Modeling & Simulation In Enterprise Architectures

1. “It is the last lesson of modern science, that the highest simplicity of structure is produced, not by few elements, but by the highest complexity.” Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Goethe; or, the Writer” Modeling & SimulationIn EnterpriseArchitectures “Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems.” RADM Grace Hopper Stephen J. Swenson October 22, 2003

2. Definitions • Model • A physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of a system, entity, phenomenon, or process. • Simulation • A method for implementing a model over time. • Modeling and Simulation (M&S) • The use of models, including emulators, prototypes, simulators, and stimulators, either statically or over time, to develop data as a basis for making managerial or technical decisions. The terms "modeling" and "simulation" are often used interchangeably. Source: Defense Modeling and Simulation Office Glossary of Terms https://www.dmso.mil/public/resources/glossary/

3. Uses (e.g.) of M&S in DoD Training Vulnerability Studies Tactics Development Exploitation Mission Planning And Rehearsal Logistics Performance Assessment Performance Limit Testing Operational Test Developmental Test Integrated System Test Concept Development

4. Vision for DoD Transformation “The two truly transforming things might be in information technology and information operating and networking…connecting things in ways that they function totally differently than they had previously. “And if that’s possible…then possibly the single most transforming thing in our Force will not be a weapon system, but a set of interconnections and a substantially enhanced capability because of that awareness.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9 August 2001

5. Dominant Maneuver Architecture Precision Engagement Architecture capability Dominant Maneuver Dominant Maneuver capability capability Architecture Architecture Full Dimensional task d task a task g task b task c task e task f Protection Architecture Precision Engagement Precision Engagement DM DM Architecture Architecture Full Dimensional Full Dimensional system 1 Protection Architecture Protection Architecture Joint Force C2 Architecture system 2 Focused Logistics Joint Force C2 Joint Force C2 Intel, Surveillance, Architecture Architecture Architecture Recon Architecture system 3 system 4 Intel, Surveillance, Intel, Surveillance, Recon Architecture Recon Architecture system 5 system 6 Resource Strategy sys 1 block upgrade 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 new sys FOC sys 3 SLEP sys 2 end of svc life capability FEEDBACK 2008 2010 2012 2014 2004 2006 training change field new organization Proposed Methodology (From JCS J8) Concepts Architectures Assessment Joint Vision National Military Strategy Joint Capstone Concept Service Operating Concepts Joint Operating Concepts Capability Roadmap capability task a task b task c

6. Four Catalysts … TERRORISMImpact of 9/11 TECHNOLOGY Character of Information Age Warfare • Emerging discontinuities in warfare • Advantages from “small, fast, and many” • Substituting information for tonnage • Rebalancing military forces for future ops • Defining new operational concepts withproper breadth and mix of capabilities • Globalization, new rule set,“system perturbation”** • “Era of invulnerability is over… surprise is back”* • Willingness to spend “projected surplus” for security • National priorities have shifted • Homeland security the top security priority • Successes of NCO in Afghanistan (OEF) TRANSFORMATIONNew Administration SeekingChange (& Strategy ) TENSIONResource Constraints • QOL, O&S costs continue to trump modernization • Aging force growing more costly • Huge bow waves in aviation, shipbuilding persist • Finding $ for transformation and modernization • Program divestiture where returns are decreasingor “not contributing to (benefiting from) the net” • Reduced buys of legacy systems • DPG/QDR force sizing debate • Balancing risks (insufficient resources) • Regional balance / assured access • Capabilities-based planning • Promotion of innovation & experimentation • More entrepreneurial requirement process • Pervasive realignment underway “New rules for a new era” *DEPSECDEF P. Wolfowitz; ** T. Barnett, Office of Force Transformation

7. Business Process Changes Stronger Government / Industry Collaboration Rapid Prototyping Rapid Technology Insertion Experimentation Human Systems Integration ReAlignment Operational System Changes FORCEnet Global Information Grid Network-Centric Enterprise Services Information Warfare Cooperative Engagement Sensor-to-Shooter Large-N / Swarm Small, Fast, Many Uninhabited / Unmanned Vehicles Non-traditional Sensors Non-traditional Threats …Which Means

8. INFRASTRUCTURE Human Resources Contracting Practices Networks Knowledge / Data Management Work Flow Management NTEROPERABILITY Simulation-to-Simulation Simulation Composability Lexical / Semantic Descriptions Battlespace Taxonomies and Ontologies CONTENT Human Behaviors Large-N System Behaviors C2 Modeling Network Modeling Environment Modeling Effects Modeling Materiel Modeling Traditional Threat Non-Traditional Threat Advanced Blue Systems Content Performance Time, Space ARCHITECTURES M&S Community Challenges

9. Concept of Operations CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS The Navy Modeling & Simulation Standards Project The Navy M&S Community and Industry are invited and encouraged to nominate M&S standards (including protocols, techniques and processes) that will support the use and reuse of Navy models, simulations, and data. The steps within the Navy’s M&S Standards Process focus on three key activities:Nominate, EvaluateandAdvocateNavy M&S standards. Essential to these key elements are an automated web tool suite; facilitated support to address and surmount challenges; and M&S experts to review, leverage and refine appropriate standards. Supported by Government and Industry Government Nominate Industry Evaluate Advocate • NOMINATE:Identify the need for Navy M&S Standards and Best Practices. • EVALUATE:Technical Review by a team of M&S experts with feedback from M&S Community. • ADVOCATE: M&S Community Outreach and Education Program.

10. Priorities for M&S Standards • Dell Lunceford (AMSO) • Chuck Maclean (NIST) • Ron Hofer (UCF / IST) • Bernie Zeigler (Univ. of Arizona) • Warren Katz (MaK Technologies) • Bill Tucker (Boeing) • Jean-Louis Igarza (NATO) • Andrew Vallerand (DND Canada) • Dylis Grant (QinetiQ) • Bjorn Moller (Pitch) • Simone Youngblood (DMSO) • Gunnar Ohlund (FMV Sweden) • Phil Zimmerman (DMSO) • Bob Lutz (JHU/APL) • Bill Waite (Aegis Technologies) • Gabriel Wainer (Carleton University) • Paul Foley (DMSO) • Mike Conroy (NASA) • Tom Johnson (Analytical Graphics) • Sam Fragapane (AFAMS) • Jeff Fogle (Northrop-Grumman TASC) Community Leaders International Government Industry Academia

11. Perspectives on Standards Priorities for M&S Standards • Standards reflect a consensus about shared knowledge and experience that is economically beneficial to a community of interest. • Key enabler of efficiency and optimization in the development of simulation systems. • Open standards create a competitive marketplace for vendors on a level playing field. • Killer of the stovepipe. • They can spur, and benefit from, increased research. • Standards do not stifle creativity – they are a platform on which creativity builds. • Without appropriate M&S/data standards, we have chaos!

12. Composability • Composability is the ability to put together a piece of software from several components. This is an essential property for building large and complex systems as it enables modularization and separation of concerns. • E.g. • Legos • Interchangeable parts • Local area networks • Object oriented programming • Java Beans • Advantages • End user flexibility • Component reusability • Separation of concerns • Ease of test (system of systems perspective • Abstraction of details • Speed delivery of product … Our Challenge is CONTEXT DEPENDENT composability

13. My addition LMMS (Large, Monolithic, Mega-Simulation) LMMS (Large, Monolithic, Mega-Simulation) My-LMMS (My Large, Monolithic, Mega-Simulation) Pennies from heaven His addition Her addition Joe’s EO/IR Environment Sally’s FLIR Model Herb’s F-18 E/F Model My Radar System Model Simulation Engine Vito’s Threat SAM Model Betty’s Background Air Traffic Model Dealing with new requirements Spaghetti Code Sub-optimal Analysis Simulation Challenged Desirable Expensive

14. Draft Goals for Navy M&S Standards • To enable the Navy Mission and Vision by aligning M&S Development, Identification, Evaluation, and Advocacy through standards. • To improve structure and discipline in the Modeling and Simulation Community by inculcating architectural concepts, ensuring the common use of architectures, and fostering interoperability among architectures. • Provide standards for the composability of Naval M&S activities. • Provide standards for the content and the description of content of Naval M&S and related data. • To improve modeling and simulation business practices by identifying best practices and standards for the acquisition, execution, and employment of modeling and simulation tools. CULTURE TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS

15. T*E*A*M*S Torpedo Enterprise Advanced(ing) Modeling and Simulation Initiative

16. Shortfalls of Existing Capability • NON-STANDARD PROCESSES • Requirements • Testing • Documentation • Configuration Management • Resourcing • Sharing • LACK OF INTEROPERABILITY AND REUSABILITY • Unnecessary and costly redundancy • Limited consistency across enterprise • Limited compliance with DoD interoperability standards • Isolation from other communities • OLD SOFTWARE PARADIGM • High maintenance costs • Difficult to acquire new talent • Does not take advantage of rapidly advancing software development technologies • Does not adhere to emerging software standards • Limited flexibility • Monolithic products • DYSFUNCTIONAL • CULTURE • Competition v. Cooperation • Now v. Then • Not Invented Here

17. Shortfalls of Existing Capability • NON-STANDARD PROCESSES • Requirements • Testing • Documentation • Configuration Management • Resourcing • Sharing • Lack of direction; loss of focus, unvectored thrust • Difficult to adapt to [rapidly] changing technology, business, and operational environments • Efforts not shared • Difficult to attract new talent • Inconsistent results • Loss of credibility • LACK OF INTEROPERABILITY AND REUSABILITY • Unnecessary and costly redundancy • Limited consistency across enterprise • Limited compliance with DoD interoperability standards • Isolation from other communities • OLD SOFTWARE PARADIGM • High maintenance costs • Difficult to acquire new talent • Does not take advantage of rapidly advancing software development technologies • Does not adhere to emerging software standards • Limited flexibility • Monolithic products • DYSFUNCTIONAL • CULTURE • Competition v. Cooperation • Now v. Then • Not Invented Here

18. End States • Analysts identify required components, assemble components into a requirement-specific simulation tool, document the tool’s configuration, and begin a study within 48 hours of initial tasking. • A fully integrated team of [weapon enterprise] model developers, testers, users, and sponsors define M&S strategic goals, standards, and processes • Component models developed for one program are “plug compatible” with models developed for other programs (I.e. pay once) • Corollary: Modeling content built for one phase of weapon development is usable in all subsequent phases of weapon development • Corollary: Technology, acquisition, operational, etc decisions are based on consistent model results • Confidence in undersea weapon models is high because each component model is developed according to a standard specification (I.e. interface and structure), tested according to a standard process, and integrated into requirement-specific simulation tools according to standard practices. • Content developers are free to focus on content and to innovate “on top of standards” unfettered by peripheral (I.e. non-content) concerns. • A Modeling and Simulation Resource Repository (MSRR) compliant “card catalog” (meta-data) of undersea weapon models, environments, and threats is available to the entire weapons enterprise. Modeling and simulation is matter-of-fact. Focus is on putting better ordnance in the hands of the warfighter -- cheaper and faster.

19. To Achieve the End States: • Technology • Modeling content (quality, fidelity, critical mass) • Simulation framework(s) • Repository (card catalog model) – web, MSRR compliant • Human-machine interface(s) • Standards / Formalisms • Interoperability standards: common vocabulary (lexicon), grammar (syntax), world view (taxonomies, ontology), understanding (semantics) • Process standards: common model development, VV&A and integration processes • Documentation standards: common templates and documentation requirements • Evolved Culture • Enterprise-wide cooperation is the rule; competition is the (sometimes advantageous) exception • Individual technical contributions are encouraged and efficiently managed

20. Standards-Based Collaborative Environment Content Taxonomies Interface Standards Common Frame of Reference Common Common Processes Framework Ontologies

21. Consortium Organization Overview Oversees consortium, Oversees consortium, Oversees consortium, Oversees consortium, develops requirements develops requirements develops requirements develops requirements Develops/maintains Develops/maintains Develops/maintains Develops/maintains standards standards standards standards Integrates Integrates IPTs IPTs w/weapons w/weapons Integrates Integrates IPTs IPTs w/weapons w/weapons community, USW community, USW community, USW community, USW Develops common Develops common Develops common Develops common community, community, DoD DoD community, community, DoD DoD software environment software environment software environment software environment community community community community Develops taxonomy, Develops taxonomy, Develops taxonomy, Develops taxonomy, content, and interface content, and interface content, and interface content, and interface Executive Executive Executive Executive Manages standards Manages standards Manages standards Manages standards Steering Group Steering Group Steering Group Steering Group Configuration Configuration Configuration Configuration Control Board Control Board Control Board Control Board PROCESS IPT PROCESS IPT PROCESS IPT PROCESS IPT Systems Systems Systems Systems Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Group Group Group Group FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK IPT IPT IPT IPT THIS IS LARGELY A SOCIAL ENGINEERING CHALLENGE! TECHNICAL TECHNICAL TECHNICAL TECHNICAL DESIGN IPT DESIGN IPT DESIGN IPT DESIGN IPT

22. “The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep.” From Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening by Robert Frost

23. Naval POWER 21 • Network Centric Warfare is the theory. • Net-Centric Operations is the concept. • FORCEnet is the process of making the theory and concept a reality. Naval Transformation