Policy, Standards, Management and
Acquisition
Live Virtual Constructive (LVC)
Architecture Interoperability Assessment
Are You Ready? The Open Technology
Development Challenge
Using Competency Definitions to Adapt
Training for Mission Success
One Step Further Towards the Next
Generation Training Systems
Distributed Training in
Europe
CREATING A NATO JOINT URBAN TRAINING
STRATEGY
Capabilities-Based Defense
Processes
The Path of Transformation: Toward
Cost-wise Readiness on a “METL” Track
OneSAF: Experiences from the Field in an Open
Source Environment
Using S1000D to Bridge Collaboration
Gaps Between Technical Data and Supporting Training Content
Integrating Team Experiential
Learning into SCORM-Conformant Training
S1000D SCORM Test Bed: Integrated Development of Technical
Publications and Training
Simulation, Training and the
Evolving Net-Centric Information Exchange Standards
The Ripple Effect of Information Assurance (IA) on the
Simulation World
Adopting OneSAF as the Core Entity
Driver for BLCSE
An Introduction to the NTSA
Standards Standing Committee
A Taxonomy to Aid Acquisition of
Simulation-Based Learning Systems
Network Centric Warfare Training –
A Live Simulation Data Strategy
Maintaining the Edge: POSDC Operating a Learning Institution
Management Model
Validating
the Electronic Combat Environment in Aircrew Training
Devices
2007 Paper No.
7045
USJFCOM
J7
Suffolk,
VA
AEgis Technologies
Group Inc.
Suffolk,
VA
Substantive
interoperability between Live, Virtual and Constructive (LVC) assets has long
been a “Holy Grail” for the Modeling & Simulation (M&S) community. Currently, however, the M&S
community utilizes different standards that are not natively interoperable and
in some cases competing in nature.
In most cases, the current level of interoperability is attained through
the use of numerous gateway applications, embedded middleware solutions, or
approaches such as Federation Object Model (FOM) agreements. These solutions to technical
interoperability, however, are sometimes prone to violating latency thresholds,
significantly increase complexity, mistranslate data, and require large
workarounds. The resources required
to develop interoperable solutions has prompted the M&S user community to
identify an explicit gap in the area referred to as Simulation Interoperability,
particularly where interoperability between Live, Virtual and Constructive
assets is desired. In response, a
US DoD M&S Steering Committee (SC) sponsored and
funded study was established with the objective of developing an LVC
Architecture Way Ahead (LVCWA). The study team is exploring
and assessing a number of alternatives supporting simulation interoperability
(at the technical level), business models, and the evolution process of
standards management across the Department of Defense. This paper describes a plan for moving
toward improved LVC interoperability based on the author’s findings and
recommendations assimilated from the study activities to
date.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7100
Bela Joshi, Ph.D.
and Curtiss Murphy
Alion Science and
Technology Corporation, BMH Operation
Norfolk,
VA
The Department
of Defense (DoD) released the
Open Technology Development (OTD) Roadmap in order to reduce the cost of
acquisition and to increase interoperability and re-use across DoD programs.
OTD methodologies rely on the application of common standards and
interfaces; open source software and design; collaborative, distributed culture
and online tools; and technological agility. Adopting an OTD approach implies a
paradigm shift in the procurement and management of such programs, as well as in
the day-to-day activities of a contractor’s development team. This paper presents case
studies of two DoD projects
that are early adopters of Open Technology Development: the Common Distributed
Mission Training Station (CDMTS) and Delta3D. CDMTS is a Government Off The Shelf (GOTS) cross platform Instructor Operator
Station (IOS) framework. Delta3D is
an Open Source Software (OSS) Gaming Engine that is used to develop 3D
visualizations and game-based trainers. In this paper, we outline
the practical implications of developing and maintaining next generation
(training) systems in an open and collaborative manner. We identify the challenges associated
with managing multiple customers and funding lines; establishing an effective
development team; ensuring common coding standards and practices; and performing
configuration and release management in such an environment. Finally, we explore
how these two DoD projects
address the key challenges and focus areas identified in the OTD
Roadmap.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7131
Dr. Geoffrey
Frank, Dr. Robert
Hubal
RTI
International
Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina
Training and
Doctrine Command Program Integration Office–Virtual
(TPIO–Virtual)
Ft. Leavenworth,
Kansas
U.S. military
forces require personnel who are prepared for new missions, who are equipped to
face ever-changing operating environments, and who are proficient in
increasingly sophisticated, rapidly evolving technologies. To successfully support personnel, the
training, operational, and personnel communities must be aware of the rapidly
changing needs of those in the field and understand how decisions concerning the
allocation of limited recruiting and training resources may affect their
readiness. This
paper describes how competency definitions can support resource allocation
decision-making by linking data on experience in the field with personnel and
training data. Linking these data
automatically allows training managers to quantitatively compare how tasks are
trained in the schools with how tasks are executed in the field and to adjust
training time and equipment resources accordingly. Competency descriptions with multiple
levels of abstraction can be used to summarize data at the level appropriate for
the decision-maker. Complex
competency definitions can be expensive to build and difficult to update. An automated approach to generating
competency definitions that leverages standard reusable competency definition
data models and existing taxonomies can reduce the development effort and speed
up maintenance. This paper provides
an example where competency definitions are generated automatically using an ontology. The model has been used to integrate operational
data on equipment used in the current operating environment, personnel data on
driving accidents, and training data on equipment used for training. It allows decision-makers to
compare operational risk in terms of the cost of accidents involving particular
types of vehicles in the field with …
This paper is
available on the 2007 I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper
from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7033
|
Saab
Microwave Systems / University of Skövde Skövde,
Sweden |
Saab
Training Systems Helsingborg,
Sweden |
The
Net-centricity and Global Information Grid (GIG) visions enable systems to be
interconnected to support multi-lateral, civilian and military missions. The
constantly changing environment requires the commanders to plan for missions
that allow for units from various nations, agencies etc. to join or separate
from the team, depending on the situation, as the mission unfolds. The
uncertainty of the actual mission and that the potential for agencies and
organizations to support the mission after it is underway, leads to a vast
number of potential scenarios that civil and military personnel need to train in
individual and collaborative training environments.
It is not
feasible to train for every possible mission and every possible combination of
teams. The Next Generation Training Systems need to manage this complex and
dynamic environment. The simulation support needs to be unified such that
training performed at home stations and in mission training/mission rehearsal
that may occur just days, hours or even minutes before the actual missions are
as interoperable as possible. It is becoming more important to adapt to the
latest doctrine of the adversary.
This need to adapt coupled with the specific intended concept of the
operation must drive the civil and military agencies, organizations, and units
selected for the mission at hand. The need for rapid mission rehearsal
capabilities drives the requirement to transform to simulation infrastructure
that includes interoperability mechanisms that enable a more agile, dynamic and
adaptive interconnection of heterogeneous simulations.
In this paper a
step towards the Next Generation Training Systems is presented. The concepts,
ongoing research and standards are described and the role of the Coalition
Battle Management Language as one of the key enablers for the Next Generation
Training Systems is presented. Methods and tools used in demonstrations to show
fast integration between heterogeneous Live, Virtual and Constructive
simulations with Command and Control Systems are
exemplified.
This paper is
available on the 2007 I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper
from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7219
L3
Communications
Ramstein,
Germany
USAFE Warrior
Preparation Center
Ramstein,
Germany
The intent of
this paper is to examine the current policy and guidance that drives Training
Transformation across DoD and
specifically how it is impacting the Air Forces ability to train in Europe. It
goes on to discover the initiatives being pursued in Europe as the Army and Air
Force integrate their Live, Virtual, and Constructive training and Exercise
capabilities and the difficulties encountered in that effort. Lastly the paper addresses possible
solutions to the modeling and simulation pieces as well as the technical aspects
of operating a net centric training and exercise capability in a foreign country
that is a half a day out of the US training and exercise cycle. The bottom line of the paper will be to
highlight how innovative and creative use of integrating existing capabilities
and technology can create a system much more capable than any of the “stove
pipe” systems alone. This is an old
theme with a new, war on terrorism twist that addresses force ability, budget
constraints, and geographical distance.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7234
USA United
States Joint Forces Command, Joint Warfighting
Center
Suffolk,
VA
The US Joint
Forces Command’s Joint Urban Operations Office (JUOO) and J7/Capabilities
Development Joint Urban Operation (JUO) Training Branch Group working in concert
are developing a NATO Joint Urban Training Strategy. Using Lessons Learned from
the Global War on Terrorism, the DOD Training and Facilities Study, and combined
with the best elements of NATO Urban Training Strategies, a NATO Joint Urban
Training Strategy will provide timely and relevant training to an interoperable
Multinational, and Interagency training audience. The strategy leverages the
Joint National Training Capability and provides Concept Development and
Experimentation. To facilitate the NATO Joint Urban Training Strategy, the
objective of the Joint Urban Operations Training Branch, a group of urban
subject matter experts, is to provide solutions for identified NATO Urban
deficiencies, gaps and seams found in real world missions and training. The JUO
Training Branch integrates combined Allied Command Transformation, Service,
CoCom, Interagency, and Multinational stakeholder
urban operations training strategies; integrates NATO and Joint Knowledge;
integrates JUO concepts into Joint National Training Capability accredited
venues and certified programs, supports Service, CoCom
and Multinational training exercises; and provides a JUO single point of
interest for all urban operations concepts. This paper will provide a historical
background, propose a NATO Joint Urban Training Strategy and provide a baseline
for future NATO Joint Urban Training.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7197
|
TRADOC
Analysis Center Fort
Bliss, Texas |
Booz Allen
Hamilton Leavenworth,
Kansas |
In March 2003,
the Honorable Walter W. Hollis, Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for
Operations Research (DUSA(OR)) tasked the Program Manager (PM) Future Combat
Systems (FCS), Models and Simulation (M&S) Management Office (MSMO) to
ensure compatibility among the respective M&S capabilities of the U.S. Army
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
(ATEC), U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM), and
the FCS Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) to support development and acquisition of
the FCS Brigade Combat Team (BCT) System-of-Systems (SoS). The Cross Command Collaboration Effort (3CE) is
enabling this compatibility. The
purpose of 3CE is to develop an M&S and data collaboration environment for
design, development, integration, and testing of capabilities, systems, and
prototypes. The 3CE environment is
intended to satisfy the common requirements of all participants to conduct
distributed development that accounts for impacts across the doctrine,
organizational, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and
facilities (DOTMLPF) domains.
3CE brings together a cross command team of subject matter experts to
develop and implement a functional decomposition and analysis process – a
process that is based on systems engineering principles. The 3CE functional decomposition and
analysis process drives cross command design, development, and integration based
on analyst and evaluator requirements.
Utilizing Department of Defense Architectural Framework (DoDAF) products and cross command analytic requirement
documents, this process provides a relevant and credible requirement set that is
explicitly linked to operational use cases and is at a level of fidelity
sufficient to transition into the
design phase. 3CE has executed this
process to identify analytic, technical, and operational requirements that will
support FCS Spin Out events and activities. This paper focuses on the development
and implementation of the 3CE functional decomposition …
This paper is
available on the 2007 I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper
from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7298
Institute for
Defense Analyses
Alexandria,
Virginia
The DOD has
adopted a “Capability-based” paradigm for definition, development, fielding and
use of military Forces and systems.
Problem: While most of the major Defense assessment and decision making
processes claim to have become “capability-based”, they remain embedded in the
Conceptual models of the earlier systems and requirements based construct. As
such, the full potential of the “capabilities-based” paradigm has yet to be
realized in Training, Testing, Planning, Acquisition, Joint Capabilities
Identification and Development Systems (JCIDS) and other major Defense
processes. There is no common capabilities-based conceptual framework or
language among these various Defense Processes to integrate their efforts on an
objective of identifying, developing, fielding and effectively employing war
fighting capability as quickly as possible Most assessment processes (many
relaying heavily on M&S constructs) perceive the Joint Operating Environment
from a Systems-based perspectives; one within which many of the emerging and
increasingly important non-system aspects of current warfare are not
detectable. This presentation
offers a new view of the Joint Operating Environment, a Capability/Task
Performance-based perspective from which to describe scenarios in common war
fighting terms related to mission accomplishment; a view that “sees” all the
related activities in a Joint Operating Environment and that enables and
facilitates effective design and validation of Live, Virtual and Constructive
(LVC) M&S assemblies of those environments for Training, Concept
Development, T&E, Planning, fielding and other Defense planning and Force
employment decision making needs and that can relate the performance of any
selected capability to the accomplishment of the mission objectives in an over
arching Scenario. The
presentation presents this new paradigm, develops the Capability-based
perspective, and demonstrates its application in designing effective, efficient
LVC constructs for Training applications and other DOD processes and as a
unifying framework across the various assessment, capability fielding and
operational force application processes in…
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7317
CFFC N721B
Dynamics Research Corporation
Norfolk,
VA
DOD and the
services are in a continual quest for effectiveness and efficiency—with the
emphasis on ―effectiveness.‖ Force-wide application of the
Strategy-to-Task mission analysis-Mission Essential Task List (METL) framework
gives us the foundation on which to establish ―Cost-wise‖ Readiness. This paper presents three keys to
understanding METL-based cost-wise readiness. First, we will explore the background of
Transformation and the Mission Analysis-METL processes which enable MET-based
readiness and lead to ―Metrics that Matter.‖ Next, we will look inside the Navy at
the Navy Warfare Training System‘s process and operations. Then we will explore the potential for
applying an activity-based cost (ABC) scheme to ascertain the dollar value
invested in training to raise MET proficiency: a ―Cost-wise‖ Readiness indicator
on a METL track. All DOD Military
Training is supposed to be tied to METs.
The Joint Training System (JTS) inspired Navy Warfare Training System
(NWTS) bases training requirements on Navy Mission Essential Tasks (NMETs). The Defense Readiness Reporting System
(DRRS) reports mission readiness on a MET-by-MET basis. The latest development of joint
capabilities also employs the METL language of tasks, conditions and standards
to describe evolving and transformational capabilities.
By developing
systems of "metrics that matter" derived from METLs coupled to the ABC inspired
Fleet Training Capability Cost System (FTCCS), naval leaders will be equipped
with the insight to achieve "cost-wise" readiness through a sustained process of
applied mission analysis and balanced risk management. The lessons learned from instituting
Fleet cost-wise readiness will pave the way for other elements of the joint and
integrated force to strive for efficient excellence and enable ―One Team, One
Fight‖ success.
This paper is
available on the 2007 I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper
from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7102
U.S. Army, PEO
Simulation, Training and Instrumentation
Orlando,
FL
The U.S. Army
recently released the One Semi-Automated Forces (OneSAF) simulation system as a single entity-level software
solution to serve three modeling and simulation domains. Postured as an open-architecture,
open-source application, the OneSAF program will put
this software into the hands of a vast number of developers throughout the
Department of Defense. Software
development of the OneSAF application has been
conducted in a robust systems engineering environment that balances agile
methods and traditional practices.
Now fielded, OneSAF will expand this
development environment to include processes and methods to enhance
opportunities to integrate code from external developers with varying
development capabilities and objectives.
These processes will create unprecedented participation, and leverage the
talents and resources of developers throughout the modeling and simulation
community to include multi-service, international, industry and academia
experts. This paper will describe
the methods, as well as early experiences and lessons learned while integrating
and managing multiple baselines from multiple sources, as well as the subsequent
return on investment.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7153
Mr. Greg F.
Knapp, SES Mr.
Timothy L. Baker,
SL
Executive
Director, Joint Warfighting Center, Technical
Director, Joint Warfighting
Center
US Joint Forces
Command
Suffolk,
VA
The 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), identifying the need to foster “further
advances in joint training and education…to prepare for complex, multinational,
and interagency operations in the future,” directed the Department of Defense
(DoD) to “expand the Training
Transformation (T2) Business Model to consolidate joint training, prioritize new
and emerging missions, and exploit virtual and constructive technologies.” Under
this guidance, Program Budget Decision 709 was enacted which realigned and
consolidated joint training funds from the Services, Combatant Commands (COCOM),
and the Joint Staff into the CE2T2 account within a Defense-wide
appropriation. Governed under the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), the CE2T2
account expands the T2 Business Model and leads the effort to fuse a widely
dispersed and disjointed joint training resource business model into a process
that is collaborative, transparent, incentivized, and effective. This paper will address the
benefits of consolidated management of the joint training portfolio, and how the
T2 Business Model leads to the more effective use of government resources in
addressing the strategic priorities of DoD as outlined in the Strategic Planning Guidance
(FY08-13). As well, this paper will
discuss how Joint Forces Command will leverage the CE2T2 account to address the
following areas of joint training that have been identified as requiring
increased effort to decrease their associated risk: • Human Intelligence (HUMINT), Language,
and Culture training • Training forces to conduct indigenous force training •
Integrated Operations • Joint C2
Homeland Defense/Civil Support Exercises • Stability, Security, Transition, and
Reconstruction Operations • Irregular Warfare training • Combating Weapons of
Mass Destruction • Security
Cooperation/Engagement • Information Operations • Catastrophic Consequence Management•
Adaptive Planning • COCOM Joint
Task Force Headquarters Certification and Battlestaff
training • Non-lethal,
Non
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7188
Office of the
Secretary of Defense (USD(P&R))
Washington,
DC
The second
biennial Block Assessment of Joint Training is being conducted April-October
2007. This year's effort expanded to include all Combatant Commands and the four
Military Services, as well as the three pillars of Training Transformation (T2)
included in the 2005 Block Assessment – Joint Knowledge Development and
Distribution Capability, Joint National Training Capability, and Joint
Assessment and Enabling Capability (JAEC). This paper will primarily discuss
metric development, identifying and refining data elements to support the
metrics, and analysis of the data in support of the 2007 assessment. The JAEC assessments are guided by
the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), T2 Strategic Plan, and T2 program missions
and objectives. From these, the team developed the metrics and data elements
that provided a large portion of the material for analysis. As in the previous
block assessment, much of the information required the use of qualitative
assessments and other means to provide a true picture of Joint training and
support the purpose of the block assessment. The paper will describe the project’s
attempts to go beyond completing an assessment, towards a goal of
institutionalizing data gathering and assessment in the Joint Training
Information Management System to support decision-making and joint force
readiness. The paper also includes discussion of plans to use the Department's
automated reporting systems and our efforts at synchronizing the developing data
collection activities of different organizations.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7134
Advanced
Distributed Learning Co-Lab
Alexandria,
Virginia
The Department
of Defense (DoD) training
community, lead by the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative, is
accustomed to specification-driven content development. The Sharable Content
Object Reference Model (SCORM) provides guidelines for referencing learning
objects in courseware, and how that courseware communicates with a learning
management system (LMS). In addition, Content Object Repository Discovery and
Registration Architecture (CORDRA) is the framework that fosters registration,
search and discovery of content through the ADL Registry (ADL-R). DoD SCORM and ADL-R policies are detailed in the Department
of Defense Instruction 1322.26, "Development, Management and Delivery of
Distributed Learning". However, there is a specification gap in the training
arena that has not been addressed: XML structured learning content.
Historically, learning content has been committed to formats not designed for
configuration and content management, such as HTML and Flash. DoD training content can benefit
from the use of XML that enables interoperability and management. This paper
will demonstrate how learning content structured in the S1000D international
technical data spec is a benefit to the DoD training community. The paper will also
demonstrate how technical data structured in S1000D can be imported directly
into courseware and made SCORM-conformant. The paper will conclude with a
discussion of plans to support training requirements in S1000D.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7260
Craig Haimson, John
Feeney, David
Kramer, Mark
Weston
Aptima
Washington,
DC/Woburn, MA
Distributed
training environments such as multiplayer games decrease reliance on operational
equipment and resources and reduce the need for co-located teammates and
instructors. However, there is a need to coordinate and synchronize online
scenario-based training with other forms of distributed learning such as
self-paced didactic training via the web. SCORM provides a partial solution to
this problem by enabling the interoperation of technologies that facilitate
self-paced distributed learning. A SCORM-conformant learning management system
(LMS) can serve any SCORM-conformant training package to any standard web
browser and track the performance of individual learners as they progress
through this material. Moreover, an LMS can tailor the delivery of learning
content in accordance with Sequencing and Navigation rules that dictate the
order in which different content packages should be presented. However, SCORM
only supports didactic training. It does not provide a process for configuring
experiential training and assessment platforms to simulate scenarios and compute
performance measures that specifically address the learning requirements of
individuals and teams. Moreover, SCORM is exclusively focused on individual
learners and does not provide a method for (a) representing the learning
requirements of a group of individuals or (b) adjudicating between the
(potentially conflicting) needs of multiple learners. In a Joint ADL Co-Lab
project in which we investigated methods for enhancing SCORM-conformant
technology to enable coordination of team MOUT training in a multiplayer game.
We addressed two main challenges: (1) defining representations that can be used
to configure simulations …
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7418
|
Kevin
Ruess, Bob
Pokorny, Jackie
Haynes Intelligent
Automation, Inc. Rockville,
Maryland |
Job
Performance Technology Center Alexandria,
Virginia |
Operating and
maintaining modern weapon systems requires vast amounts of information.
Technical publications must provide maintainers the information they need for
complex equipment. The use of this data is expanding with the concept of
“net-centric warfare.” The data is no longer paper; it is electronic and used in
such things as simulations, 3D graphics, Electronic Performance Support Systems
(EPSS), and games. These materials change frequently over the life-cycle of the
weapon system, and each sample will have its own variants of a common function
(e.g., one squadron will have an updated radar system, while another will have
an older version). This technical
documentation information is often represented within a Common Source Database
(CSDB) in S1000D format, and current trends point toward wider adoption of
S1000D. The
technical documentation has many functions within the information sources for
modern equipment. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) funded the S1000D
SCORM Test Bed project specifically to identify and evaluate methods for
integrating S1000D-based technical manuals and SCORM-based training. The primary
advantage of integrated S1000D and training development is that when technical
documentation changes – and the technical publications and training content are
explicitly linked – updating or changing specific sections of training content
becomes much easier to manage.
To explore how the “trusted data” can be used for technical publications
and training, we created a test bed with examples of integrated development of
technical publications and training. We describe three different approaches to
integrating technical documentation into training and the ways Program Managers
should apply best practices for this integration into an example product.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7329
CAE USA Military
Simulation & Training
Tampa,
Florida
In April 2006,
the Blue Force Tracking (BFT) Community of Interest (COI) got underway. The kickoff meeting was hosted by the
Army PEO Command, Control, Communications – Tactical at
Fort Monmouth, NJ. BFT COI
advocates include Headquarters Department of the Army G-3 Battle Command,
Headquarters Marine Corps C4, and Joint Forces Command. The Army is the lead service for this
Joint, multinational effort which encompasses all the Services, the DoD, NATO and representatives from Australia, Canada,
France, Germany, Israel and the United Kingdom. BFT is the “Employment of techniques to
actively or passively identify and track US, allied, or coalition forces for the
purpose of providing the combatant commander enhanced battlespace situational
awareness and reducing fratricide.”
A COI is a “…collaborative group of users who must exchange information
in pursuit of their shared goals, interests, missions, or business processes and
who therefore must have shared vocabulary for the information they
exchange.” The purpose of the BFT
COI is to develop, verify and implement an Information Exchange Standard (IES)
that facilitates BFT information sharing across the battlespace that is
“…visible, accessible, trusted, understandable and in accordance with the DoD Net-Centric Data Strategy”. The purpose of this paper is to report
to the I/ITSEC community on the BFT COI effort, the draft standard, and likely impacts on simulation and training. Discussion topics include the
relationship with other COIs, accommodating legacy systems, dealing with Service
unique operational requirements, and compatibility with other standards such as
the Joint Consultation Command & Control Information Exchange Data Model
(JC3IEDM). The work
being done by the BFT COI is representative of Net-Centric Warfare (NCW)
information sharing initiatives and approaches. The paper concludes with a discussion of
the role the simulation and training community could play in the development and
implementation of similar net-centric information exchange
standards.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7365
CAE USA
Inc.
Tampa,
FL
Information
Assurance (IA) has changed the simulation business for Department of Defense
(DoD) simulator suppliers. IA
impacts our system architecture design, engineering practices, engineering
scope, subcontractor management, and changes the profile of our Contractor
Operation and Maintenance Services (COMS) support. We must broaden our industry
to become defenders of the valuable services our products provide to the war
fighter. Building a simulator
from scratch that is robust enough (as defined in DoD regulations) to withstand the threats of Mother
Nature, internal espionage, accidental destruction, and cyber-warfare is
feasible. Building a robust simulator that is also operationally effective and
efficient takes introspection, understanding, investment, and discipline. Retrofitting a simulator with
integrity, availability, and confidentiality controls (as defined in DoD regulations) is like a river of
negotiations between DoD regulation requirements and
budgetary constraints. The contractor, subcontractors, acquisitions group, user
base, and accreditation authority must embrace the spirit of the regulations to
both empower and defend the war fighter. Maintaining a simulator’s
Certification and Accreditation (C&A) profile, as well as maintaining the
operational integrity of the trainer, requires an adaptation of the Contractor
Operation and Maintenance Services (COMS) personnel skill set and duties. Intrusion Detection/Prevention Systems
(IDS/IPS), firewalls, Access Control Lists (ACLs), event correlators, network scanners, Antivirus mechanisms, and
patch management must be supported and maintained as vigorously as any visual
system display, motion platform, and environmental conditions. This paper discusses the evolution
of the simulation industry as it begins to address the increasing demand for
defensive, network centric products and services.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7477
SAIC
Hampton,
Virginia
SAIC
El Paso,
Texas
The Battle Lab
Collaborative Simulation Environment federation is replacing its primary entity
driver OneSAF Testbed
Baseline (OTB) with One Semi-Automated Force (OneSAF). OTB is
at the core of the Army Capabilities Integration Center’s (ARCIC) Battle Lab
Collaborative Simulation Environment (BLCSE) federation. Currently, the BLCSE federation has OTB
at the core with about 14 other federates that depend on the entities and
interactions provided by OTB. The
ARCIC Simulations Division envisions that OneSAF will
not only replace OTB but will over time replace the functions provided by many
of the other federates to create a more homogenous federation. As OneSAF is
introduced into a mature federation such as BLCSE, there are federation
considerations and site considerations that must be managed. This paper will address the BLCSE
enterprise culture changes associated with procedures and challenges involved in
community adoption. Economies are
gained by replacing OTB and eventually one or more other federates with OneSAF.
Configuration management procedures will have to be adopted to address
users that are now able to compose behaviors of a simulation that are at the
core of the federation. This paper
will also address how a BLCSE site such as the Future Force Integration
Directorate (FFID) in Ft. Bliss, TX is conducting OneSAF training for users and technicians,
modifying/introducing infrastructure, participating in integration and stress
testing of ONESAF, and performing configuration management. These activities and more are being
synchronized and conducted to ensure a successful introduction and adoption of
the primary entity driver, OneSAF, in the BLCSE
federation.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7129
|
L-3
Communications Reston,
Virginia |
U.S. Air
Force TSPG Dayton,
Ohio |
M&S
Coordination Office Alexandria,
Virginia |
|
The Aegis
Technologies Group Huntsville,
Alabama |
M&S
Coordination Office Alexandria,
Virginia |
NAWCTSD Orlando,
Florida |
As training and
simulation technologies evolve, yielding systems of increasing functionality and
intricacy, the interfaces within and among these systems have become
correspondingly more complex. In
turn, the task of building simulation systems to be interoperable and
supportable becomes an ever-greater challenge. This circumstance has led the community
to increase its interest in standards-based solutions as a means of controlling
complexity, risk, and cost. There are many niches
where training and simulation-related standards are presently being defined and
applied. Various sectors of the
community actively participate in a multitude of standards-development efforts,
and these efforts frequently result in the successful implementation of
beneficial standards. However, each
of these independent activities addresses standards only from a narrow
perspective, such as Advanced Distributed Learning or Distributed Mission
Operations. It has been suggested
that standards have the potential to yield even greater benefits, which the
community might maximize by implementing a more systematic approach to their
selection and promulgation.
Recognizing this situation, the National Training and Simulation
Association (NTSA), an organization representing the training and simulation
industry, has formed a Standards Standing Committee (SSC). The SSC’s role is to investigate
standardization within a larger context, and provide advice on standards to its
members. Its membership currently
includes personnel from Government and Academia as well as Industry,
collectively representing the perspectives of the total training and simulation
community. …
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7132
RTI
International
Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina
Simulations are
increasingly being used for education and training a range of skills, including
convoy driving, flying aircraft, repairing vehicles, and performing surgery. At
the same time, the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) is now
required as the standard for U.S. Department of Defense Interactive Multimedia
Instruction (IMI). Simulation-Based Learning Systems (SBLSs) are being developed
that combine SCORM IMI for knowledge acquisition with simulations for
experiential learning. The design of SBLSs requires weighing a range of issues,
each with risks and benefits, to achieve a cost-effective result for a specific
set of education or training requirements. However, different education and
training requirements lead to different SBLS designs with different issues. This paper describes a taxonomy that was
developed to characterize different classes of SBLS designs and to identify
design issues associated with each class. The taxonomy identifies each class of
SBLS by a set of discriminators, which are grouped into three categories: • System functionality
discriminators (describe how the SBLS controls the simulation, provides the
training content, and presents student assessments) • Human computer interface
discriminators (describe how the student and the instructor interact with the
system) • System environment discriminators (describe the location and ownership
of simulation and learning management system assets, including servers, student
and instructor client machines, and the network connecting these
components). This paper presents
SBLS design issues, including risks and benefits, in the context of the six
quality metrics—interoperability, accessibility, adaptability, reusability,
durability, and maintainability—developed by the Advanced Distributed Learning
consortium for the SCORM standard. Examples of SBLSs presented to the standards
group are characterized using the taxonomy.
This paper is
available on the 2007 I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper
from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7253
U.S. Army PEO
STRI
Orlando,
FL
NetOps is the
operational construct that the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command will use to
accomplish their Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) mission. NetOps enables Net-centricity by shifting the DOD from a
“need to know” to a “need to share” paradigm. Net-centricity is the realization
of a robust, globally interconnected network environment in which data is shared
timely and seamlessly among users, applications and platforms. In today’s
Department of Defense (DOD) it is becoming vitally important to incorporate
these NetOps and Net-centricity concepts within our
training doctrine to effectively train our Soldiers in a simulated Network
Centric Warfare (NCW) training environment. This will enable our Soldiers to
train as they fight by being exposed to an information superiority-enabled
concept of operations that generates increased combat power by networking
sensors, decision-makers and Soldiers. This paper describes several initiatives
at the U.S. Army Program Executive Office (PEO) Simulation Training and
Instrumentation (STRI) which focus on two of the NCW tenets: Net-Centric
Enterprise Services (NCES), and Net-centric Data Strategy. In particular, this
paper will discuss how the Live Training Transformation (LT2) initiative at PEO
STRI is beginning to address a net-centric strategy for “live” training by
evolving current live training product-line assets to support a data and
enterprise services strategy required to provide an effective NCW training
environment for the Soldier. It is
the intent of this paper to capture the experiences, to include successes and
failures, while implementing this strategy to assist similar projects in the
future and further the PEO STRI product line strategy.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7265
|
National
Institute of Aerospace Hampton,
VA |
CIBER Newport
News, VA |
Management as a
creative problem-solving tool is accomplished through the application of five
key management functions: planning, organizing, staffing, directing and
controlling (POSDC). The intended result is the use of an organization’s
resources in a way that accomplishes its mission and objectives. (James Higgins, The Management Challenge, Second Edition,
1994.) This story presents
the unique challenges faced in establishing the NASA Engineering and Safety
Center (NESC) Academy. The Academy’s purpose is to capture the lifetime
experiences and knowledge of senior engineers and scientists, and to pass that
information on to NASA’s current and next-generation technical workforce. The challenges faced and shared through
this paper include establishing an organizational structure with policies,
processes, and procedures; identifying the leadership team and workforce needed
to meet the Academy’s mission; and guiding development of a virtual learning
experience that enhanced the skills and knowledge of the NASA workforce while
facing the impending loss of over 45 percent of the current workforce by
2010. This paper discusses five
functions of management as they were and are applied to establishing and
operating of the NESC Academy, including managing the knowledge capture,
developing classroom courses, and creating and maintaining the virtual Academy
through the Web site. Since its
inception in June 2005, the Academy has implemented a successful management
approach as evidenced by evaluation results, including an independent
third-party evaluation reported in December 2006. This paper provides data that confirms
the effectiveness of the current management approach as well as ideas for
continuous improvement.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.
2007 Paper No.
7313
29th Training
Systems Squadron
Eglin AFB,
FL
Detachment 1,
53d Electronic Warfare Group
Nellis AFB,
NV
Validating the
electronic combat environment (ECE) in aircrew training devices (ATD) is a
process that compares the operating parameters and performance of the electronic
warfare (EW) portions of ATDs to the current intelligence assessment of threat
weapons systems, documents the differences and assesses their impacts, and
authenticates the representations and interactions. Real world threats are
constantly evolving and EW reprogramming centers routinely update mission
software to counter the developing threats. These changes and updates affect
many different mission aspects regarding aircrew threat perceptions and
reactions including detection, identification, and countermeasures
effectiveness. This paper details the processes involved and illustrates the
benefits of an ECE validation program for ATDs.
This paper is available on the 2007
I/ITSEC CD ROM.
Order the paper from I/ITSEC’s Website.