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 Dr. Michael Page Bailey NAVSEA PEO IWS USMC/TECOM Washington, D.C. Quantico, VA

Mr. Bruce Acton Dr. Dutch Guckenberger Novonics Corporation SDS International San Diego, CA 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 Ph.D. 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 substantive knowledge of unit and force Face of Naval Warfare readiness “on-demand” and that will allow them to rehearse their Joint and Coalition missions in a truly representative and collaborative Today’s Naval war-fighter faces a radically new environment. operational environment; one juxtaposed by major technology insertion resulting from a The military services and Joint forces have highly dynamic world and its associated politico- undertaken several major developments aimed at military situations. This environment validates addressing these combined challenges. The the requirement for Commanders at all echelons Navy and Marine Corps are both investing to achieve, sustain and assess the readiness of heavily in such initiatives as simulation-based their units and forces. Advanced technologies training systems and improvements to resource have rendered our Naval forces the most potent status tracking databases. The reason is obvious ever, but they have also imparted unprecedented - we have little choice. levels of complexity on our underlying systems. This complexity makes systems more difficult to Today’s initiatives focus on four types of operate and maintain, as well as making it more decisions fundamental to the exercise of difficult to rehearse our missions so that we may Command at all echelons. These are as follows: assess our overall readiness to execute the mission assigned.  Are we ready? (to do what)  What can/must we do to get ready? At the same time, our dynamic world situation  What is the best fit for the mission? . has given rise to new joint and coalition missions  What is the best near-term readiness that can be expected to change rapidly in terms sustainment strategy? of tasking, operating area, and composition of Joint and coalition forces. Mission complexity is All of these decisions share a common growing at an unparalleled rate. Where we were requirement – the ability to assess readiness and once limited to four principal missions areas as to compare alternative courses of action. The recently as ten years ago, today we are Commander cannot effectively apply resources confronted with in excess of twenty, all with toward improving and sustaining readiness unique training requirements. Additionally, unless and until there is a method of measuring there are no “single-mission-missions.” The readiness. Best-fit and other resource allocation integration of multiple, and perhaps unrelated decisions require the Commander to know what missions into a Mission Capability Package “better” is and to apply that knowledge in composed of perhaps widely diverse mission comparing available alternatives. The mission essential tasks, adds an additional level of rehearsal/training system of the future must complexity. Our training and mission rehearsal provide the means for assessing readiness “on processes and the systems that implement these demand” to support the foregoing types of processes must be highly adaptive not only to decisions for deployed forces. This will support these missions, but must also support unquestionably result in better-trained, more new, unidentified missions and tasks, and must capable forces. A higher state of readiness can do so with great agility. safely be presumed as a consequence of the increased frequency and realism of training As a result, Commanders must make readiness opportunities, the greater sophistication of predictions on short notice, and in light of readiness testing procedures and data tracking, changing conditions. Thus, while readiness and an ability to conduct valid mission rehearsal assessment is becoming a more difficult and prior to going in harm’s way. complex task, it is one that Commanders will be called upon to perform more often, and more However, these capabilities do not answer or reliably. For a Commander to prevail in battle, even address such questions as how much he must be ready – ready to execute those tasks training is enough, which types of training and/or critical to the mission at hand. In order to do so maintenance should be given priority, whether or in an effective and efficient manner, not training or personnel reassignments can Commanders require a system that will provide overcome a casualty, or whether changed mission requirements exceed the current used BFTT to integrate ships and crews into capabilities of the ship or force. Roving Sands (JFCOM), Foal Eagle (PACOM), Joint Project Optic Windmill, and Juniper-series Our challenge is not only to identify those events (EUCOM). existing systems that will enable us to meet these requirements, but also to build a persistent Current Capability architecture that will support both the integration The BFTT system surrounds the ship’s sensors, of these possibly disparate systems and perhaps weapons and command and control capabilities more importantly, to provide the framework and allowing the training audience in each of the discipline that will enable us to build new ship’s warfare areas to be placed in an systems “from the ground up” that will truly “immersive war-fighting” environment via their support the war-fighter in a fully integrated actual tactical equipment. The on board training manner. team selects, creates or modifies a training scenario; transitions the combat system to a Where are we? training state; injects the single training scenario Battle Force Tactical Training into the combat system via simulators or stimulators; automatically collects ground truth data (what and where the simulated and live The Navy’s BFTT system allows ship crews to objects were in the scenario) and perceived data use the ship itself to conduct training. It is (what the combat system detected and did during installed in over 70 ships and serves as the the scenario); and finally debriefs the training integrating architecture for many new audience. developments in combat systems training. As a permanently installed combat system training Figure 1 shows the current simulation capability, BFTT integrates with and surrounds capabilities available in a BFTT exercise. The the ship’s sensors, weapons, and command and same scenario drives each of the sensors/nodes. control capabilities. Today, BFTT provides the crew the ability to: BFTT Functional Overview BFTT

Train autonomously, by selecting or developing BFTT Shoresite BFTT a simulated battle problem, injecting the battle Controller Display

Data Collection Stimulator/ problem into the shipboard combat system, Module (DCM) Simulation

On-Board collecting data, and debriefing the event in the Trainer (OBT) Data Collection COMBAT Module (DCM) SYSTEM form of feedback to the training audience; BFTT Shoresite Stimulator/ Simulation

On-Board On-Board Trainer (OBT) Trainer (OBT) Stimulator/ Participate in multi-ship training events by Simulation connecting BFTT-equipped ships (and those equipped with compatible devices) into a 2/17/2003 6 common battle problem to allow ships to train functioning as a battle group. Most recently, Figure 1 – BFTT Segment BFTT enjoyed a resounding success as the centerpiece of the USS Nimitz Battler Simulated Navigation. BFTT provides the group/ARG training process; ability to synthetically relocate the ship to any latitude and longitude. The simulated position, Participate in Navy and Joint Experiments. heading and speed are distributed to the combat BFTT continues to be used in the conduct of the system as if they came from the ship’s own USN’s Fleet Battle experiments. For example, inertial navigation system. BFTT was used in May/June 2001 to bring the experimentation audience aboard USS Electronic Warfare. The ship’s electronic BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) into Navy warfare team is included in the BFTT training Warfare Development Command’s Fleet Battle audience by providing simulated electronic Experiment-INDIA; emissions for detection by the AN/SLQ-32A via the BFTT Electronic Warfare Trainer (BEWT). Participate in Joint training / CinC assessment events. Regional Commanders-in-Chief have Undersea Warfare. The ship’s underwater BFTT Shore Sites. The conduct of large, multi- warfare team is included in the BFTT training ship training events usually requires additional audience by providing simulated acoustic problem controllers. To meet this need, BFTT emissions for detection via the hull mounted has installed problem control consoles at the sonar (AN/SQS-26), passive acoustic array Fleet Combat Training Centers Atlantic and (SQR-19), and LAMPS Mk III helicopter (SQQ- Pacific. Other shore-based training activities 28) – all via BFTT’s interface with the SQQ-89 have requested this capability, and installation is On-Board Trainer. currently under consideration.

Strike. The TOMAHAWK firing team is EVERETT, WA included in the BFTT training audience by BREMERTON, WA YOKOSUKA, JAPAN providing surface tracks around which the firing ATGWESTPAC team must construct a route for the cruise missile.

SAN DIEGO, CA SASEBO, JAPAN FCTCPAC NORFOLK, VA Data Collection. BFTT collects perceived data LITTLE CREEK, VA FCTCLANT PEARL HARBOR, HI INGLESIDE, TX from the combat system during the course of the (Future) MAYPORT, FL exercise to reconstruct what the training audience saw and did. This information is overlaid with ground truth data to provide reconstruction/ Figure 2 - BFTT Communications Segment analysis debrief products at the conclusion of the exercise. BFTT AAR/Debrief process. BFTT Debrief/ Air and Surface Warfare. The ship’s air and AAR capability is built on a validated learning surface warfare teams are included in the training model, a model founded on the premise that audience through the stimulation of air and individuals and teams learn not only by doing, surface search radars via BFTT’s Training but my participating in an interactive dialogue Stimulator/Simulator System (TSSS). This during which perceptions are changed by a team device injects Radio Frequency (RF) or dialogue. Figure 3 below provides an overview Intermediate Frequency (IF) signals into each of the BTT learning model, while Figure 4 is a radar to provide a realistic representation of sample of a BFTT Tactical Situation snapshot detections of simulated objects, radar landfall, used for facilitating a team debrief. chaff, and jamming. The Learning Model SPY-1 Radar on AEGIS. BFTT-generated tracks are presented on SPY-1 phased array radar EXERCISE PLANNING/ via AEGIS Combat Training System (ACTS) MANAGEMENT & Mk 50 and 51. AAR FACILITATOR Performance Data & Perceived JOINT / SERVICE / UNIT Feedback SSDS Mk 1. The Ship’s Self Defense System Truth Data TEAM AAR Collection (SSDS) team is included in the training audience TRAINEES through BFTT’s interface with self-defense CONTEXTUAL sensor and weapon simulations. INTERACTION Training Ground Environment Truth SYNTHETIC Control BATTLE SPACE 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. Figure 3 -BFTT Learning Model 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. Figure 4 – BFTT Debrief TACSIT interoperable with the CAN network or with any external system.

DVTE Today The major components of the ITK are a Forward Observer Trainer, a Non-Lethal Since its inception, DVTE’s primary goal has Trainer, a Fire Team Cognitive Skills been the delivery of a low cost, deployable Trainer, and a Unit Leader Decision Making training system, and the principal development Trainer. Only one of these applications may approach was one of adopting/adapting be selected and executed at any given time; successful COTS training products. DVTE itself the selected application runs as a distributed consists of two major, independent subsystems trainer on the participating PCs. The Combined Arms Network and the Infantry Tool Kit: Both the CAN Federation and the ITK are supported by a digitial voice network that will  Combined Arms Network (CAN). The CAN simulate tactical nets in DVTE training events. training audience consists of Marine For each training event, virtual voice networks Expeditionary Unit (MEU) and battalion are established that include the appropriate level staffs, crews of armored vehicles, subsets of the training audience, role players, and aircraft pilots and gunners, and forward the Trainer/Facilitator. The voice network is observers. The CAN trains individuals and implemented using IVOX software running on teams within this training audience in individual PCs. planning, battle management, and engagement (maneuver and fire support). Each training interface includes a Human- The CAN is a federation of simulators Machine Interface (HMI) selected and/or constituted in accordance with the designed as part of this project. A single HMI Department of Defense High Level device is used to support the different individual Architecture (HLA) for Simulations. It uses training interfaces. the RPR FOM and, ultimately will use the MAGTF Federation Object Model (MAGTF Ignoring the multitude of differences between FOM) and Federation Agreements to components, DVTE developers concentrated on achieve interoperability of the various commonality, and in doing so provided insight legacy simulators. into the interoperability/merging of such COTS training systems into a composite system such as The major components of the CAN DVTE. Their results have significant federation are individual training applicability in training a full range of team simulations representing armored vehicles, cognitive decision-making training requirements aircraft, and forward observers, respectively; at advantageous cost/benefit ratios. a Trainer/Facilitator Workstation based upon a 3D Stealth Viewer and a Joint Semi- Automated Forces (JSAF) simulation DVTE Innovative “Common Shared engine. Components” Successes

 Infantry Tool Kit (ITK). The ITK training DVTE began as a collection of disparate audience consists of small infantry units independent systems modified to interoperate at (e.g., squads and fire teams and their the HLA level utilizing an early version of the commanders). The ITK trains teams and Marine Air Ground Task Force Federation team leaders in tactics and decision making Object Model (MAGTF FOM), Virtual associated with tactical engagements and Simulators including Raydon LAVs; FATS Operations Other Than War (OOTW). The Artillary/Forward Observer Trainer; NAVAIR ITK is a stand-alone system; as such it is not MFS Helicopters; Constructive Simulations of JSAF and the 3D Stealth Viewer evolutions will include further extensions to the To address shortcomings identified in early MAGTF FOM to work in concert with the testing, the DVTE Integrated Product MARCI machine level control to advanced HLA Development teams decided to re-architect the federate controls including teleport, replace and DVTE federation. The design solution was to potentially roll-back, redo features. 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 Figure 6 - DVTE Sim-Control of the DVTE mission rehearsal requirements. Graphic User Interface DVTE specific features of detail texture, advanced special effects, 3D models, cultural The user friendly GUI shown in Figure 6 features and terrains were developed, illustrates the simple approach that guides the implemented and tested once in the CSM rather interface design for DVTE. than five different versions between and betwixt. Figure 5 below, shows the Visual, NVG and IR Common Communications – IVOX was selected screen captures from the DVTE Common Scene as the DVTE common digital communications Manager. 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 Figure 5 - Common Scene Manager Screen the team. Two DVTE Common AAR System Captures of Visuals prototypes were built during the development process, one for the CAN one for the ITK. The Common Sim-Control – Initially, the different objective was a merger of the two would result in Federates were started manually, but they the “best of breed” features for maximum benefit evolved to allow a single PC Laptop to start and and seamless control. The ITK AARS Module stop the entire CAN Federation or Infantry is shown in Figure 7 below. 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 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-on- blue 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 The Replay function supports the immediate examination of any action or event from a visual, In Figure 7, the upper left hand window contains auditory, and/or data display perspective. Further the event log which captures instructor notes, random access and above real-time controls aer blue-on-blue events, and “first fire” events. The available and allow the instructor to rapidly scenario relevant Rules Of Engagement and advance or retard the recorded data ands to select other briefing and debriefing products are from any situation within the training event. 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 DVTE AARS - LITE game net activity on separate strip charts for each Why Integrate? of the communication networks. The strip charts aide instructors in finding areas of interest that By operating as a team, teams develop cognitive normally correspond to higher levels of activity. skills, including critical thinking, over time Leave a team member out of the training process, Figure 8 is a screen capture that shows a DVTE and you unquestionably decrease the odds of battle in progress as displayed by NexWARS 3D “team” success for a given situation. Integrating Viewer , uniquely DVTE allows AARS replay of the entire naval “team” is the first step in joint training event time-slices under instructor control and coalition operations. that playback the visuals and the synchronized digital communications. 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.

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 Figure 8 DVTE NEXWARS 3D Viewer (w/ fire the selection of training objectives. overlays) During mission rehearsal, an integrated system will to simulate the entire battle-space and Further, the viewing position is selectable and an simultaneously immerse the naval team in a automated event log (tactical bookmarks) realistic synthetic environment. From the sensor selection of the time-slice is supported by operator on the ship, to the weapons operator, to followed by two replays of the event of interest, the boat lane plotter in CIC, to the air controller, the first from the perspective of the shooter, and the H1/AI driver and gunner, the LCAC and the second from the perspective of the entity Armored Vehicle operators, to the infantryman Although not an inclusive list, the following on the beach – all will be able to execute a AT/FP training objectives are considered capable simulation-based amphibious operation that of simulation by the DVTE tool-set: includes arrival and establishment of the AOR, intelligence gathering/analysis, mission planning,  Employ lethal/non-lethal weapons debarkation (either through the well-deck or by  Target recognition/marksmanship using the flight deck), assault, ground maneuvers, night vision devices extraction and embarkation – all without “being  Test ROE using decision trainers there.”  Respond to a Hostage Situation  Marksmanship Combining the elements of a large (or small)  Recognize diversion tactics scale amphibious operation in a benign, M&S  Protect the pier area from penetration based environment during the rehearsal process  Protect the ship from penetration allows us to expose the entire team to the  Respond to swimmer attack expected situation (including replication of the actual environment), test the mission plan,  Respond to small boat attack validate ROE/doctrine, measure our degree of  Respond to vehicle/personnel bombing success, and identify performance areas in need  Engage low/slow flyer of remedial action prior to execution of the mission. In short, placing the team in the same Search and Rescue operations. The role of environment allows them to interact in a AVSIM could be expanded to include the meaningful way and allows us to evaluate their training of pilots in various phases of search and ability to execute the requisite processes. rescue.

Additionally, there are non-amphibious- Joint Synthetic Automated Forces. The use of operations centric benefits from such an entity level contacts in BFTT would reduce integration effort: BFTT operator workload by providing an ability to offload scenario generation for critical and/or 1 Total Ship Training. DVTE has embraced and background tracks leveraged the use of COTS based Virtual Reality (VR) systems. There are a number of shipboard Joint Semi-Autonomous Forces. Similarly, the areas where there is a decided need for a VR use of computer-generated forces will relieve capability. Examples include the Bridge/Ship BFTT operator workload by allowing the semi- 2 Control Station, Fire Fighting/Damage Control automated generation/control or OPFOR . Teams, and Lookouts. Additionally, techniques such as the employment of Night Vision Goggles AAR. BFTT Digital Voice and Improved BFFT (NVG) and Infrared (IR) viewing devices, which Digital Voice could support DVTE use in a are applicable to all topside watch-standers, distributed (multi-ship) application and could, could be taught in a simulation-based when coupled with debrief, provide timely and environment. relevant feedback to distributed teams.

Anti–Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) VAST. The integration of VAST brings with it Training. There are marked similarities between an ability to simulate Naval Fire Support damage the decision and small unit fire team training and have that data displayed as a result of a UAV systems networked by DVTE and the reconnaissance mission. requirement to train sailors on AT/FP techniques/practices. In general, AT/FP actions fall into one of four categories: Joint. If properly engineered, the potential exists to include USAF DMT, Army CCTT and other  ID Threat and Determine (counter) Tactics advanced distributed simulations in the  Analyze and Plan for AT/FP Action BFTT/DVTE architecture. Given our current ability to truly integrate Navy  Direct and Manage AT/FP Action and Marine Corps simulations into a full mission  Execute and Implement AT/FP Actions capable Naval Force, we offer that we are

1 Capitalizes on ATEAMS capabilities 2 ibid compelled to do so. To do is our first step in realizing a fully simulation based training, Phase 1 would include integration of the mission rehearsal and readiness system. This following capabilities: will not be accomplished overnight. A logical plan that includes the iterative development and  Anti-terrorist, Special Operations, and implementation of supporting technologies, and Maritime Interdiction Operations training that charts a course for success is required. (including such actions as seizing oil While such a plan is beyond the scope of this platforms). This would leverage those tasks document, the following general thoughts are currently trained within DVTE that are provided: somewhat “common” or “transportable” to shipboard watch-standers including: combat DVTE and BFTT exist today as independent decision making, coordinated small arms systems. Although BFTT is DIS compliant and training, and IR/NVG for lookouts. The operates on the STOW LAN, it has integrated focus would be on ship and pier protection with internal/external systems via an HLA from terrorist attack from land, air or sea gateway. DVTE is an HLA based system; so (sea and air response would be both in port integrating these two systems should be and underway), interdicting/boarding and relatively straightforward if BFTT were treated searching commercial vessels and boarding as Federate on the Run Time Infrastructure. and controlling sea-borne entities such as oil platforms. Training would rely heavily on BFTT, DVTE and VAST all have varying the use of VR for immersing trainees in the degrees of maturity and fleet knowledge, while training situation. Integration w/BFTT other systems under consideration for integration would be in area such as the correlation of are yet to be deployed. While there will air and surface tracks (synthetic) with a undoubtedly be technical challenges surrounding visual representation for the topside trainees. the integration of these two systems, there will also be a significant amount of cultural change  Expansion to total ship training by the necessary if we are to train Sailors and Marines inclusion of VR for Damage Control Parties, simultaneously in the same simulation Fire Parties, and Lookouts (IR and Night environment. Accordingly, irrespective of Vision). BFTT integration would include technical capabilities, a phased approach would such capabilities as correlating inbound be the best integration option. Figure 9 threat tracks to a VR entity to allow lookouts illustrates an integration plan that would include and bridge team personnel to practice 3 logical phases. individual and team skills in an integrated ship-wide scenario. Spec Ops/ Large Scale Small scale EXW EXW Knowledge  Small-scale amphibious operations such as Management Air SOC events. VR would be used for LCCAC Anti- Ground Terrorism Sea operators, lookouts, AAVs, etc. Weather and sea state would be modifiable to vary Improved /Expanded AUTO SG&C / SAF Visualizations Improved data collection Technology the level of difficulty. BFTT integration Improved AAR (Voice) & Analysis would be limited to correlating boat lanes Mission and assault vehicles with the VR Planning DC/Fire Party VR Readiness environment. The use of UAV SIM would Mission Prediction Rehearsal be a plus if available. Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Technology improvements to be demonstrated include automated voice capture, recording and Figure 9 Integration Approach playback in addition to improved visualizations.

Phase 2. Integration would be improved to Phase 1. The initial phase should have minimal support the simulated conduct of a large-scale technical risk, must fill an existing training amphibious exercise. shortfall, and must be capable of being demonstrated within 18 months of project start.  This will include full integration of BFTT, ITK, CAN, VAST and perhaps planning systems such as JMPS (Gator) that support We Know the What, Shipboard and Marine ground/air teams including sea based assault air assault; and The Real Question is “How?” close air support and forward observer (integrated with the NFS team). As is often the case, there are a number of interoperability issues to be resolved when  The optimal system will support mission connecting two systems, especially ones that are rehearsal/doctrine validation and have a at different levels of maturity. While the results scenario generation/modification “on of the BFTT/DVTE integration were extremely demand’ capability and will support force positive, the effort itself was not that significant extraction and withdrawal. from a technical perspective, as it was a relatively small-scale integration effort, “scoped”  Additionally, UAV SIM shall be to demonstrate the viability of the concept. Had demonstrated, and “AV SIM” shall be this been a full-scale integration of disparate expanded to support USN SAR missions. systems across all warfare areas, audience levels and war-fighting domains, the amount of effort Technology improvements to be demonstrated would have been much higher. One of the include the use of SAF to provide background reasons is, that while we have standards and tracks (and perhaps critical tracks) for BFTT and architectures defined for many of our operational data collection and analysis improvements to environments, there has been little work done in include individual and team performance the area of a training architecture. An tracking. architecture that has as its principal purpose, the interaction/interoperability of systems on which Phase 3. Integration will be improved to provide training can occur. The phrase “on which knowledge management functions and readiness training can occur” was carefully chosen as this prediction capabilities as discussed earlier in this architecture is not limited to training systems, paper. The CVBG/ARG Commander would be rather it is an enabling function for all systems capable of performing “best fit, what if” on which “ training can occur.” comparisons. The system will produce, at will, an expected readiness capability based on a The Naval Training Architecture being proposed mission and/or a set of missions. is based on the Joint Technical Architecture model and the accompanying design standards. Initial Effort. An integrated BFTT/DVTE It embraces the fundamental concepts of training demonstration was conducted at I/ITSEC 2002 – the concepts that training events will be (Orlando FL Dec 2002) with minimal “Planned”, “Conducted” and “Assessed.” In the preparation and the results were surprisingly OV-1 view provided in Figure 10 above, we can positive. While there were some technical see the various processes and “users” of the challenges, the fact remains that with a limited training processes themselves. As we can see, investment, BFTT, DVTE and the Joint Forces the architecture is composed of operational, Command Joint Battle Experiment all occupied system and technical views, each providing a the same play-box concurrently, and all piece of the puzzle. A paper detailing the interacted in a meaningful way. Thus proving specifics of the Naval Training Architecture is that a large scale M&S based event can be being presented separately at this conference. conducted across training audiences (both vertically and horizontally); and can provide Summary significant, concurrent training value for all As mentioned earlier, there exists a transient participants. 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 M.J., 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