice – no matter what the job or mission

MULTI-ENVIRONMENT TODAY TOMORROW Corps/EAC Div • Increased Capabilities • Higher Resolution • Lower Overhead Div CONSTRUCTIVE Bde Bn/TF LIVE Co/Btry/Trp Platoon VIRTUAL Co/Btry/Trp Platoon Crew/Sqd Individual VIRTUAL Higher Quality Crew/Sqd Individual LIVE INSTITUTION DISTANCE LEARNING INSTITUTION LIVE TRAINING REMAINS THE CORNERSTONE ENHANCED BY VIRTUAL & CONSTRUCTIVE • Increased Capabilities • Embedded in Tactical Systems • Combined Arms Application

FUTURE ARMY TRAINING (LINKING LIVE-VIRTUAL-CONSTRUCTIVE) I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y CONSTRUCTI VE VIRTUAL BSCs M-CTCs Institution Training Support CATT/CCTT Infrastruct ure DL LIVE FIRE / FORCE on

Why Simulation is Army Mission Critical © Sony Pictures 8 Km 5 B 2 5 4 A 5 C 2 5 A 1 5 1 C 4 A 5 4 A 8 4 B 5 4 D 4 C 5 5 4 3 C 4 3 A 4 A 1 3 A 3 4 C 2 3 C 4 3 1 B 1 C 8 1 8 2 4 B 2 2 8 4 3 B 2 3 3 C 0 B 0 3 A 0 9 3 9 2 9 1 1 0 9 5 A 5 B 1 A 1 1 8 1 9 1 2 B 1 B 1 3 B 6 A 4 B 1 A 2 9 0 50 Km 3 A 4 A 7 6 8 9 3 4 D 1 B 7 5 8 3 3 4 B 3 4 A 3 A 2 1 A 7 4 3 C 6 3 A 1 73 B 3 B 6 3 5 C 3 A 5 3 C 3 7 A 3 4 C 4 3 6 A 3 B 3 7 2 6 6 8 0 4 2 A 3 B 5 6 4 12 Km 7 0 B 7 1 B 6 5 4 C 1 4 B 1 3 D 5 6 2 5 B 3 4 C 8 4 B 4 4 4 A 7 A 1 6 3 4 8 B 4 B 3 4 D 1 5 A 3 7 0 A 6 1 5 3 C 5 B 1 WW II 1 A 3 8 8 1 B 3 1 A 5 1 4 A 1 B 4 1 A 6 1 5 B B 1 B 6 1 7 Ft. Hood 65 Km The Evolving Brigade Battlefield Desert Storm

Fielded DBST Simulation at NTC Field TOC Simulation Bldg 988 & Bldg 130 Simulati on MSE, LAN TSIU Janus 7. 06 dj Maneuver FIRESIM XXI Fires EADSIM VISION XXI (Sim AAR) (ABCS Interface) Packet Radios D B S T PIU (AFATDS Interface) Tactical Locations & NTC DTOC CSCSS TOC SERVER CGS Commander’s Display in TOC AMDWS 2 - Wire AFATDS DAUVS ASAS LAN MCS SIMCON VRSG UAV Packet Radios DIS Xlator C 4 I AAR NTC Instrumentation System TCSS (UAV) FBCB 2/ EBC TOC LAN

ARMY TRAINING STRATEGY Self-Development Time Management CURRENT FORCE MODERNIZED FORCE [Both AC & RC] • LEADER • INDIVIDUAL • COLLECTIVE UNIT INSTITUTION [Both AC & RC] • Lethal Small Units • Competent, Adaptive Soldiers & Leaders • Battle Staffs that Synchronize Training Support Infrastructure 2000 Today’s Army 2010 Objective Force Enclosure

Training Support System Integration x DL Battle Sim Center Constructive BN CPX using WARSIM , One. SAF x INSTITUTION Virtual Training Facility Virtual CO Traininglinked to CCTT with FBCB 2 , One. SAF - Live Training with MILES 2000, One. TESS, CTIA, FTI/HITS, One. SAF OPFOR & LIVE FIRE Self Development Dirt CTCs Next Generation Army Targetry Systems

SYNTHETIC TRAINING ENVIRONMENT VISION 01 02 03 04 05 07 06 10 CMTC-IS NTC-IS JRTC-IS CMTC LF/OIS NTC OIS CTIA Product Line CTIA R&D DMPRC-OIS HITS MOUT OIS One. TESSS SAWE/MILES II / AGES VIRTUAL VLET AVCATT-A CCTT SE Core CATT WARSIM / WIM CSSTSS Janus ~>Spectrum ~>BBS ~>DBST Mod. SAF & CCTT SAF JRTC OIS LIVE MILES 2000 & TWGSS / PGS One. TESS R&D CBS / TACSIM 08 OBJECTIVE CATT INTEGRATED SYNTHETIC TRAINING ENVIRONMENT (STE) & EMBEDDED TRAINING CONSTRUCTIVE One. SAF As of: 5 Feb 01

“Walk-Level” Focus GATE REAL COMBAT MORE REALISTIC R E A L I S M Combat Training Centers Live Fire Exercises Force on Force w / MILES Lane Training w/ MILES 2000 FTX w / OPFOR GATE CFX STX FCX CPX / Simulations TEWT PGS/TWGS NETWORKED VIRTUAL TRAINING CCTT SYSTEMS AVCATT- A RUN VLET UCOFT Company SIMEX Janus AGTS Sand Table Ex SAND TABLE Map Exercises MAP Duckwalk LESS REALISTIC WALK CRAWL WHITE BOARD MINIMUM RESOURCES / EASY RESOURCING MAXIMUM RESOURCES / DIFFICULT Virtual training systems support commanders’ requirements for “walk -level” training.

UNIT TRAINING -TRAINING TOOLS Right Mix! TRAINING EVENT ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY FOCUS: Develop lethal small units and confident, competent and adaptive leaders Combat Crawl Walk CBT Support Run Crawl Walk Run CBT Service SPT Crawl Walk Run V/L V/C/L L L C/L L Plt V/L V*/L V/C/L L Co/Btry /Trp FOCUS: Develop leaders & battle staffs that can synchronize Combined Arms Operations Crew/ Squad V/L V*/L V/C/L C/L L L V/C/L C Bde C V/C/L C C C Div C C C Corps/ C C C Bn/TF ARFOR/JTF COSCOM V/C/L LEGEND: L - Live; V - Virtual; C - Constructive Training Environment * Only select Weapon Systems i. e. , Apache Longbow Soldier, Leader, Unit, & Battle Staff Team Building Environments

UNIT TRAINING -TIME MANAGEMENT Right Frequency! FOCUS: Develop lethal small units and confident, competent and adaptive leaders TRAINING EVENT ANNUAL FREQUENCY MODEL Combat Crawl Walk CBT Support Run CBT Service SPT Crawl Walk Run W M Q Plt W M Q Co/Btry /Trp FOCUS: Develop leaders & battle staffs that can synchronize Combined Arms Operations Crew/ Squad W M Q Bn/TF W M S Bde W M S Div W M S COSCOM W M Corps/ ARFOR/JTF W M S S LEGEND: W - WEEKLY; M - MONTHLY; Q - QUARTERLY; S - SEMI-ANNUALLY Top-Down, Senior Leader Driven & Enforced!

TEMO Perspective on XMSF This end state scenario supports the following TEMO Use Cases: Use Case 01. Battle Staff Training for Digital Units. Use Case 04. Joint Contingency Force (JCF) Army Warfighting Experiment (AWE). Use Case 05. Battle Staff Training for Digital and Analog Mix Units Use Case 06. Staff Team Sustainment Training/Low Overhead Driver. Use Case 07. Simulation-Based Maneuver Training. Use Case 08. Battle Command Battle Staff Training (BCBST). Use Case 09. Tactical Commander’s Development Program (TCDP). Use Case 10. Battle Staff Training for Reserve Component Units. Use Case 15. Fixed Tactical Internet (FTI). Use Case 17. Contingency Operation-Mission Rehearsal. Use Case 18. CSS Support of a Brigade in a Tactical Operation. Use Case 19. CSS Support of Strategic Deployment. Use Case 20. CSS Command Staff Training. Use Case 21. CSS Medical Unit Training.

Defense Daily September 5, 2002 Pg. 5 Shinseki: Army Needs Better Simulations By Neil Baumgardner The Army needs better simulations and advanced collaborative environments (ACE) to shorten the timeline for the acquisition of new weapon systems like the service's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program and training for soldiers in the future, according to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki. "We need better simulated dirt if going to continue, and to expand, the training of division and corps commanders and staff in simulations, " Shinseki yesterday told an audience attending the Association of the United States Army's acquisition symposium in Falls Church, Va. "We need to advance these concepts. Better simulated dirt, more realistic simulations for developing emerging systems, and advanced collaborative environments to leverage the potential of both. " Shinseki pointed to several past examples of successful simulation projects that could be a basis for future work, including work on the Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle being built by Canada's General Motors Defense [GM] and General Dynamics [GD], the Central Technical Support Facility (CTSF) at Ft. Hood, Texas, for training members of the digitized 4 th Infantry Division (Mechanized), the Tank-automotive and Armament Command's Cave Automated Virtual Environment (CAVE), and Command Battle Simulations (CBX). "On some smaller scale, we have already demonstrated that we know something about collaborative environments, " he said. " Stryker, CTSF, the CAVE, CBX, all suggest that we need an advanced collaborative environment that allows us routinely, from disparate stations and on demand, to stand in the same models and dialogue about what we can agree on before spend time, money and energy bending metal to produce something. " Shinseki said moving to simulations and ACE's would enable the Army to move away for its traditional deliberative acquisition process, which includes the development of an operational requirements document, the release of a request for proposals, and a source-selection. "We have set an ambitious timeline for Future Combat System and the Objective Force, but our legacy processes will not serve us well, " he said. "We can no longer take concepts to final form, present them for acceptance, then go back to work out the kinks. That takes time, energy and money. Our historic acquisition processes were deliberate and sequential, and expansive. Over the years we have invested significant dollars in redesigning, rescoping, reprogramming, and yes, even sometimes canceling programs we they didn't pan out. " Instead, better simulations and ACEs would enable the Army and industry to avoid such potholes, Shinseki said. "Among the members of industry working on the same project, there would be real-time sharing of information, " he said. "So the system grows from concept to product, and each element of that product is designed, developed, and engineered collaboratively. No false starts, no more long walks back to the drawing board, with accompanying delays. We are ultimately talking about developing the assembly line for the future. " Shinseki also said that better simulations would be critical for training in the future. "The Army is fully committed to training simulation as a way of life, " he said. "As a way of training large-scale units, echelons of command, divisions and corps, to get our work done. Divisions and corps no longer go to the field as divisions and corps to do FTX (field training exercise)-like or REFORGER (Return of Forces to Germany) exercises. Battalions are still certified in the dirt, but higher echelons of command now certify their mission-essential tasks in simulated dirt called CBX--Corps Battle Simulations. " Simulations with the same level of fidelity as those being used for weapon system development will also be needed for training , Shinseki said. "We've come a long way, but we're still looking for more realistic virtual dirt, " he said. "We need simulations that serve warfighters with the same degree of potential and realism that the CAVE lends to combat system development. "

Focus Area Collaborative Teams (FACT) Designed as Army-wide focus groups used to research, identify and coordinate simulation technology projects in specific Army Transformation high-payoff areas. They emphasize the cross-domain collaborative teaming arrangements in developing an enterprise approach for model improvement in high payoff Army M&S areas with an emphasis from operational communities (6. 2/6. 3). • FAC Team products should be: • Domain Vision • Analysis of current state of the art • Technology gap analysis; recommended set of technology initiative areas (to include a set of peer reviewed high priority/high payoff research proposals) • How the Army should utilize FACTs: • Before any R&D project covered by a FACTis approved, it should be peer reviewed by the appropriate(s) FACT. The FACT should not be in the business of passing need value judgment, it should be in the business of identifying technology gaps and helping the Army to ensure proposed work is valid, relevant, coordinated with related work and is not duplicative in nature. • FAC Teams must be cross domain, made up of area experts and above all unbiased • AMSO maintains concept, charter approval, etc. • Current FACTs are: • Environmental Data Bases (moving to GOSC!) • Military Operations in Urban Terrain (Lead: TRAC-M) • Space (Lead: SMDC) • Logistics (Lead: CASCOM) • C 4 I to Simulation Interoperability (Lead: AMSO) • Mobility (Lead: CAA)

Creating a Technology and Professional M&S Environment Focus Area Collaborative Teams (FACTs) -- Designed as Army-wide focus groups used to research, identify and coordinate simulation technology projects in specific Army Transformation high-payoff areas. FACTs emphasize the cross-domain collaborative teaming arrangements in developing an enterprise approach for model improvement in high payoff Army M&S areas with an emphasis from operational communities (6. 2/6. 3). Current FACTs are: • Environmental Data Bases • Military Operations in Urban Terrain • Space • Logistics • C 4 I to Simulation Interoperability Planning Guidance Grand Challenges FAC Teams Specific Identified Needs Army M&S R&D Investment Strategy Prioritized Investments

M&S: Open and Reusable Architecture RDEC FEDERATION Joint Virtual Battlespace (JVB) Aggregate Force-on-Force Geographically Distributed C 3 Grid Reasoning/Decisions Driving Firing Situation Awareness JOINT & Coalition TERM Fusion, Assessment, Reporting, Planning Paladin. TACOM FSCS Raptor ATACMS Apache Comanche THAAD LOSAT AMCOM MLRS Arrow Javelin Patriot Longbow Hellfire TOW Collaborative Development & Integration Environment CCTT Sensor One. SAF SEADS STRICOM TRADE FLOT Terrain and Features Services WARSIM ITTS DIFM PGMM Quicklook AMBL Observable MMBL CSSBL Fort Polk Bradley Abrams Crusader SMDBL Entity Level Fort Hood DSABL BCBL-G BCBL-H ABCS SIRFC ACS CGS FLIR MFS 3 WIN-T NGPM JTRS LRAS 3 TI CECOMTIM CM CP XXI FBCB 2 PTN SMART-T CID LRF TUAV APLA MILSTAR DBBL Land Warrior SEP BCBL-L JSMG SBCCO MOUT SBCCOM JSAWM CSEP CFP Environment Services Integrate Best Of what Is Available for the Analysis, Build Only What is Absolutely Necessary VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION WITHIN AND ACROSS FUNCTIONAL AREAS

Questions How do you explore the future, by going there and experiencing it today or by consulting fortune tellers, tarot cards and crystal balls?