Military science, Law enforcement | Studies, Essays, Thesises » The Whole Is Greater Than The Sum Of The Parts

The Whole Is Greater Than The Sum Of The Parts Integrating The Deployable Virtual Training Environment (DVTE) & The Battle Force Tactical Training System (BFTT) Mr. Rick Bragg NAVSEA PEO IWS Washington, D.C Dr. Michael Page Bailey USMC/TECOM Quantico, VA Mr. Bruce Acton Novonics Corporation San Diego, CA Dr. Dutch Guckenberger SDS International Boston, MA Abstract The ever-changing operational environment that confronts our Armed Forces mandates that we provide an “en route” training and mission rehearsal capability. This capability must not only be representative of the projected area-of-operation and enemy forces, it must also be sufficiently “realistic and challenging” so as to gain the confidence of the war-fighter. Today, we are confronted with a unique opportunity to provide such a naval amphibious warfare system through the integration of the Battle Force Tactical Training System (BFTT), and the Deployable Virtual Training Environment (DVTE). This coupling will

ultimately result in a full spectrum, simulation-based, mission rehearsal capability for our CVBG and ARG Commanders. BFTT currently provides BG and ARG Commanders the ability to train operators and decision makers via installed combat systems equipment and architectures, training as they fight, using existing combat systems. DVTE provides a VR-based training capability for USMC personnel via two principal systems; the Combined Arms Network and the Infantry Tool Kit; both of which provide unique cognitive skill and critical thinking decision-making opportunities. While BFTT and DVTE use different technologies and decidedly different approaches, both provide the war-fighter training and mission rehearsal tools – tools that can be employed both en route and within the AOR. This paper discusses the war-fighter training/mission rehearsal requirements, BFTT/DVTE integration options, and discusses the use of a proposed “Training Architecture” to facilitate this integration. Author’s

Biographies Mr. Rick Bragg graduated from George Washington University in 1988 with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Mr Bragg has served in numerous positions of increased authority and responsibility over the last twenty-two years in the Naval Sea Systems Command and Space and Electronic Warfare Systems Command. Mr Bragg’s tours of duty included Project Manager in ship acquisition/modernization and new construction. In 1996, Mr Bragg graduated from the Program Manager Course at DSMC in 1996 and he was subsequently assigned as Project Manager for SHF Communications. This was followed by subsequent tours as Project Manager for the Automated Digital Network System and the Joint Tactical Radio System. In 1999, he was assigned to the staff of Large Scale Systems Engineering, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research Development & Acquisition, Office of Chief Engineer, ASN (RDA), and served as Navy Liaison to the Missile Defense Agency. In July 2002, Mr Bragg reported to NAVSEA

as the Program Manager for Naval Performance Monitoring, Training, and Assessment Program Office, PMS430. In January 2003, this office was reconstituted as PEO, Integrated Warfare Systems (Total Ship Training) to provide the required discipline and coordination of the architecture and overarching interface principles to which future naval training systems will be developed. Mr Bragg is currently pursuing a Masters Degree in National Strategic Studies at National Defense University. Dr. Michael Page Bailey graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with a PhD in Operations Research in 1988, and in 1994 was promoted to Tenured Professor of Operations Research at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. At NPS, Dr Bailey was an award-winning teacher and widely-published researcher. In 1995, he sabbaticaled at the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Assessments Division, OPNAV-N81 as a visiting scholar and served as operations analyst in support

of the Quadrennial Defense Review until 1997, after which he joined the Marine Corps as Principal Analyst, Modeling and Simulation. In December 1999, he joined the Marine Corps’ Training and Education Command as Technical Director. In December 2000, the Marine Corps formed the Training and Education Technology Division, with Dr. Bailey as its head Technology Division is responsible for requirements, policies, and sponsorship of all technology applicable to Marine Corps professional military education, individual training, unit training and ranges. Mr. Acton is a member of NOVONICS Corporation Headquartered in, San Diego CA, he supports NAVSEA PEO IWS as the Afloat Training Exercise and Management System Systems Engineer. Additionally, he is a U.S Navy Subject Matter Expert for the Deployable Virtual Training Environment and the Objective Based Training concept. He is a retired Naval officer with significant tours of active duty both in training and in performance assessment. Mr Acton

holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Information Systems and a Masters in Business Administration, both from Chapman University, Orange CA. Dr. Dutch Guckenberger is the Chief Scientist at SDS International, with 16 years of experience in the defense simulation and training systems. He has earned degrees in Computer Science, Physics, & Simulation and Training. Research interests include Real-Time Graphics, Synthetic Vision, Virtual & Augmented Reality, Above Real-Time Training, UAV/UCAV Simulations, DMT, DVTE, and Ultra-High Resolution via PC-IG Arrays. He is a member of ACM, IEEE, SPMN, SPIE, Human Factors Society, & Link Foundation Fellow in Advanced Simulation & Training. M&S Contributions to the Changing Face of Naval Warfare Today’s Naval war-fighter faces a radically new operational environment; one juxtaposed by major technology insertion resulting from a highly dynamic world and its associated politicomilitary situations. This environment

validates the requirement for Commanders at all echelons to achieve, sustain and assess the readiness of their units and forces. Advanced technologies have rendered our Naval forces the most potent ever, but they have also imparted unprecedented levels of complexity on our underlying systems. This complexity makes systems more difficult to operate and maintain, as well as making it more difficult to rehearse our missions so that we may assess our overall readiness to execute the mission assigned. At the same time, our dynamic world situation has given rise to new joint and coalition missions that can be expected to change rapidly in terms of tasking, operating area, and composition of Joint and coalition forces. Mission complexity is growing at an unparalleled rate. Where we were once limited to four principal missions areas as recently as ten years ago, today we are confronted with in excess of twenty, all with unique training requirements. Additionally, there are no

“single-mission-missions.” The integration of multiple, and perhaps unrelated missions into a Mission Capability Package composed of perhaps widely diverse mission essential tasks, adds an additional level of complexity. Our training and mission rehearsal processes and the systems that implement these processes must be highly adaptive not only to support these missions, but must also support new, unidentified missions and tasks, and must do so with great agility. As a result, Commanders must make readiness predictions on short notice, and in light of changing conditions. Thus, while readiness assessment is becoming a more difficult and complex task, it is one that Commanders will be called upon to perform more often, and more reliably. For a Commander to prevail in battle, he must be ready – ready to execute those tasks critical to the mission at hand. In order to do so in an effective and efficient manner, Commanders require a system that will provide substantive knowledge of

unit and force readiness “on-demand” and that will allow them to rehearse their Joint and Coalition missions in a truly representative and collaborative environment. The military services and Joint forces have undertaken several major developments aimed at addressing these combined challenges. The Navy and Marine Corps are both investing heavily in such initiatives as simulation-based training systems and improvements to resource status tracking databases. The reason is obvious - we have little choice. Today’s initiatives focus on four types of decisions fundamental to the exercise of Command at all echelons. These are as follows: • • • • Are we ready? (to do what) What can/must we do to get ready? What is the best fit for the mission? . What is the best near-term readiness sustainment strategy? All of these decisions share a common requirement – the ability to assess readiness and to compare alternative courses of action. The Commander cannot effectively apply

resources toward improving and sustaining readiness unless and until there is a method of measuring readiness. Best-fit and other resource allocation decisions require the Commander to know what “better” is and to apply that knowledge in comparing available alternatives. The mission rehearsal/training system of the future must provide the means for assessing readiness “on demand” to support the foregoing types of decisions for deployed forces. This will unquestionably result in better-trained, more capable forces. A higher state of readiness can safely be presumed as a consequence of the increased frequency and realism of training opportunities, the greater sophistication of readiness testing procedures and data tracking, and an ability to conduct valid mission rehearsal prior to going in harm’s way. However, these capabilities do not answer or even address such questions as how much training is enough, which types of training and/or maintenance should be given priority,

whether or not training or personnel reassignments can overcome a casualty, or whether changed mission requirements exceed capabilities of the ship or force. the current Our challenge is not only to identify those existing systems that will enable us to meet these requirements, but also to build a persistent architecture that will support both the integration of these possibly disparate systems and perhaps more importantly, to provide the framework and discipline that will enable us to build new systems “from the ground up” that will truly support the war-fighter in a fully integrated manner. Where are we? Battle Force Tactical Training The Navy’s BFTT system allows ship crews to use the ship itself to conduct training. It is installed in over 70 ships and serves as the integrating architecture for many new developments in combat systems training. As a permanently installed combat system training capability, BFTT integrates with and surrounds the ship’s sensors,

weapons, and command and control capabilities. Today, BFTT provides the crew the ability to: Roving Sands (JFCOM), Foal Eagle (PACOM), Joint Project Optic Windmill, and Juniper-series events (EUCOM). Current Capability The BFTT system surrounds the ship’s sensors, weapons and command and control capabilities allowing the training audience in each of the ship’s warfare areas to be placed in an “immersive war-fighting” environment via their actual tactical equipment. The on board training team selects, creates or modifies a training scenario; transitions the combat system to a training state; injects the single training scenario into the combat system via simulators or stimulators; automatically collects ground truth data (what and where the simulated and live objects were in the scenario) and perceived data (what the combat system detected and did during the scenario); and finally debriefs the training audience. Figure 1 shows the current simulation capabilities available in a

BFTT exercise. The same scenario drives each of the sensors/nodes. Train autonomously, by selecting or developing a simulated battle problem, injecting the battle problem into the shipboard combat system, collecting data, and debriefing the event in the form of feedback to the training audience; Participate in multi-ship training events by connecting BFTT-equipped ships (and those equipped with compatible devices) into a common battle problem to allow ships to train functioning as a battle group. Most recently, BFTT enjoyed a resounding success as the centerpiece of the USS Nimitz Battler group/ARG training process; Participate in Navy and Joint Experiments. BFTT continues to be used in the conduct of the USN’s Fleet Battle experiments. For example, BFTT was used in May/June 2001 to bring the experimentation audience aboard USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) into Navy Warfare Development Command’s Fleet Battle Experiment-INDIA; Participate in Joint training / CinC assessment events.

Regional Commanders-in-Chief have used BFTT to integrate ships and crews into Figure 1 – BFTT Segment Simulated Navigation. BFTT provides the ability to synthetically relocate the ship to any latitude and longitude. The simulated position, heading and speed are distributed to the combat system as if they came from the ship’s own inertial navigation system. Electronic Warfare. The ship’s electronic warfare team is included in the BFTT training audience by providing simulated electronic emissions for detection by the AN/SLQ-32A via the BFTT Electronic Warfare Trainer (BEWT). Undersea Warfare. The ship’s underwater warfare team is included in the BFTT training audience by providing simulated acoustic emissions for detection via the hull mounted sonar (AN/SQS-26), passive acoustic array (SQR-19), and LAMPS Mk III helicopter (SQQ28) – all via BFTT’s interface with the SQQ-89 On-Board Trainer. Strike. The TOMAHAWK firing team is included in the BFTT training audience by

providing surface tracks around which the firing team must construct a route for the cruise missile. Data Collection. BFTT collects perceived data from the combat system during the course of the exercise to reconstruct what the training audience saw and did. This information is overlaid with ground truth data to provide reconstruction/ analysis debrief products at the conclusion of the exercise. Air and Surface Warfare. The ship’s air and surface warfare teams are included in the training audience through the stimulation of air and surface search radars via BFTT’s Training Stimulator/Simulator System (TSSS). This device injects Radio Frequency (RF) or Intermediate Frequency (IF) signals into each radar to provide a realistic representation of detections of simulated objects, radar landfall, chaff, and jamming. problem controllers. To meet this need, BFTT has installed problem control consoles at the Fleet Combat Training Centers Atlantic and Pacific. Other shore-based training

activities have requested this capability, and installation is currently under consideration. EVERETT, WA BREMERTON, WA YOKOSUKA, JAPAN ATGWESTPAC SAN DIEGO, CA SASEBO, JAPAN FCTCPAC PEARL HARBOR, HI Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC). BFTT provides a simulation of CEC network data allowing single ships to train as if they were in a CEC link with other ships. Communications for Multi-Ship Training. BFTT provides a T1-capacity communications network on each CONUS coast (Figure 2). This encrypted long-haul network is brought to the piers in each homeport to enable ships to interface with other exercise participants. BFTT Shore Sites. The conduct of large, multiship training events usually requires additional MAYPORT, FL Figure 2 - BFTT Communications Segment BFTT AAR/Debrief process. BFTT Debrief/ AAR capability is built on a validated learning model, a model founded on the premise that individuals and teams learn not only by doing, but my participating in an interactive

dialogue during which perceptions are changed by a team dialogue. Figure 3 below provides an overview of the BTT learning model, while Figure 4 is a sample of a BFTT Tactical Situation snapshot used for facilitating a team debrief. The Learning Model SPY-1 Radar on AEGIS. BFTT-generated tracks are presented on SPY-1 phased array radar via AEGIS Combat Training System (ACTS) Mk 50 and 51. SSDS Mk 1. The Ship’s Self Defense System (SSDS) team is included in the training audience through BFTT’s interface with self-defense sensor and weapon simulations. NORFOLK, VA LITTLE CREEK, VA FCTCLANT INGLESIDE, TX (Future) EXERCISE PLANNING/ MANAGEMENT & AAR FACILITATOR Data Collection Performance Data & Perceived Truth JOINT / SERVICE / UNIT TEAM TRAINEES CONTEXTUAL INTERACTION Ground Truth SYNTHETIC BATTLE SPACE Feedback AAR Training Environment Control Figure 3 -BFTT Learning Model • Figure 4 – BFTT Debrief TACSIT DVTE Today Since its inception, DVTE’s primary

goal has been the delivery of a low cost, deployable training system, and the principal development approach was one of adopting/adapting successful COTS training products. DVTE itself consists of two major, independent subsystems The Combined Arms Network and the Infantry Tool Kit: • Combined Arms Network (CAN). The CAN training audience consists of Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) and battalion level staffs, crews of armored vehicles, aircraft pilots and gunners, and forward observers. The CAN trains individuals and teams within this training audience in planning, battle management, and engagement (maneuver and fire support). The CAN is a federation of simulators constituted in accordance with the Department of Defense High Level Architecture (HLA) for Simulations. It uses the RPR FOM and, ultimately will use the MAGTF Federation Object Model (MAGTF FOM) and Federation Agreements to achieve interoperability of the various legacy simulators. The major components of the CAN

federation are individual training simulations representing armored vehicles, aircraft, and forward observers, respectively; a Trainer/Facilitator Workstation based upon a 3D Stealth Viewer and a Joint SemiAutomated Forces (JSAF) simulation engine. Infantry Tool Kit (ITK). The ITK training audience consists of small infantry units (e.g, squads and fire teams and their commanders). The ITK trains teams and team leaders in tactics and decision making associated with tactical engagements and Operations Other Than War (OOTW). The ITK is a stand-alone system; as such it is not interoperable with the CAN network or with any external system. The major components of the ITK are a Forward Observer Trainer, a Non-Lethal Trainer, a Fire Team Cognitive Skills Trainer, and a Unit Leader Decision Making Trainer. Only one of these applications may be selected and executed at any given time; the selected application runs as a distributed trainer on the participating PCs. Both the CAN Federation and

the ITK are supported by a digitial voice network that will simulate tactical nets in DVTE training events. For each training event, virtual voice networks are established that include the appropriate subsets of the training audience, role players, and the Trainer/Facilitator. The voice network is implemented using IVOX software running on individual PCs. Each training interface includes a HumanMachine Interface (HMI) selected and/or designed as part of this project. A single HMI device is used to support the different individual training interfaces. Ignoring the multitude of differences between components, DVTE developers concentrated on commonality, and in doing so provided insight into the interoperability/merging of such COTS training systems into a composite system such as DVTE. Their results have significant applicability in training a full range of team cognitive decision-making training requirements at advantageous cost/benefit ratios. DVTE Innovative “Common Shared

Components” Successes DVTE began as a collection of disparate independent systems modified to interoperate at the HLA level utilizing an early version of the Marine Air Ground Task Force Federation Object Model (MAGTF FOM), Virtual Simulators including Raydon LAVs; FATS Artillary/Forward Observer Trainer; NAVAIR MFS Helicopters; Constructive Simulations of JSAF and the 3D Stealth Viewer To address shortcomings identified in early testing, the DVTE Integrated Product Development teams decided to re-architect the DVTE federation. The design solution was to develop common components that eliminated the disparities between DVTE federates. Specifically, each federation became merged systems that utilized common DVTE components. The major changes were: Common Scene Manager - The five different legacy scene managers were replaced with a selected Common Scene Manager (CSM). The rationale was that correlation and visual differences would all be eliminated with this single bold move.

Additionally, the cost savings for the lifecycle of the DVTE program was a driving factor in the decision especially in light of the DVTE mission rehearsal requirements. DVTE specific features of detail texture, advanced special effects, 3D models, cultural features and terrains were developed, implemented and tested once in the CSM rather than five different versions between and betwixt. Figure 5 below, shows the Visual, NVG and IR screen captures from the DVTE Common Scene Manager. Figure 5 - Common Scene Manager Screen Captures of Visuals Common Sim-Control – Initially, the different Federates were started manually, but they evolved to allow a single PC Laptop to start and stop the entire CAN Federation or Infantry Toolkit (ITK). The current implementation utilizes MARCI machine level control from central IOS nodes to start/stop and freeze/ resume the DVTE Combined Arms Network HLA Federation and/or the ITK. Future evolutions will include further extensions to the MAGTF FOM to

work in concert with the MARCI machine level control to advanced HLA federate controls including teleport, replace and potentially roll-back, redo features. Figure 6 - DVTE Sim-Control Graphic User Interface The user friendly GUI shown in Figure 6 illustrates the simple approach that guides the interface design for DVTE. Common Communications – IVOX was selected as the DVTE common digital communications network and it was implemented via a USB headset plugged into individual laptops. It was customized to simulate the multiple radio networks required by the Marines to support normal combined arms communications requirements. Additionally, IVOX was extended to provide time-stamped recording of these multiple simulated radio channels so as to allow random access during After Action Review. DVTE also added an administrative channel for coordination and exercise control. Common Advanced After Action Review Systems – Given that a majority of the actual learning takes place in the After

Action Review process, DVTE designed the supporting AARS software to support an interactive learning dialogue with the team. Two DVTE Common AAR System prototypes were built during the development process, one for the CAN one for the ITK. The objective was a merger of the two would result in the “best of breed” features for maximum benefit and seamless control. The ITK AARS Module is shown in Figure 7 below. Further, the viewing position is selectable and an automated event log (tactical bookmarks) selection of the time-slice is supported by followed by two replays of the event of interest, the first from the perspective of the shooter, and the second from the perspective of the entity under fire. Tactical bookmarks were built as an extension to the HLA MAGTF FOM and the AARS and Logger software. It allowed event tags to be generated automatic for the blue-onblue and the first-fire tags. This automated tagging complements the manual tagging the instructors already add, and

provides an entirely new methodology for automating detection and recording of learning events. Figure 7 ITK AARS Module In Figure 7, the upper left hand window contains the event log which captures instructor notes, blue-on-blue events, and “first fire” events. The scenario relevant Rules Of Engagement and other briefing and debriefing products are contained in the window on the right. While the bottom strip chart area shows the activity on the total network, it also shows the HLA or on-line game net activity on separate strip charts for each of the communication networks. The strip charts aide instructors in finding areas of interest that normally correspond to higher levels of activity. Figure 8 is a screen capture that shows a DVTE battle in progress as displayed by NexWARS 3D Viewer , uniquely DVTE allows AARS replay of training event time-slices under instructor control that playback the visuals and the synchronized digital communications. The Replay function supports the

immediate examination of any action or event from a visual, auditory, and/or data display perspective. Further random access and above real-time controls aer available and allow the instructor to rapidly advance or retard the recorded data ands to select from any situation within the training event. Why Integrate? By operating as a team, teams develop cognitive skills, including critical thinking, over time Leave a team member out of the training process, and you unquestionably decrease the odds of “team” success for a given situation. Integrating the entire naval “team” is the first step in joint and coalition operations. The optimal output of a BFTT/DVTE integration effort would be a mission rehearsal/readiness system such as that posed earlier in this paper. It would “integrate” those system described above as they either currently support, or will support, amphibious planning and operations. Figure 8 DVTE NEXWARS 3D Viewer overlays) (w/ fire An integrated mission

planning, mission rehearsal, and knowledge management system will enable the war-fighter to operate across the full-spectrum of amphibious operations. Mission planning will leverage “lessons-learned” and will capitalize on current performance capabilities/ limitations. Plans will lead seamlessly to mission rehearsal; and validation of doctrine and performance analysis will drive the selection of training objectives. During mission rehearsal, an integrated system will to simulate the entire battle-space and simultaneously immerse the naval team in a realistic synthetic environment. From the sensor operator on the ship, to the weapons operator, to the boat lane plotter in CIC, to the air controller, the H1/AI driver and gunner, the LCAC and Armored Vehicle operators, to the infantryman on the beach – all will be able to execute a simulation-based amphibious operation that includes arrival and establishment of the AOR, intelligence gathering/analysis, mission planning,

debarkation (either through the well-deck or by the flight deck), assault, ground maneuvers, extraction and embarkation – all without “being there.” Combining the elements of a large (or small) scale amphibious operation in a benign, M&S based environment during the rehearsal process allows us to expose the entire team to the expected situation (including replication of the actual environment), test the mission plan, validate ROE/doctrine, measure our degree of success, and identify performance areas in need of remedial action prior to execution of the mission. In short, placing the team in the same environment allows them to interact in a meaningful way and allows us to evaluate their ability to execute the requisite processes. Additionally, there are non-amphibiousoperations centric benefits from such an integration effort: Total Ship Training. DVTE has embraced and leveraged the use of COTS based Virtual Reality (VR) systems. There are a number of shipboard areas where

there is a decided need for a VR capability. Examples include the Bridge/Ship Control Station, Fire Fighting/Damage Control Teams, and Lookouts. Additionally, techniques such as the employment of Night Vision Goggles (NVG) and Infrared (IR) viewing devices, which are applicable to all topside watch-standers, could be taught in a simulation-based environment. Anti–Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) Training. There are marked similarities between the decision and small unit fire team training systems networked by DVTE and the requirement to train sailors on AT/FP techniques/practices. In general, AT/FP actions fall into one of four categories: • • ID Threat and Determine (counter) Tactics Analyze and Plan for AT/FP Action • • Direct and Manage AT/FP Action Execute and Implement AT/FP Actions Although not an inclusive list, the following AT/FP training objectives are considered capable of simulation by the DVTE tool-set: • • • • • • • • • • • •

Employ lethal/non-lethal weapons Target recognition/marksmanship using night vision devices Test ROE using decision trainers Respond to a Hostage Situation Marksmanship Recognize diversion tactics Protect the pier area from penetration Protect the ship from penetration Respond to swimmer attack Respond to small boat attack Respond to vehicle/personnel bombing Engage low/slow flyer Search and Rescue operations. The role of AVSIM could be expanded to include the training of pilots in various phases of search and rescue. Joint Synthetic Automated Forces. The use of entity level contacts in BFTT would reduce BFTT operator workload by providing an ability to offload scenario generation for critical and/or background tracks 1 Joint Semi-Autonomous Forces. Similarly, the use of computer-generated forces will relieve BFTT operator workload by allowing the semiautomated generation/control or OPFOR 2. AAR. BFTT Digital Voice and Improved BFFT Digital Voice could support DVTE use in a

distributed (multi-ship) application and could, when coupled with debrief, provide timely and relevant feedback to distributed teams. VAST. The integration of VAST brings with it an ability to simulate Naval Fire Support damage and have that data displayed as a result of a UAV reconnaissance mission. Joint. If properly engineered, the potential exists to include USAF DMT, Army CCTT and other advanced distributed simulations in the BFTT/DVTE architecture. 1 2 Capitalizes on ATEAMS capabilities ibid Given our current ability to truly integrate Navy and Marine Corps simulations into a full mission capable Naval Force, we offer that we are compelled to do so. To do is our first step in realizing a fully simulation based training, mission rehearsal and readiness system. This will not be accomplished overnight. A logical plan that includes the iterative development and implementation of supporting technologies, and that charts a course for success is required. While such a plan is

beyond the scope of this document, the following general thoughts are provided: shortfall, and must be capable of being demonstrated within 18 months of project start. Phase 1 would include integration of the following capabilities: • Anti-terrorist, Special Operations, and Maritime Interdiction Operations training (including such actions as seizing oil platforms). This would leverage those tasks currently trained within DVTE that are somewhat “common” or “transportable” to shipboard watch-standers including: combat decision making, coordinated small arms training, and IR/NVG for lookouts. The focus would be on ship and pier protection from terrorist attack from land, air or sea (sea and air response would be both in port and underway), interdicting/boarding and searching commercial vessels and boarding and controlling sea-borne entities such as oil platforms. Training would rely heavily on the use of VR for immersing trainees in the training situation. Integration w/BFTT

would be in area such as the correlation of air and surface tracks (synthetic) with a visual representation for the topside trainees. • Expansion to total ship training by the inclusion of VR for Damage Control Parties, Fire Parties, and Lookouts (IR and Night Vision). BFTT integration would include such capabilities as correlating inbound threat tracks to a VR entity to allow lookouts and bridge team personnel to practice individual and team skills in an integrated ship-wide scenario. • Small-scale amphibious operations such as SOC events. VR would be used for LCCAC operators, lookouts, AAVs, etc. Weather and sea state would be modifiable to vary the level of difficulty. BFTT integration would be limited to correlating boat lanes and assault vehicles with the VR environment. The use of UAV SIM would be a plus if available. DVTE and BFTT exist today as independent systems. Although BFTT is DIS compliant and operates on the STOW LAN, it has integrated with internal/external

systems via an HLA gateway. DVTE is an HLA based system; so integrating these two systems should be relatively straightforward if BFTT were treated as Federate on the Run Time Infrastructure. BFTT, DVTE and VAST all have varying degrees of maturity and fleet knowledge, while other systems under consideration for integration are yet to be deployed. While there will undoubtedly be technical challenges surrounding the integration of these two systems, there will also be a significant amount of cultural change necessary if we are to train Sailors and Marines simultaneously in the same simulation environment. Accordingly, irrespective of technical capabilities, a phased approach would be the best integration option. Figure 9 illustrates an integration plan that would include 3 logical phases. Spec Ops/ Small scale EXW AntiTerrorism Improved /Expanded Visualizations Improved AAR (Voice) DC/Fire Party VR Phase 1 Large Scale EXW Air Ground Sea AUTO SG&C / SAF Improved data collection

& Analysis Knowledge Management Technology Mission Planning Mission Rehearsal Phase 2 Readiness Prediction Phase 3 Figure 9 Integration Approach Phase 1. The initial phase should have minimal technical risk, must fill an existing training Technology improvements to be demonstrated include automated voice capture, recording and playback in addition to improved visualizations. Phase 2. Integration would be improved to support the simulated conduct of a large-scale amphibious exercise. • This will include full integration of BFTT, ITK, CAN, VAST and perhaps planning systems such as JMPS (Gator) that support Shipboard and Marine ground/air teams including sea based assault air assault; and close air support and forward observer (integrated with the NFS team). • The optimal system will support mission rehearsal/doctrine validation and have a scenario generation/modification “on demand’ capability and will support force extraction and withdrawal. • Additionally,

UAV SIM shall be demonstrated, and “AV SIM” shall be expanded to support USN SAR missions. Technology improvements to be demonstrated include the use of SAF to provide background tracks (and perhaps critical tracks) for BFTT and data collection and analysis improvements to include individual and team performance tracking. Phase 3. Integration will be improved to provide knowledge management functions and readiness prediction capabilities as discussed earlier in this paper. The CVBG/ARG Commander would be capable of performing “best fit, what if” comparisons. The system will produce, at will, an expected readiness capability based on a mission and/or a set of missions. Initial Effort. An integrated BFTT/DVTE demonstration was conducted at I/ITSEC 2002 (Orlando FL Dec 2002) with minimal preparation and the results were surprisingly positive. While there were some technical challenges, the fact remains that with a limited investment, BFTT, DVTE and the Joint Forces Command Joint

Battle Experiment all occupied the same play-box concurrently, and all interacted in a meaningful way. Thus proving that a large scale M&S based event can be conducted across training audiences (both vertically and horizontally); and can provide significant, concurrent training value for all participants. We Know the What, The Real Question is “How?” As is often the case, there are a number of interoperability issues to be resolved when connecting two systems, especially ones that are at different levels of maturity. While the results of the BFTT/DVTE integration were extremely positive, the effort itself was not that significant from a technical perspective, as it was a relatively small-scale integration effort, “scoped” to demonstrate the viability of the concept. Had this been a full-scale integration of disparate systems across all warfare areas, audience levels and war-fighting domains, the amount of effort would have been much higher. One of the reasons is, that

while we have standards and architectures defined for many of our operational environments, there has been little work done in the area of a training architecture. An architecture that has as its principal purpose, the interaction/interoperability of systems on which training can occur. The phrase “on which training can occur” was carefully chosen as this architecture is not limited to training systems, rather it is an enabling function for all systems on which “ training can occur.” The Naval Training Architecture being proposed is based on the Joint Technical Architecture model and the accompanying design standards. It embraces the fundamental concepts of training – the concepts that training events will be “Planned”, “Conducted” and “Assessed.” In the OV-1 view provided in Figure 10 above, we can see the various processes and “users” of the training processes themselves. As we can see, the architecture is composed of operational, system and technical views,

each providing a piece of the puzzle. A paper detailing the specifics of the Naval Training Architecture is being presented separately at this conference. Summary As mentioned earlier, there exists a transient opportunity for us to leverage the capabilities of both systems into something truly greater than the “sum of the parts.” And in doing so, we may be able to effectively prototype an overarching architecture that will truly support cross system and cross service training. References Bailey, Dr. M P, Report to Congress – Shipboard Simulation for Marine Corps Operations; February 2002 Zeswitz, S., Concept of Operations for the Deployable Virtual Training Environment, March 2002 Acton, B., Stevens, B, Objective Based Training and the Battle Force Tactical Training System; Focusing our Fleet Training Processes; IITEC 01 Proceedings, Orlando, FL Bailey S., Johnston J, Smith-Jentsch K, Gonos G., Cannon-Bowers J, Guidelines for Facilitating Shipboard Team Training, Naval Air

Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando FL. Cannon-Bowers J., Salas E, Making Decisions Under Stress: Implications for Individual and Team Training, (1998), American Psychological Association Hays R.T, Singer MJ, Simulation Fidelity in Training Systems Design, (1989), Springer-Ve Acton, B., Naval Surface/Land Warfare Concept of Operations, (Jul 02), Naval Sea Systems Command, PMS 430 Guckenberger, Dr. D., DVTE System Specification, Dec 02, NAVSEA PMS 430, USMC TECOM