Baseline Assessment of Modeling and Simulation (M&S)

Baseline Assessment of Modeling and Simulation (M&S)

by Hiroshi IKAWA
Member of Research Committee, DRC

Introduction

The simulations have been of long-standing means on military educations, trainings and exercises. Japanese Imperial Navy carried out wargaming system (called “ZUEN”) introduced by Lieutenant Commander Saneyuki Akiyama (rater Vice Admiral), which he learned at U.S. Naval War College when he resided in United States. It was widely known that large scale operational level ZUEN was held prior to the Battle of Midway. Japanese Army also had the operational level wargaming system (called “SABAN”), using sand to simulate terrain.

Japan Self Defense Force, newly born after the World War Two, are not only succeeding to these systems but also having used the newly introduced simulators to educate and train operations of equipments. Flight simulators, which train a pilot on land without danger of a downfall, are typical example. On board warship, simulated Anti-Submarine Operation, providing the simulated data to the real equipment of gyrocompass, log and dead reckoning equipment, was conducted to train ships handling and process of Anti-Submarine Operation’s team. Digital computers, innovatively developed recent years, increase the quality of representations to be more realistic.

The role of armed forces in the advanced nations has been shifted from obtaining victory with fight to deterring the war without commencing the conflicts. Whereas, the armed forces to be tasked deterrence as the primary role must be strong enough to be able to get decisive victory, if they fight. It is difficult to possess such strength continually as the possibility of the occurrence of real war getting smaller. The Modeling and Simulation (M&S) to be used in armed forces as the tool of education, training and exercise is getting more and more important. Then, the range of the M&S is covering over education, training and military operations, analyses, research and development, test and evaluation, and production and logistics.

In the United States, the innovation to make the M&S more effective is progressed vividly. NATO, to be behind the United States, initiated the innovation also. In Japan, setting up of the innovation of the M&S uses in the Japan Defense Agency and Self Defense Forces are not seen yet. In this article, I will investigate the M&S situations of that date of U.S. DoD and NATO depending upon each M&S Master Plan, respectively. Then consider about the M&S organizations to be established foe Japan Defense Agency.

1. Baseline Assessment of the U.S. DoD M&S Based upon the “DoD M&S Master Plan”

The United States Department of Defense issued the “DoD Modeling and Simulation Master Plan” on October 1995. (1) Chapter three of the Master Plan is Baseline Assessment of DoD M&S. The outline of the assessment is as follows.

(1) Architectures, Standards, and Protocols
a. Simulation Architecture to Enhance Interoperability and Reuse
　　Interoperability and reuse are limited because the Department of Defense lacks a common technical framework for simulation architecture.
b. Interfacing Simulations with Real-World Systems
　　The current generation of simulations is designed with unique computer workstations as the primary means for the user to interface with the simulation. This presents an unrealistic training environment to the warfighter and requires special trained personnel to operate the workstations and to interact with the training audience. Interfacing simulations with real-world systems is necessary to enhance training capabilities and facilitate the use of M&S to support real-time operational decisionmaking.
c. Security
　　The throughput limit of current encryption devices limits the scale of simulation exercises, and current effort to address the needs of Multi-level security and multiple communities are inadequate.
d. Data Administration
　　A standard set of data administration policy and procedures needs to be developed for the N&S community to address such subjects as complex data; the verification, validation, and certification (VV&A) of data; authoritative data sources; and data security.
(2) Representation of the Environment, System, and Human Behavior
a. Representation of the Environment
　　Further progress in the representation of the environment across the Department of Defense is impeded by the lack of:①a clear articulation of M&S community requirements for environmental data,②a coherent management structure,③an assured and stable quality development process on which program managers can depend.
b. Representation of Systems
　　Although the M&S community is exploring the development of authoritative models for representing military and non-military systems and units as a means of enhancing interoperability and reuse, a substantial long-term investment will be needed to achieve a fully populated set of systems representation.
c. Representation of Human Behavior
　　The representation of humans in models and simulations is extremely limited, particularly in the representation of opposing forces and their doctrine and tactics.
(3) Fielding of M&S and Associated Infrastructure
a. Fielding of Systems
　　The fielding of M&S systems has been designed to meet only the needs of the developing component. Components developing M&S capabilities must design the systems to be field M&S systems in adequate number s to meet DoD-wide end user needs.
b. VV&A/VV&C
　　There are several issues that must be resolved before VV&A can be regard as a well-defined, routine process. Which include ①the procedures for verification and validation (V&V) of new models, or models used for the new mission areas, need to be defined,②efforts are needed to develop tools to support VV&A process,③procedures for accreditation need to be matured.
c. Resource Repositories
　　The Department of Defense does not have a robust, integrated system for sharing and maintaining models, simulations, data, metadata, algorism, and tools.
d. Communications
　　A reliable communications infrastructure with capacity adequate to support M&S does not exist.
e. Exercise Management
　　To facilitate the increased use of distributed M&S capabilities the Department of Defense mist provide improved management of M&S assets and to access to expertise in the planning and conduct of distributed M&S exercises.
(4) Outreach Activities
　　The M&S community must demonstrate to potential users that the capabilities and benefits that M&S provide are more than commensurate with the investment required.
　　Based upon baseline assessment, following six DoD-wide objectives were derived.
Objective 1: Provide a common technical framework for M&S.
Objective 2: Provide timely and authoritative representations of the natural environment.
Objective 3: Provide authoritative representations of systems.
Objective 4: Provide authoritative representations of human behavior.
Objective 5: Provide M&S infrastructure to meet developer and end-user.
Objective 6: Share the benefit of M&S.

2. Current Assessment of NATO M&S Based upon the “NATO M&S Master Plan”

The aim of the United States “DoD Modeling and Simulation Master Plan” is to establish a common high-level architecture (HLA) to facilitate the interoperability of all types of simulations among themselves and with C4I systems, as well as to facilitate the reuse of M&S components. It is natural to consider that HLA should be spread out to the NATO alliance as they cooperate together. The “NATO M&S master plan” was written under the leadership of the United States and approved by the NATO Atlantic Council (NAC) in the fall 1998. (2) Chapter three of the Master Plan is Current Assessment of M&S within NATO and its nations as of 1997. The outline of the assessment is as follows.

(1) Extent of NATO M&S
a. M&S Activities
　　Because NATO does not have a single focal point to co-ordinate M&S activities, many opportunities to foster reuse, co-operative development, technology advances, interoperation and cost-saving are lost.
b. M&S Applications Used
　　Current NATO M&S capabilities that support training, exercise, defence planning and the conduct of real-world operations do not adequately address the full range of military requirements in an integrated manner. Summery of inadequate issues are as follows;
①The potential benefits of M&S are neither uniformly nor fully exploited.
②NATO commands make significant use of M&S for planning, training, exercise and analysis. However subordinate units and staffs are not effectively using M&S.
③Training simulations that operate at the NATO strategic and operational level have limited or no capability to support automated post-exercise analyses.
④Constructive simulations cannot represent the decision process of the operational commander employing that force.
⑤The current NATO M&S inventory requires time-consuming preparation efforts, particularly in applications at the strategic or operational level, for scenario-specific database preparation and the training of personnel in their use.
⑥The majority of M&S applications available to NATO do not use common support tools, databases nor control methods.
⑦Simulators generally can only represent the capabilities of a single weapon system and not the interactions of that system with other friendly forces.
⑧The use of training simulations at NATO schools is relatively limited.
c. Interoperability and Reuse
　　Most simulations in use in NATO and the nations are not interoperable. Reuse is constrained across NATO because of limited available information. Most nations do not have an effective means to promote rouse of their M&S resources by NATO.
d. Impact Assessment
　　The Alliance has conducted only limited assessments of the impact of M&S.
(2) Management and Co-ordination
a. Policies
　　NATO does not have a common M&S policy.
b. Structure
　　An integrated management structure does not exist to co-ordinate NATO M&S activities.
c. Exchange of Information
　　The exchange of M&S lessens-learned across NATO is limited.
d. M&S Education
　　Effective use of models and simulations requires knowledge of their capabilities and limitations, but a widespread educational effort has generally not occurred.
(3) Quality of Representation
a. Representations of the Natural Environment
①The impact of the natural environment on systems performance and human behavior is not generally represented.②Data sources have not been identified for most classes of data and often contain insufficient detail.
③Current databases are simulation implementation-specific. The ability to support real-world operations with just-in-time database generation capabilities is limited, takes too long and costs too much.
④No data exchange specification has been established to support the full range of natural environmentattributes.
b. Representations of Man-Made System
　　No broadly accepted standards for describing military systems exist. Representations of civilian infrastructure are generally poor or unavailable.
c. Representation of Human Behavior
　　Generally, human behavior, both individually and in-group, is not realistically represented in M&S, particularly above the company level.
d. Verification, Validation and Accreditation (VV&A)
　　NATO does not have common VV&A policies, standard methodologies, processes, techniques, or documentation procedures.
(4) Knowledge and Use of Technology
　　NATO organizations and member nations have an uneven knowledge of emerging M&S-related technology.
(5) Extent/Use of Standards
　　Common simulation architecture has yet to be adopted by NATO. And NATO has few standards for exchanging data and database.
(6) Interface to Live Systems
　　NATO does not yet have a common strategy to support the recognized but nor yet well defined need for linkage to live systems.
(7) Communication Networks
　　NATO’s varied communication networks may not be robust enough to support the throughput required for a large number of distributed simulations.
(8) Security
　　Differing national regulations tend to restrict the free flow of information and data. The availability and use of standard encryption devices are limited.
　　Based upon current assessment, following five objectives were derived.

Objective 1: Establish a common technical framework to foster interoperability and reuse

Objective 2: Provide common services to increase cost-effectiveness in NATO M&S activities

Objective 3: Develop simulations

Objective 4: Employ simulations to enhance NATO mission

Objective 5: Incorporate technological advances

3. The Difference between U.S. DoD Baseline Assessment and NATO Current Assessment

There are many differences between assessments of the U.S. DoD and the NATO. Among them, I will focus upon NATO’s assessment describing that “NATO does not have a single focal point to co-ordinate M&S activities”. This is indicating the importance of the organization to lead the M&S policy.

(1) The State of the M&S organization in U.S. DoD (3)

A 1988 Defense Science Board Task Force on Computer application to Training and Wargaming observed that most constructive simulations used by the Services for training were not interoperable and recommended that steps be taken to redress this shortfall. This was the starting point of the innovation of U.S. (3) DoD’s M&S. In 1991, the Deputy Secretary of Defense assigned overall management responsibility of all DoD M&S to the USD(A), now the USD for Acquisition and Technology. To assist the USD(A) in managing DoD M&S, the USD(A) established the DoD Executive Council for Modeling and Simulation (EXCIMS) and granted it oversight and management authority, and also established a Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO).
　　　In March 1992, EXCIMS brought to the DoD M&S vision:

“Defense modeling and simulation will provide readily available, operationally valid environments for use by the DoD components:
・To train jointly, develop doctrine and tactics, formulate operational plans, and assess warfighting situations.
・To support technology assessment, system upgrade, prototype and full-scale development, and force structuring.

Furthermore, common use of these environments will promote a closer interaction between the operations and acquisition communities in carrying out their respective responsibilities. To allow maximum utility and flexibility, these modeling and simulation environments will be constructed from affordable, reusable components interoperating through an open system architecture.”

Deputy Secretary of Defense issued DoD Directive 5000.59，”DoD Modeling and simulation (M&S) Management” on January 4, 1994. (4) This Directive ordered to develop DoD M&S Master Plan and DoD M&S Investment Plan. DoD M&S Master Plan was signed on October 17, 1995 by USD (A&T).

Thus, in advance to the development of DoD M&S Master Plan, EXCIMS and DMSO were established and had been taking an active part to innovate DoD M&S.

(2) The State of the M&S Organization in NATO (5)

In November 1996, the Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) established a Steering Group on NATO Simulation Policy and Applications with a mandate to craft an Alliance approach to simulation in order to improve Alliance operations cost-effectively. The CNAD specifically tasked the Steering Group to identify recommended technical standards in order to foster simulation interoperability and reuse, to craft a roadmap for the development of simulations in order to satisfy the most-pressing NATO needs, and to include these results in a comprehensive NATO Modeling and Simulation Master Plan (NMSMP).

The Steering Group accomplished its work with the broad and active participation of senior government policy representatives, the NATO Military Authorities and M&S experts drawn from the NATO member governments and the NATO Industrial Advisory Group. The NMSMP approved by the North Atlantic Council in December 1998.

As the firm M&S organizations were not established yet, the NMSMP recommended two organizational structures the NATO Modeling Simulation Group (MSG) and the establishment of a full-time Modeling Simulation Co-ordination Office (MSCO). The MSG was established in 1999 and the MSCO was established in the autumn of 1999 within the SPD Division of the RTA in Paris. The MSCO, under the authority of the RTA Director and within guidance provided by the Research and Technology Board (RTB) through the MSG, have overall responsibility for coordinating and developing Alliance M&S to ensure efficient support to NATO operations.

The MSG is consists of national representatives. The participating nations may appoint up to three national representatives. They shall be able to speak with authority in the field of Group’s competence and able to commit resources for the conduct of co-operative M&S activities. The MSCO shall serve as the secretariat. The Head of the MSCO shall attend without vote.

The MSG:
①Is responsible for the development and execution of, and proposing revisions to the NMSMP.
②Is enabling M&S and promoting best practices in the Alliance.
③Develop, advocates and guides implementation of M&S standards.
④Fosters maximum levels of M&S interoperability and reuse of models.
⑤Develop, advocates and guides programs to facilitate education and information exchange in M&S science and technology, application methods and standards.
⑥Identifies, advocates and executes science and technology projects to improve M&S tools, standards, interoperability, network concepts and databases.
⑦As required, provides M&S expertise to support pertinent projects of the RTO Panels.
⑧In coordination with the RTA Director, guides the efforts of the fulltime staff support of the MSCO.

Until now, these two organizations have been served actively. The MSG requests RTB approval of seven technical activities for 2002, including one Symposium, one RTO Technical Course, and five Task Groups. Additionally the Group will have seven on-going Task Groups previously approved by the RTB and a request for an extension of one year for one Task Group. Overall, in 2002 there will be 15 on-going activities assuming the Board approval.

4. The M&S Organizations of Japan Defense Agency (JDA), to Be Established

Each Self Defense Force commands, organizations, activities and schools of JDA use M&S to support requirements in all application areas. The wargaming system of the Maritime Staff College is upgrading to be interoperable with live C4I system. The New Command Control System (NCCS), developing for Joint Staff Office, is considering to be built in accordance with the High-Level Architecture (HLA). As well as technical research about the HLA have been conducted at Technical Research and Development Institute.

However, without these few examples, most of the M&S used in JDA are independently developed and individually operated. There are no broadly effective, JDA wide means currently exists to coordinate and harness individual M&S capabilities and activities for the long term, systematic benefit of JDA. It is acknowledged that M&S will provide a readily available, flexible and cost-effective means to enhance JDA operations in the application areas of defense planning, training, exercises, support to operations, research, technology development and armaments acquisition. However, the necessity of a JDA-wide co-operative effort that promotes interoperability, reuse and affordability is not recognized enough. This situation is correspond to prior to 1988 of U.S. DoD, to be reported by the Defense Science Board Task Force on Computer Applications to Training and Wargaming, and prior to 1996 of NATO, to be established a Steering Group on NATO Simulation Policy and Applications.

I wish to propose to commence a research to establish the organizations crafting a JDA approach to M&S in order to improve JDA operations cost-effectively.

Note:

(1) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, DoD 5000.59-P, Department of Defense Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Master Plan, (October 1995)

(2) North Atlantic Council, NATO Modeling and Simulation Master Plan，(August 7, 1998)

(3) Mostly based on the briefing presented by Dr.Judith Dahmann, Chief Scientist DMSO to the DRC delegation at DMSO on July 13, 1998

(4)Department of Defense Directive 5000.59, DoD Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Management，(January 4, 1994)

(5) Refer to NATO’s home page http://www.rta.nato.int/