2010 Space Symposium - Session 7: Modeling and Simulations For Operational Training andAnalysis

MR. GANDY: Let's go ahead and get this panel started. It's the last panel of the day and, Boss; we're going to hit another one of your Christmas wish lists from today.

We know this was a topic from the last time, to be able to discuss modeling and simulation for operational trading and analysis.

The moderator for this panel is Dr. Mark Gallagher. We're very happy to have you here today. He's the Technical Director for Studies and Analyses, Assessments and Lessons Learned for the Air Force A9 staff. This panel is going to give us the opportunity to talk about both realistic exercise and training and also enhanced capability for planning and analysis in the future.

Please welcome Dr. Gallagher and his panel.

DR. GALLAGHER: Good afternoon. Last March, General Chilton, Schwartz and Taylor exchanged e-mails that ended with an agreement to bring space modeling and simulation to the same fidelity as the air domain. In October, Dr. Hennington briefed Corona on our interim plans.

Today at this panel you will hear from key leaders using space modeling and simulation. They will present in order from right to left. Mr. Jesse Citizen is from OSD AT&L [Acquisition Technology and Logistics] Defense Modeling and Simulation Coordination Office; Dr. Steve Pierce from the Army Space and Missile Defense Command; Dr. Tom Walker from Air Force Space Command; Ms. Eileen Bjorkman from headquarters Air Force; and Colonel Marcus Boyd from the Air Force Agency for Modeling and Simulation. Mr. Citizen?

MR. CITIZEN: Good afternoon. Today first to Strategic Command and AFCEA leadership, thank you for the opportunity to tell the DoD modeling and simulation and governance story.

Today I will bring you several topics. First, General Chilton, I can't quite deliver you a Christmas present, but I'm going to tell you how we're going to get to that for you. I will cover what is the DoD modeling and simulation governance, and then I'll take you through some of our objectives. And I will show you, the audience, how you can connect to the DoD M&S [Modeling and Simulation] activities and who your representatives are at that level.

Professionally we call the big chart on the right-hand side the surfboard chart. First I'll cover where I sit in OSD AT&L. Of course, you have the SECDEF. Then I come down from OSD AT&L, Dr. Carter, through Honorable Mr. Lemnios who is the Director of Defense Research and Engineering onto Mr. Welby in systems engineering, and more immediately Ms. Christine Bauman.

You see at the bottom left-hand slide, your right side, is the Modeling and Simulation Coordination Office. In that role I am responsible for facilitating and coordinating the enterprise level modeling and simulation activities.

I've been in this job since it was reorganized in the Defense Modeling and Simulation Coordination office in August of 2007. Prior to that time, that office's role and responsibility was to define some of the corporate level M&S activities. We no longer do that.

My goal is to facilitate and coordinate at the enterprise level what are the DoD M&S gaps. More specifically on the surfboard chart, you see the vertical chart, there is acquisition, analysis, experimentation, intelligence, testing and training and planning communities. Those are what we call functional communities enabled by modeling and simulation.

More specifically, where do some of the space activities fit? Well within, the OSD personnel and readiness, that training community is responsible for representing the COCOMs and the services. The analysis community who is represented by the capabilities and assessment program evaluation commonly called strategic analysis represents the analysis side. Those are your two representatives that allow you to vet your requirements up to the OSD level, but you're not limited there.

If you look at the bottom of the chart, it says the goal is to get to those billions of dollars so each of the services have representatives. They are equivalent to my office, for example, the Air Force, Office of Modeling and Simulation, as well as the Army's Modeling and Simulation, and Navy and Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation office. This allows you, the users of modeling and simulation, the opportunity to connect to the DoD M&S enterprise. At this level, there is an art and science to what we do. The science is that Mr. Shaffer who chairs the Modeling and Simulation Steering Committee, and he's the Deputy Director to the DDR&E [Director of Defense Research and Engineering] feels strongly enough that he has allocated $20 million on an annual basis that gets to those corporate and cost-cutting activities, those gaps and needs. No, we do not work inside of the JCS process. We work more upon what are the needs of the components, the services and the OSD agencies.

My job is to serve as the focal point. In the next few slides, I will tell you a little more specifically what we do in that area. Next slide, please.

Our vision implemented in August of 2007 is to get to some of those commonly addressed issues in modeling and simulation. I think Mr. McKinney in the previous panel said there is nothing unique in what we're doing in space, and I'll tell you there's nothing unique in what we're doing in modeling and simulation.

At the crux of it all is some type of IT command and control type situation that one requires sharing acceptable standards, architecture in the network; two is an authoritative data as well as enterprise wide policies, management processes that promote the sharing and reuse and cost effective development of M&S tools and data; and as I heard yesterday and today, a well-trained workforce to address the future M&S, modeling and simulation, requirements. Next slide.

At the core, we all share information technologies in cyber, space, model and simulation, common activities and standards that are required to do interoperability and to reuse those capabilities.

If you would think for a moment, not just in space but across what we do in acquisition testing, if we could reuse those models that are used to acquire a system throughout that acquisition process, maybe in the training, possibly in the life cycle management phase of how much funding could be saved over the life cycle management of command and control systems and modeling and simulation systems.

Annually we put 18 to $20 million into what we call high level tasks, and these tasks provide what are deliverables, metrics and completion dates, and we refresh that on an annual basis. Next slide.

Day-to-day, I serve as the lease standardization activity for the DoD M&S activities. What are these? Well, these are what are described in the DoD directive 5000.61 which is validation, verification and accreditation of modeling and simulation systems.

In addition, I represent the acquisition technology logistics on what is called the DISA, posted information technology standards committee. This ensures that both the IT and the intelligence communities are synchronized from an M&S perspective. Also we operate at what is called the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, SISO.

Day-to-day I also serve as the focal point or vice chair to NATO modeling and simulation group as well as I chair what is called the technical corporation program which consists of Canada, U.S., New Zealand, Australia and the UK. And I chair that to get at what are the research and engineering sides of technology activities of emerging capabilities that we could work not only in the TTCP but in the NATO simulation group.

In addition, for example, we reach back to work with the Republic of Korea key recently in testing their system to operate with the U.S. forces in Korea.

If you go to slide nine, here's how you can get in contact with us, if you have any questions beyond today. We look forward to your questions later today. Thank you.

DR. PIERCE: My name is Steve Pierce. I'm from Space and Missile Defense Command [SMDC], and thank you, General Chilton, for this opportunity to speak Army and SMDC here at this conference. Been here for the classified version yesterday and today it's a class act. Next slide, please.

The slide you're going to see come up eventually looks a lot better than I do talks about some of the purposes for models and simulations. And this is really based upon my experience and the work that I've done while I've been at SMDC.

I'm in charge of the decision support directorate, and underneath my organization I have model/ simulation studies analysis and I have also high performance competing.

For my modeling and sims folks and my studies analysis folks, I tell them before we ever start an effort that deals with M&S or studies; first of all, what's the purpose? Why are we doing this? Because what we found in the past is that in many cases the methodology and I like to use the term methodology versus model and sims or tools might encompass something other than M&S to begin with. So I'll ask them what's the purpose of this?

After we determine what the purpose is we'll then determine is there a requirement for M&S? And even then I ask go out to the other services and see if there's already an M&S out there that we can utilize. And I'm going to talk at the very end here about utilization of a system that's outside of DoD right now for an area that we've been discussing for a couple days.

And then I ask if you can't find an M&S tool out there in another organization, is there a combination of tools we can utilize to try to address some of the issues, the questions that we have in an analysis, a study, or even training or an exercise requirement.

So what I've got up here on the slide is -- the first item is enable analysis. I look at M&S as an enabler for analysis. It allows us to look at areas that we would not be able to in the real world be able to look at, so in the virtual world we can. And I tell them start out with the essential elements of analysis, what are the questions that are essential here, and how do we address those things?

In a lot of cases, what we found is some of analysis we conducted and we've had a lot of work that we've conducted with Air Force Space Command, SMC, and with STRATCOM, and the JFCCs, and in a lot of cases we can try to use something that's already out there in terms of analysis. The other part of all this, I call it scoping down where we try to go out and we may conduct a war game. We may conduct what we call a BOGSAT, a bunch of guys sitting around a table. We may conduct a war game seminar to try to address the high level questions first. And the other purpose of that also is to try to scope that down so when we get down to constructive analysis, which is very expensive, we've scoped down the specific questions we need to address.

The second bullet I've got up there is enhancing experiments. And the idea there is before we ever start the experiment we need to identify what the objectives are for that experiment? What are we trying to get to? What's the end state?

The third item is to stimulate the exercises and war games. And in this case you'll see it's different than the fourth bullet because we're looking at the organizational level. What are those organizational training objectives?

[An] example recently was we used the joint embedded messaging simulation. We support 8th Army, and they had three primary training objectives. We utilized that simulation for one of those three training objectives.

And the last one up there is support training, and this is a difficult one. I think, General Chilton, you brought the requirement and specifically you asked about WGS, and I asked my operators downstairs, do you have a simulation for that? And do you need a simulation for that?

The answer surprised me. They said they don't have a simulation like that, and what they're doing right now is training on the additional workstations they have, but that they could use that because there's certain scenarios that they can't play without a simulation.

Up here I have the primary area that we work in my group is decision support. And when I talk about decision support, we're talking about at the service level or DoD level.

On your left-hand side up there, you see the idea supporting Army concepts and concept development. The idea is that there are a lot of questions out there right now that are being addressed in terms of force structure, in terms of space forces organization in the Army, space force enhancement and also advancement of near space concepts.

On the right-hand side you see support and Army studies and experiments and you see all the areas. A lot of areas we've talked about today and yesterday.

And I was told I've got eight minutes, so I've got to bounce through these pretty fast. I think I was told these will be on a website for you to go back and look at, and any of you can call me and ask any questions, and I'll find person to answer those.

These are Army space studies we've got going on right now. And I think suffice it to say this is a good indicator of how important the Army thinks space is right now. We've got an awful lot of efforts going on at the Army level as well as at DoD level, and you'll see up there also we're supporting ORS [Operationally Responsive Space].

One of the things we found is I have two major teams underneath my studies analysis division. One is called a strategic analysis team, and the other is called the tactical analysis team.

Interesting because the idea was we would conduct tactical analysis for the ground warfighter. What we found is the majority of the studies that have been conducted by the tactical analysis team because it's really significant to that tactical warfighter when we're talking space.

So up here you see all the studies we've got going on. You see there are lot's of tight timelines up there. In a lot of cases we don't have the time to develop the model/sims required. So again you'll see up there I've got underneath the lines some of the tools we've utilized, some of the modeling simulation tools that we've utilized for these studies.

And you'll see that we've got one sat up there. That is a model that is being developed by the Army, Brigade and below for the future, and we're utilizing that for trade-off analysis looking at space specifically.

In fact, there are several aspects of that. We're looking at the COMs aspect of space as well as the ISR aspects of space. And you'll see TacSat-4 where we're supporting the effort from ORS on TacSat-4 analysis, and we're looking specifically at what does it provide to the tactical war fighter.

I throw this up here. This is an older slide. I wanted to emphasize some of the shortcomings and some of the strengths of model and sims. These were some of the key findings we had for space radar study. It was Army Equity in Space ISR.

In my mind it was really one of the first studies we conducted from the Army staff to look at what is the military utility of space for the ground war fighter? We also worked with marines at the MDCC.

Up here you'll see at the lower left-hand side, you see MTI [Moving Target Indicator] observations, moving target indicators. If you look at this analytically, you'll see there's no significant difference. Look at the lower right-hand side and you'll see SAR wide synthetic aperture RADAR wide observations. There is a significant difference in the metric here which was number of observations.

But if I take you back and tell you what the scenario was for the MTI, we were in offensive operations, so the enemy was in defensive mode. They were sort of hunkered down. So it only makes sense that MTI would not be significant here.

On the right-hand side, however, synthetic aperture radar is very, very significant. In fact, some of the tagging we tried to do between SAR [Synthetic Aperture Radar] and then movement was also later on in later phases of the operations.

In the middle top you'll see we have the SAR-N observations. And what's significant about this is you'll notice that the purple and the green, there's no difference. We still got just as many findings from those systems, and yet, we got significant additional findings because of the space radar system we have. So this just gives you an idea and overview.

One of the key things here, though, is it really is based on the scenario. You've got to use the right scenario. Next slide.

And this is just to throw up some of the space and M&S needs we have. The biggest thing I'll tell you is we need space representation in Army M&S. We right now are working closely with PM1 staff, the PEO STRI [Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation] down in Florida, trying to inject space into the Army model and sim 1SAT.

Really critically important because if you think about it 1SAP is supposed to be a training tool, an analysis tool and experimentation support tool. And so for the Army to appreciate the utility of space, you've got to inject those things in the tools that it's using for training as well as for analysis and experimentation.

I'm going to throw one additional slide up here. Next slide. And this has nothing to do with space. This is called the bubble gum slide. And I throw this slide up here because yesterday we discussed cyberspace, today we discussed cyberspace. My feeling is cyberspace is a completely separate different domain than all the other domains.

But if you look up on there, and I'm not going to go into all these, some of the key attributes of cyberspace, it's very different than any other domain is one, time approaches zero. That's why I threw up here the accelerated calculus of warfare so you could see what my major was in college.

But T approaches zero. So that is a fundamental attribute of that domain that we've got to consider if we're going to develop model simulations for this domain.

The other key attribute up here is D is not significant. D is just not significant. When you really think about a cyber attack, you can conduct a cyber attack in the next cubicle about as fast as you can a cubicle in China, if they have cubicles in China.

So there you've got those two attributes. And so when we develop model simulations for cyberspace, we've got to take those into consideration.

Just a sideline we had a meeting with Center for Disease Control about a week and a half ago, sort of an odd organization to work with DoD. But we had a sit down with Dr. Siebel. He is from the CDC Cincinnati, and we also had folks from Atlanta and from D.C.

Got to thinking about cyberspace, and going back again to my first slide, try to look at model/sims out there that we could utilize for this area and answer questions and address questions in this area.

There's a lot of similarity in my mind between the model/sims that the CDC uses and the model/sims that we would have to use for cyberspace. Again, significant differences though, distance and time.

When the swine flu came through the U.S., there were models and sims utilized to see how fast it would spread, where the inject points would be and where the vulnerabilities would be. And then the next step, of course, was how to mitigate it.

In my mind the vectors that come into a cyberspace domain are very similar. The key difference, of course, is instead of taking months it might take seconds to get through there. So we're working closely with the CDC, and we've got another meeting next week.

And I've talked to some of the panels here, and I'd like to try to work with them on trying to maybe utilize leverage the tools that the CDC has already worked and then see what we need to do to change those models and sims they have.

Another sim they have right now in Cincinnati is what they call a help tool, and that is basically trying to see how many samples it takes to determine the health of a building, to determine the health of a human being.

Again, same thing. I think that for the DoD we've got to have a simulation similar to that that can determine what the health is of the cyberspace network, determine the safety and the health of that domain.

So with that, I think I'm done. Thank you.

DR. WALKER: Well, good afternoon. I'm Tom Walker from Air Force Space Command Analysis Office, and here are my slides here. And the thing I realized right away after hearing General Chilton's wish list is that I probably should re-label this as the elf report.

We've been working hard since last March, a lot of this is coming to Air Force Space Command to work on it. So next slide, please.

While some people have a four-star tasking, this quickly turned into a 12-star tasking. And we pretty much had everything at our disposal to work on this problem.

Some of these questions, we heard them before, but everybody asking them at once it's like, okay, we need to get through this. We need to understand what's going on. We need to understand the question.

And first thing we realized is that we really needed to split this up. Strategic analysis, you know, there's the requirement and then going to the applications is because a lot of people say mod/sim, and it means a lot of [different] things [to] different people depending on how you're coming at it.

So the three ways we broke it up was to look at the strategic analysis, so that's more of looking for the defensible analysis. A lot of times the staff levels used to buy or support buying equipment, training and exercises, so training how we fight. And then something else and this is what General Kehler brought up, and that was ops support. You know, how can we help the commander in the field with decision support systems to operate faster?

Some of the ways we started looking at it is what kind of tools are there, what kind of tools should there be to maybe go faster. So that's kind of where we set this up. Next, please.

One of the first things we want to do at Air Force Space Command was to stay within the community that we deal with, what was our overall assessment of our as-is condition, you know, how are we doing right now? So you know, first off, mod/sim is more than just a tool, since we have on here the data and the analyst.

And there are issues there and things to be worked on, and we know that. But what we really wanted to do was first off from an overall assessment of ourselves say how is the team doing. And so we broke it into the mission areas. And so looking there at ISR, missile warning, PNT, GPS, COM and space control.

And for the most part the way the triangle is set up is the engineering levels on the bottom, systems level, mission level and then the campaign level is that certainly in ISR and COM we see are our two biggest issues. It's not like there's not improvement available in the rest of them, but those are the ones that we struggle with the most.

And a lot of it is because overall, ISR and COM aren't just space only issues, so even if you come at it with a space solution, you still have to understand the whole enterprise. And just asking about what the requirements are for COM, you get a lot of folks with the deer in the headlights kind of look when you're coming at it.

So that's one of the things where anybody that I've been able to talk to says that's where we could use some help is figuring out what those overall enterprise requirements are because then when you start messing around with what the space requirements are, then you can actually be able to see what happens to the other end of the solution center.

On space control and my very last slide talks a little bit more about this. One of the things we realized and General Kehler was the first one to bring this up. And that is that we tend to, when we were doing our modeling and simulation, we tended to put our answers out in how it helped airline and sea superiority. We didn't really focus on space superiority. A lot of it was we didn't really want to do space for space sake.

However, now we are in a contested environment and you can actually get space for space sake. If you can't get space superiority, some of the other superiorities are going to have a hard time.

So with that we started really focusing on that. What we've come up with now is a mission model that is doing space-on-space combat. So it's called Space Brawl, and we're going to have a slide at the end. So that's where we have that.

The list there is all the models that we're currently using, and it's a pretty extensive list. And I think a lot of people were surprised when we listed them all out and said, hey, here's what the community is using.

I throw this up here because this is something General Chilton said right from the get-go. Hey, the air guys are doing it this way. How come space can't also? So certainly we don't know the answer to all this yet, but it's a driving goal for us is to make sure that we understand that. In some cases maybe it can work out fine to take the models from the air and apply it to space, and sometimes we're going to have to change the space stuff a little bit to make it fit right. A lot of times the timing and tempo is little bit different, so it makes a little more challenging to do that.

The other thing we realized is you can see that it goes system engagement mission and campaign, so that's the pyramid. But then we threw this other one on there, and it gets back to this ISR and comm issue.

Traditionally the campaign models are only dealing with an AOR when in effect anything you do there is actually affecting the overall global environment. So we were starting to think about we need something that's at least keeping track of maybe not the same fidelity but keeping track of the global environment at the same time.

The other thing right now at least in our initial efforts we were focusing mostly on SpaceCommand, STRATCOM and headquarters Air Force. But we realized from the get-go there's a lot of other people involved in this, so the list of characters there is SPAWAR intelligence community and the civil and the commercial guys. Air Force base we tend to deal a lot with NASA, but it's more the actual operational level on a day-to-day basis, not necessarily on the larger strategic kinds of missions. So there's a lot of opportunity going both ways.

One of the results from this was that we actually came out with a space M&S roadmap. And there's one for analysis, and there's one for the education and training. Don't necessarily want to read through all these, but a lot of these are the blinding flesh of the obvious.

But until this effort came up, we were all just beavering away doing what we needed to do but hadn't really sat down and looked at it, and said how do we need to move forward, how do we need to be more deliberate about it?

Two things in here I'd like to highlight is second from the bottom, the analysis parade, that was something that up somewhat of a program review that's done all the time on the budget side, on the programming side for sure, and it's like, well, maybe we should be doing that with the analysis side too, because one of the things that was highlighted through this whole study was there wasn't good communication between all the analysis offices. So STRATCOM, Air Force Space Command and Headquarters Air Force.

So this is something we think will help a lot, and that is that before things get into the corporate process that the analysts have all got together, talked about it, maybe not agree on everything, but at least understand where the other folks are coming from.

And the last is trying to understand what General Kehler was asking, and that is the analysis operational support to the commander in the field and what does that mean.

The answer to that I don't know. However, we're having an Air Force operations research meeting that is in December, and this is going to be one of the key highlights there is to talk to the other NAFs and ask them kind of what they think and see if we can move forward on that. Next.

This is the training and exercise roadmap. This specifically addressed General Chilton's kindof original question. And one of the things we're doing on the short term is the DMOC-S, the Distributed Mission Operations Center for Space which is at Schriever Air Force Base, has an extreme amount of capability to do some really neat things. And so they are actually figuring out how to inject or be able to inject these things in Global Lightning which is next spring.

And these are the ones that they're specifically focusing on right now. It's somewhat of a baby step, but it's a huge step forward. And so we'll see how it goes and modify from there. This certainly isn't exhaustive of what we want to try to do, but at the same time we're trying to, right in the middle of all this JMS is being phased in, and so they're going to have to figure out how to inject this both with any current operational systems and future operational systems.

Now, the other one on the other side, the Joint Space Training Federation, that's where the rubber meets the road on this one. What is the real requirement? And so it's going to take all these organizations to get together and truly understand what is the actual operational requirement. What does the commander need in the field and how do we need to move forward on this? Because in some cases, as many of you know, training and the simulators themselves are big bucks. And so we need to be able to identify those requirements and prioritize and move forward from there. Next.

And then I went to General Kehler and said, “here's your roadmap.” What do you think? That's great. Now what about cyber? It was, okay. Good point, sir.

So we've taken an initial step at what we're trying to do with cyber. It's a little harder. It's newer to the command, and we're moving forward with that, but we're bringing the people together and we've had some really good collaborative meetings across the community. So we're moving forward there also.

And this is my last slide but, this is basically one of our crowning achievements I think. It's been about two years in the making, but it's actually we're calling it Space Brawler and it's true, space-on-space combat. We already have a beta model up and running. We have some AOAs we're using it on. It's basically unclass all the way to extremely high levels that we're being able to use it. So I think it's a really great way to move ahead on this and address specifically the space superiority issue that we've had.

So with that, that's it. Thank you.

MS. BJORKMAN: Good afternoon. First of all, I'd like to thank General Chilton for inviting me here today to speak about this topic and, I'd also like to thank him and General James for providing the introductory remarks for our session here this afternoon.

I sat on a lot of these panels, and I think that's the first time I've ever gotten top cover from both a four-star and a three-star general before I started talking.

What I wanted to talk a little bit about today was I was the focal point up at the Air Staff for leading the training and exercise part of the tasking that Dr. Walker just went through all the details on.

And what I wanted to do is focus in on some of the thinking that went into the training and exercise piece of that as we tried to sort our way through the requirements and where we needed to go with exercises and training modeling and simulation to support exercising and training on the space side.

So the first thing we did was went back and looked at how we do things in the air domain today. We kind of all knew that, but I said let's write it down and write down what we do with space. What are the parallels and differences? And as we think our way through this, that may go with us, we go to develop the requirements that we need.

Now, we didn't develop any requirements during the last six months. What we've been doing is laying the foundation for the folks that will then take this tasking and develop those requirements and put together the roadmap as Tom was just talking about.

But like I said, there are a lot of parallels between the way we train in the air and the way we train in space, but there are a lot of differences as well.

For air side of the house, there's a lot of individual training that goes on that is augmented very heavily with modeling and simulation, particularly with simulators, of course. So as you start through your training, say, for doing F16s you would do, say, emergency procedures training and then perhaps regular procedures training before you go out and fly the actual aircraft.

However, most of the training that you do in your initial qualification is still in the airplane itself, and there's a reason for that. Obviously it's a high speed aircraft that's operated in a very dynamic environment and there's a lot of that that you can't really replicate in a simulator, at least cheaply in a simulator. So we still tend do a lot of that training, that day-to-day kind of training in the aircraft itself.

On the other hand, if you move to weapons system like the C17, those folks use more of the airline model. The airline model is you take a crew person, a pilot. You put them in the simulator. And then the first time they fly in a real airplane is when they're carrying paying passengers, so think about that next time you get on your United flight.

But it's a very safe way to do business actually. It's been approved by the FAA for many, many years, and AMC chose to go with that business model, that training model when they brought the C17 online. It works very well.

It's not quite the airline model because they do a lot of training in the simulator, and they still get one actual flight in the aircraft and then they get their check ride, so they get a couple real flights in the airplane before they go to their squadron and start flying the real airplane.

The point is they can do that because they have a simulator that can do almost everything they need to be able to do that training.

Also, AMC uses their simulators to do almost all of the continuation training. A lot of that isn't so much though just because they can. It's because they really need to because every hour they take away from the C17 to do continuation training is an hour they can't use to deliver goodies to our Army buddies.

So they have a lot of incentive to keep those airplanes flying in the actual missions and then they fly the training, the continuation training kinds of things in the actual simulator.

So as you think about space and how you want to use modeling and simulation for training, again, think about assets that you have, and what are you trying to do. Are you trying to do abnormal procedures training? Are you trying to do normal procedures training? Is your space asset available? Is there time on it available to do regular training? Or is it tasked 24/7 with real world ops?

And those are the kinds of things that you need to think about as you decide what's that right mix of modeling and simulation to use for your training.

Now you start moving away from the individual training to the team training, and for the air side, again, we have a lot of different ways we do team training in simulation, particularly our distributive mission operations. And the space side is starting to come along with that as well and doing that small team kind of training.

We can use modeling simulation to help augment with, say, doing a strike package or something like that. That's one of the areas where I'm not sure the translation works so well with space because I'm not sure what a space strike package looks like or what the equivalent is, at least today. Maybe that's something more for the future.

But again, there are some parallels there I think that as you have these individual simulators, you can connect them together then in this distributed fashion to start doing more of this larger team training and start to move yourself closer to that operational level of work.

And then we move into that next level of the operational training and even the strategic level of training. And I think that's the part that kind of got a lot of this discussion started was that today we tend to do a lot of that with white carding.

So again, it comes down to what is the requirement that trying to achieve there. Obviously white carding is maybe okay for some kinds of situations and some kinds of situations even with simulation you can't do it with simulation.

But again, if we can look at what those requirements are and figure out where does it make sense to do something in simulation and what can we actually afford to do in simulation? Then we can start to build the right models and simulations to support that training and exercise environment as well, just like we do on the air side.

We have a fairly robust modeling and simulation that supports the air, exercise and training side of the house. So we have what we call our Air Force modeling and simulation tool kit. And within that training tool kit and within that we have AUSIM and various other models that provide that accurate air representation. And they can introduce things like jamming and realistic effects so that the AOC, and the personnel being trained have to react to those effects in real-time so they're not white carded. So those are the things we're trying to look to introduce into the space training as well.

And just one last thing before I stop is to say we recognize there are some differences between air and space. In particular there are a lot more security issues dealing with space than you have with the air side. We have some of those on the airside, but they're exacerbated on the space side. So those have to be sorted out as we go through all this. We can't just develop models and simulations but we've got to figure out how we're going to actually use them as well.

On the bottom row, I'm not going to talk about that today, but we also realize that as we go through this and we're working on this for the space side but cyber is not far behind. We need to think about how we're going to integrate all of these pieces together.

And again, it's not just training space for space, it's also training space for air and air for space and integrating all those pieces and bringing the cyber in as well.

That's all I have. Thank you.

COL. BOYD: I'm Colonel Marcus Boyd. I go by Shaka. You're all welcome to call me that anytime. I'm going to be your last panelist speaker today, so I'll try to make this quick because we have a reception afterwards that's coming up.

First of all, I'd like to thank General Chilton for inviting me here. It's a rare occasion to actually have a four-star see M&S, so I'm very appreciative of that, sir.

Also, it was mentioned before modeling and simulation means different things to different people. I have a story behind that of how I was introduced to modeling and simulations. I was basically in the CAOC in the desert and deployed there for about a year or so. And I got this call from my new boss saying, hey, now that you've made colonel there, we've got a new job for you. Oh, sir, what's that going to be? Well, we've got this thing called the Air Force Agency for Modeling and Simulations, and we want you to go down there, and I'm offering your leadership.

And I said, Sir, I've never really heard about that before so what do they do? It's pretty simple there Shaka. They deal with models in Orlando. I said models in Orlando? That's a bonus. I would definitely like to do that.

So after thinking about it for a little bit I'm going, let's see, models in Orlando, what could I possibly be doing. Maybe it might be another public affairs event, maybe some type of recruiting tool the Air Force is going to use.

So after that long pause there, my boss basically said not that type of model, so this is where we are now. I was a little disappointed then, but I tell you I'm not disappointed now because from an operator's point of view, I've learned that modeling and simulations can do a lot for the warfighter. And that's what I'm here to talk to you guys about is how we're going to do this for space.

We talked before about some of these problems already about how things are somewhat stovepiped right now when we talk about training and exercise events for space, how things are presenting a perfect world scenario, so much that it's actually predictable when our operators start using this stuff.

Then we talked about white card technology, if you will. [This] can be good in some cases [but] maybe not in others. So this is our problem set that we're dealing with.

But I'm going to concentrate on General Chilton's memo there on Track 2. I think we've already talked about Track 1, and we definitely talked about Track 3. I'm going to concentrate on Track 2, what can we do for that training and exercise piece.

It's already been mentioned there's a thing called the space training federation initiative that's being worked on at this moment right now. What you see right there is the overall goal for this particular program. And one of the key words I would like to concentrate on there is that we're looking for that sustainable or keywords, that is, sustainable, persistent and realistic and automated training tool to basically help out the warfighter. Next slide.

So this is sort of the process there. Basically JSTF is going to be composed of three different governing bodies. We've got the executive oversight board which is going to be chaired by STRATCOM/J7, and you see the other members there representing the other services and of course AFSPACE. And also we've got JFCOM represented due to the Joint Warfare Center.

The other body I'm going to draw your attention to is the very bottom purple circle there called the joint working group. To me this is one of the key bodies within this construct because this is where we get our requirements from, directly from the stakeholders telling us what their training gaps are and what can possibly be done to basically meet that.

From there it basically takes the requirements and goes to the joint management team which is going to be composed of my organization that I'm in command of and also of the AFSPC Space Training and Acquisition Office [STAO] too.

And I sort of want to spell out the roles there for those particular organizations. For STAO, they're going to be our acquisition authority to basically make things happen. For AFAMS [Air Force Agency for Modeling and Simulation] we're going to represent the warfighter and basically try to capture those requirements and get those into a possible modeling and simulations requirement.

The executive board's role in all of this is to make sure we've got the right picture on this, that we've got the right requirements and all given that we are in a fiscally constrained environment that we actually prioritize these things correctly.

So where are we going? First stage is we need to basically develop those requirements as was mentioned before, and that's what we're going to do, starting with that stakeholders group, get those requirements embedded, see what the training gaps truly are, and then from there put those in a capability-based analysis and then bring those up through the JCIDS [Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System] process itself.

So where we are right now and what's the way ahead. At this point we're working on a memorandum of agreement between all the different players, especially on the joint management team and STRATCOM and JFCOM, basically to see that we have the right picture on all this. And with that we're also staffing a charter and some business roles of basically how to do business.

The main thing I'd like to point out is that what we're trying to do is create some documented requirements in this fiscal constrained environment that we can actually take to the right folks.

One of the things we're looking at is the capability-based assessment, and once that's done we can possibly move to an ICD [Initial Capabilities Document] or CDD [Capability Development Document]. Now, throughout this whole process we're going to be leveraging things that are already out there because I'm sure there's going to be some ICDs we can use that might allow us to go straight to the capability's development document to speed things up.

That's the materials side more than anything else, but we're also going to be looking at nonmaterial solutions just as well too because we may be able to leverage some things already out there and just put the policy in place to bring stuff together. So that's where short term is going.

Long term, we're going to look at it. We're looking at that cycle I showed you before of actually being a life cycle management process, consistently collecting those requirements in a periodic fashion and then bring those up to that executive board again. And then once the executive board basically gives the orders, they want to try to make that happen through some material developments or maybe some nonmaterial developments. And of course using an evolutionary and incremental acquisition approach.

So that is all I have for you, and thank you very much.

DR. GALLAGHER: I appreciate that overview. We have some questions that have been sent in now that we're going to bring up. So I'll read the first one.

Given the separation of MAJCOMs in the Air Force, how does USSTRATCOM get its highest priority space M&S requirements for capability analysis addressed? MAJCOM question, do you want to take this, Dr. Walker.

DR. WALKER: I mean that actually has been one of the big issues. A lot of it was everybody discussing on good ideas, but and then all the good ideas started running into each other. And so now I think that the whole issue of actually figuring out what the requirements are and documenting those requirements is a big step. That's really what needs to happen.

And so with AFAMS leadership, her jumping in and with STRATCOM taking on the senior leadership role of bringing everybody together around the table is how we're moving forward on that.

DR. GALLAGHER: Next question we received are the requirements for representing space capabilities at the operational level via models well defined? If so, when will we begin to see the work on developing them?

COL. BOYD: Like I said before, what we're doing right now is still trying to put this construct together to actually capture those requirements. And we're going to really try to create robust capability-based assessments to basically document those requirements.

And then with that that's when we take it basically through the JCIDS process. And that being the first step of that JCIDS process. As for time line for that at this moment, that is still being worked out because we're still trying to get the charter and the business roles and of course memorandum of agreement together. Once that's in place then its fight's on.

DR. GALLAGHER: The third question we received, it looks like there are somewhat well defined training requirements for joint space operators, initial qualifications and continuation training. Are the systems fielded yet? So they're asking where we're at in the development cycle on training capabilities.

DR. WALKER: I'll take that one. The key is right now, I mean, from Air Force Space Command perspective is the standard space trainer. So the idea there is it's a modular concept and basically can take on any of the new systems, also trying to retrofit it to be able to handle some of the older systems.

It's well on its way. I don't know the exact fielding date of it, but I know that every time it comes up, it's one of the first things out of General Kehler's mouth is make sure that it's interoperable with that as it moves forward.

DR. GALLAGHER: Thank you. Jesse, listen to this question because it's coming your way. When will modeling and simulation be required as part of the competitive selection criteria for all DoD acquisitions to prove cost savings in accordance with Secretary Gates' acquisition saving memo?

MR. CITIZEN: Referencing the memo that came out on September, the efficiency memo. If you recall where I said organizationally I sit within the systems engineering activity. In 2009, that was what was called the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act, the WSARA.

My immediate supervisor is Christine Baldwin leading that effort and is being approached in two ways. First way he is being approached is within the developmental planning. This is the pre-milestone zero acquisition phase looking at how can we develop a set of M&S tools that can be used to help in the acquisition process.

So specifically there's not a given date, but we have started to approach that and that's required by the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act.

DR. GALLAGHER: Thank you. Who in DoD is the OPR for developing joint operational modeling simulations for training? Who is the OPR for developing experimental and analysis models for planning future capabilities? And do the services and DoD have funding set aside to develop these M&S capabilities?

MS. BJORKMAN: How about if I take that one. Most of the modeling and simulation that's developed within DoD is actually done by the services. We've had some attempts to do some large joint programs in the last ten years, and that hasn't really worked out very well. And what we found in the long run is that it's usually better to allow the services to develop their programs but keeping that joint context in mind so that we can then federate the different models and simulations together.

So maybe that doesn't really answer exactly the question they were getting at, but I think there really is no single focal point for a lot of this. Joint Forces Command does try to bring some of these pieces together, and I know they have a key role in bringing together the joint training federation for space just like they brought it together for the other domains.

But really what we try to do is work together with all the services, try to work together as we build our models and simulations so that we can be compatible with each other and use each other's models when we can.

DR. GALLAGHER: Steve, you can think on this one. Is there a need to replicate via models the PED, processing exploitation and dissemination to include for space operational planning and execution?

DR. PIERCE: Yeah. You know, I don't know how to answer that really. I will just tell you, though, that if the question is making M&S more operational, I guess I don't quite understand the question.

Our focus has always been in the past you take model/sims that are there and try to apply those to the operation requirements. So I don't know how to address that question or not. I'm not really sure what the direction the question is going.

DR. GALLAGHER: Does anyone want to add to that? You handled it well.

DR. GALLAGHER: Can you discuss how you use SEAS and JCats for analysis?

DR. PIERCE: Yeah. I'll address that. It's interesting the tools we use for analysis of space and going back to the last question, I'm not sure I got there, but what we found is, again, it starts with what are the issues, what are the objectives of the study? And what are you trying to address in terms of questions that need to be answered? We call them EAs in the analysis world.

One of the areas we found space to be very valuable and important in was down at the special operations level and then, of course, irregular warfare came into being and the idea of contingency operations. JCats was a perfect tool for that because it really brought a lot of fidelity at the lower level. So we've used JCats for quite a few studies at Space and Missile Defense Command. We've also used JANUS [Joint Army Navy Uniform Simulation] which was a battalion below model and sim that looked at force on force at the tactical level, and then we used vector in command which is at the brigade and higher level really looking at it for divisions and course.

Now, that the next generation is 1SAF, we're looking at one semi-automated forces utilizing that model tool.

One thing I will add is we've tried to use models and sims next to each other. There are a lot of strengths to one model/sim that maybe another model/sim doesn't have but then in another area it does.

A perfect example is the way we utilized JANUS in the early days. 2002/2003 when we were conducting some major ISR studies, JANUS was good up to a certain point. That's when we went out and reached out to Air Force Space Command and found SEAS, and that was Systems Engineering Analysis Simulation not the other SEAS. That was a good tool because it has space in it. We used both those models in parallel and in a lot of cases we found a lot of correlation.

To this day we're still using SEAS a lot. So I guess in a long roundabout way, JCats is important. We use that to address specific questions looking down at the lower level, the team level, the special operations level. But then we fill in the gaps at the different echelons using other models and tools.

DR. GALLAGHER: General Chilton?

GEN. CHILTON: Two part question, Steve. On your chart showing how modeling and sim is being used in the Army to support the land warfighter, showing how space is simulated to support that, I understand that.

But what I didn't see is a little bit more to have how you can do modeling and simulation to support the console operator on a WGS console, who in a scenario I'll give you now within a war game or something, where suddenly he starts getting jamming. And he sees this. He's in charge of the payload on the bus, and he starts seeing something so we want to train him to recognize that, report it, take corrective actions or whatever.

Are you going in that direction? That's one question.

And the second part of that question kind of over to Eileen, you mentioned how a lot of these sims are best built in the single service area. I don't disagree with that, but it kind of begs here now we take the scenario. I just gave Steve and let's bring up jamming on a UFO satellite on the same campaign or scenario we're running. These sims have to be able to work together in this scenario, particularly as that then gets passed up to General James' team who is going to be training on how they're going to deal with the broader aspect, plug that into the air AOC who may be asked to do a kinetic strike to culminate the situation or whatever.

So first question is, Steve, are you looking at how you can train the operator for the day when he's going to fight his satellite? And then Eileen, how do we better address bringing it all together from a joint perspective?

DR. PIERCE: Best way to address that, sir, is up to the 1st of October. We did not have a training director for Space and Missile Defense Command. So the future warfare center and Space and Missile Defense Command relied heavily on the schoolhouses for those functional areas that intersected with space.

In the case of WGS, and Ft Gordon and the signal school were responsible for a lot of the training that has been conducted for that.

One of the areas that SMDC is starting to proceed into is looking at whether all the training tool requirements for those operators out there, talking about the ARS teams that are out there and seeing what do we need to do to not only train them up but then to sustain them in those capabilities.

So that's a direction we're going in. We're not there yet, but that's an area we're looking specifically at. Up to this point it's a functional area, so for any kind of ISR training would be Ft. Huachuca, the intelligence school for signal it would be the signal school in Fort Gordon.

But one of this things we are looking at is there is a DOTD that looks specifically a space and missile defense for the Army, and their responsibility will be to bring this those tools.

MS. BJORKMAN: That's a great question. And actually there's kind of two parts to the answer there. The first is what we do today and kind of where we're moving in the future.

And there are several interoperability protocols that we already have established within DoD that allow us to bring together simulations. In some cases simulations that were never intended to work together and there's a standard called HLA [High Level Architecture]. There's another one called DIS [Distributed Interactive Simulation]. In either one of those, you can kind of add on, if you will, to a simulation and then federate it with another.

Obviously if you're building simulations to work together from the start, you can build those pieces in and it makes that job of bringing those pieces together a lot easier.

So in the future we're getting a lot smarter about how we do this and how we build these simulation and architectures. And in the future I think we're starting to move more and more towards an integrated solution so it becomes more of a plug and play like you have on the computer today whereas you remember 25 years ago when you bought a new printer, it took you all evening to incorporate that printer into your commuter. Now you just plug in your USB port, and you're ready to go.

And that's where we're trying to head with modeling and simulation is you build them in such a way you have already defined so you can more easily plug them together.

And we've got several initiatives going on, Army has one, we have one in the Air Force, and then OSD is coordinating all those issues to bring us to an integrating architecture so we don't build those things completely separate from each other. We build them to meet our needs so we can bring them together easily when we need to have that federation of capabilities like you were talking about.

DR. GALLAGHER: Thank you. There's about three questions here I'm going to ask anyone in the panel to comment on. They're all relating to cyber, and they're asking how are we going to handle the complexity of cyber? What are we doing now to start advancing modeling and simulation? And when can we start expecting to see models and simulation to support cyber activities and evaluations?

COL. BOYD: One of the things we're doing right now is meeting with AFSPACE to start up what's called cyber modeling and simulations IPT to actually start looking at this. The stage we're at right now is really trying to collect true requirements for modeling and simulation when it comes to cyberspace.

So [we are] not as far along as we probably should be, but I think we are stepping up in the forefront to basically capture those requirements and then use those to actually insert those into a possible program of record.

I'm not sure if we're going in that direction or not but actually see what is our baseline, where are we starting off with, what is already out there, because as we already know there's different ranges we can practice and things like that, but there's still no cohesive requirements for modeling and simulations when it comes to cyberspace, or at least nothing documented that is.

So we're going to take it that route there to get that document. And then once we have those requirements documented, we should be able to proceed from there.

MS. BJORKMAN: I'd just like to add to that that, yeah, there already is some capability out there. Most of what I've seen is more down to tactical individual training level. I know the Army, the National Guard have actually developed some training systems, and I've seen some demonstrations of those for training their individual operators on defensive cyber kinds of operations.

So I think there's quite a bit going on out there, but hopefully this working group is going to be able to take a look at all those bits and pieces, not just what's going on in the Air Force, but across all the services and start to pull all those together.

DR. WALKER: I'd just like to add from Air Force Space Command is with 24th Air Force. Like Eileen, says there's a lot going on down at the units. So while it may be new to the command in general, I would argue that they've been doing this for a while.

Likewise, there are also a lot of other folks out there that have been doing this. And when you really start asking around and things will start bubbling up. So I think the key right now is getting these forums to where everybody gets to cross talk, and you can take advantage of moving forward together.

DR. PIERCE: I'll just emphasize I think Tom brought it up, but this really needs to be not just an interservice effort, DoD effort. I think it also has to be a non-DoD effort.

The thing about cyberspace, I believe we saw a little bit of it in space, where it's hard to define a wall between DoD and non-DoD in terms of space support, and we're seeing a lot of that right now. I think we discussed a lot of that in the last two days.

Cyberspace it's going to be almost impossible to define that line between warfighting and non-warfighting and DoD and non-DoD. First I think we have to get our house straight in terms of what's the reference for cyberspace. Every service right now if you talk to them, there's a little bit of different slant to the definition of cyberspace. One service says it's a domain by itself, but it's an extension of another domain. Another service says it really is down to fleet level.

I think the Army right now is trying to wrestle with, okay, is cyberspace a complete domain? My feeling is it's not a mission, it's a domain, and we've got to treat it like domain, much like we did with space.

There is some parallels to the way we had to operationalize space and determine what the utility of space was for the warfighter, the air, the navy and ground warfighter. We're there right now with cyberspace trying to determine how is it that we enable the warfighter from cyberspace, and how do we leverage the capabilities that are in cyberspace and at the same time how do we defend cyberspace.

So I think it's one area we need to start looking at it in terms of all the of the DoD aspects of it as well as the non-DoD aspects of it.

MR. CITIZEN: And at the OSD level within the modeling and simulation steering committee there's one vertical surfboard that was called the intelligence community. Within the intelligence community in FY11 we have an activity that is going to start looking at what are some of the gaps within cyber operation as well as information operation.

DR. GALLAGHER: Jesse, a question for you. Are any of the COCOMs or services out in front in modeling and simulation? What about allies and commercial practices? And what is being done to identify and integrate best practices?

MR. CITIZEN: As I showed and I emphasized in on the picture that I showed of the surfboards, the horizontal surfboard listed three best practices: Data, tools and services. At the OSD level, we have what's called the corporate and crosscutting business plan, and each of the vertical surfboards have what is called a community business plan. And those business plans are fulfilling or feed into a process into the corporate and cross-cutting business plan where we are trying to capture what are the gaps in the needs at the corporate level within M&S.

So when I made mention of the $20 million that was being allocated by DDR&E, it was to help identify what are those gaps.

In the international community, we are heavily involved into the standards and interoperability. As I mentioned I am the vice chair of the NATO modeling and simulation working group which has three parts to it. One is a standards activity, modeling and simulation standards activity, as well as a military operation requirement that looks at it from the defense planning side of NATO, helps to identify what are some of the M&S capabilities there.

And even within the NATO modeling and simulation group, we are starting to talk about what are the cyber capabilities there.

DR. GALLAGHER: And a follow-on question, do you see an impact to this effort with the disestablishment of JFCOM?

MR. CITIZEN: The SECDEF's feedback will be released on the 18th of November. I'm not at liberty to talk about that one. I just can't get into it. Thank you very much, though.

DR. GALLAGHER: Tom, could you elaborate on the operational support? Particularly are you going towards co-development and assessment for a decision port tool?

DR. WALKER: Right now, I mean, we're really looking around at trying to find out what the actual requirement might be. We actually had some issues down in Haiti to where one of our analysts was down there and was trying to do this even before we were tasked to do it and had some both positive and some not so positive experiences with it.

And a lot of it has to do with what we've seen so far is it depends on the education, training and experience of people that you have in your AOC at the time. And so, you know, it gets back to what kind of tools might they need.

So right now we're really trying to get with all the different AOCs and ask really what might you need, you know, give some examples, and so we're trying to scope this problem out. We're basically looking for what would they need inside the ATO cycle.

And so our first chance to get everybody together is here in December in St. Louis, and we actually have a specific session set aside to try to address this.

DR. GALLAGHER: Here's kind of a broad one so I expect you all can comment on it. But space operations is complex, so what function is most important, and where do you think modeling and simulation can help in exploring these functions? I'll get a list of the space functions here. Where can space modeling and simulation help with that the most?

DR. WALKER: My personal opinion is it can help everywhere. The question is to what level? That's something everybody needs to think about is in some cases we don't need to model down to the nuts and bolts. That's maybe a lot of false precision that gets entered into the decision process.

In other cases we do have to get down there and understand, for example, the tasking of SBX like that to actually simulate that out because the number of observations that are going to come into the system are going to overwhelm the current system.

So we've got to figure out ways to look at different options. And so mod/sim is the only way to be able to do that. You don't want to do it in the operational system.

It's one of those, traditional analyst, it depends. But you know, I think you just have to, you know, ask the question first and then see which kind of models can do it. And if they don't exist, I mean, we have to modify something we have right now or we have to build something new. Hopefully not build something new because that takes a while certainly to get a V&V [Verification & Validation] which is sometimes a problem especially in operations is putting un-V&V'd stuff in there, and we're not quite sure what it will do.

Just an example of one right now that is actually in the AOC and that's the GIANT which is the GPS planning tool because it actually was an engineering model that was built. So it has all kinds of bells and whistles that the SPO was using. Then as it moves down the path closer and closer to the operator, they turn more and more of the bells and whistles off. So by the time it gets down there, it's just a mission planning tool.

And even then we continually are upgrading that. Just recently we put on training masking models that took supercomputers to be able to figure out how to do it, but it's already been deployed out to the field. So it's continually updating these and making it more relevant to the warfighter.

DR. PIERCE: I think in certain scenarios where you have no line of site, it's imperative you are able to model and sim and study what the impact is for, say, COM support so you have COM on move for the Army.

Another scenario you may want to have a model and sim that is able to simulate what happens in terms of ISR for an organization. Of course, as I showed there's different aspects of that that you may want to focus on, so it really is scenario dependent. Mod and sim has a place when there's risk doing it real world, when it's impractical to do it real world because you've got to do so many runs.

And also I think when you're trying to do statistical analysis because the other strength of modeling and simulations is you can do those many, many times. EAD sim, we run it a hundred times. And the outcome of that isn't just this is the result of it, but this is all also the variance and the risk of certain things happening.

Of course, as we all know you can do something a hundred times and there may be one or two times you're successful and the other 98 time you're not. It gives you a different story than just one discreet event like an experiment.

EILEEN BJORKMAN: I think from a training perspective, if we go back to the air side that can help to see where you can use it best in space.

First of all, for emergency procedures or abnormal procedures training where you don't want to put a very valuable satellite at risk to try something out or to train someone on something. Then you also move to the next level of sometimes there are things you want to do where you don't want to perhaps be transmitting something or emitting something.

And we do this a lot in the test world where we bring those things into modeling and simulation environment as well where now you're not emitting anything open air. You're doing it all through modeling and simulation, but you're still getting the testing or the training done that you need.

And then last, again, as Steve alluded to, there are some things that just cost too much in a live environment. And so it behooves you to do something in modeling and simulation whether it's in the testing or the training side of the house.

If you have to support the training you're doing for your JSpOC, say, it's kind of a large air exercise, and that air exercise isn't available. Then there are things you can do with modeling and simulation that will allow you to augment that exercise and do it much more cheaply.

COL. BOYD: I would add one more thing too. There is training. I think we all got a big picture of that. We would also offer that you use this on-the-fly decisions you might have to make if we ever get to this level you can actually use simulations to help you make that decision at that point, or you can actually use simulations to help you execute your missions by maybe pumping constructive entities into your particular platform that you're working with to basically see how things pan out for an emission your that about to fly or execute.

DR. GALLAGHER: We've run out of time. Before we end here, what I'd like to do is do you have any issues that the panel would like to summarize or main points from the discussion? And I'll give you one cue here.

One asked is we repeatedly talked about identifying needs, and one question was that the biggest gap is identifying needs as opposed to meeting already identified needs? If you have any other burning questions or burning statements you want to leave with.

MS. BJORKMAN: I guess I would just say that we talked a lot about requirements here and I think that has been one of the biggest discussions we've had at least within the Pentagon.

When these questions came up what is the real requirement we're trying to meet here? And once we have those requirements then we can go off and really work this and figure out what are the solutions that we need. So that doesn't mean in the meantime that there aren't things we can do. I think there's a lot we can do, and I think there's a lot of capability out there already that we can use better or that we can integrate better.

But I think the bottom line is really getting those requirements and using that as our starting point.

DR. PIERCE: I'd like to add one thing. I know that a lot of the efforts we've had working with Air Force Space Command, SMC, there were times where the Navy, the Army, the Air Force came in and conducted their individual analysis.

We need the capability to be able to go ahead and conduct a joint level analysis. The point was with space radar. We did the “eaches” but we never brought it all together and said listen in a joint operation looking at air, navy and ground, these are the results you get, this is the value added that you have from space systems. And at some point we need to get there.

MR. CITIZEN: From the OSD level, earlier I mentioned the science and the art. Now I'll talk about the art. I think that what we have focused on has been standards, interoperability and reuse. And the reason we looked at that was to try to reduce what the taxpayers are paying for models and simulation by one by identifying.

We have one effort called modeling and simulation catalog. Currently it's on the NIPRNET side only. What we're trying to do is just capture where have we invested money in the models and simulation and make that identifiable across the services in an effort to reduce spending and to get back on the return of investment because we find that although some of the models are different, they can be reused to take on different activities across the various domains.

DR. WALKER: I would just like to add on to what Jesse's saying there is that is a big issue and that's reuse. I know we have this in our office a, new problem comes up. The first thing we want to do is doing their own calculations and building something from scratch. That's what they like do.

So you just start having to ask, hey, this isn't the first time this has ever come up. Is there anything else out there? And they look at you sheepishly and they'd really like to say no.

But almost every time there's something that might have to be modified, but it's a whole lot cheaper to do that. So certainly looking at the previous studies and having a repository to do that.

Air Force Space Command actually has a fairly good repository that goes, and I think OSD is going to pick up on it. It's called the SARP which is Space Analysis Resource Portal. It's both on SIPR and NIPR.

First off, we offer it to anybody if they want to load something up there, but one of things that we do is the models we're comfortable with that have really good V&V, we can explain those have a certain degree of pedigree assigned to them. And then basically there are other studies in there too, but then there's a caveat saying it doesn't necessarily have the same strengths behind it as far as we can see. People can use them if they want to, but that would be at the accreditation processes where that would come up.

COL. BOYD: My final thoughts I gave before so that we're not only can just plug and play but that we can also plug and work and also plug and fight into a live virtual constructive environment. I think that should be our end goal.

DR. GALLAGHER: So these are our leaders who are advancing modeling and simulation for space for us. I wish you would join me in thanking them for spending their time with us.

MR. GANDY: All right. That concludes today's session. We're going to have the exhibit floor open here in a little bit for a technology reception in honor of the men and women of the United States Strategic Command. That event will begin at 17:00. Hope you enjoy yourself out there; hope you've had a great day. We look forward to seeing you back in the morning at 7:50. Get ready to get started tomorrow and have another great day. Thank you very much.