Content uploaded by Gregory L. Boylan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gregory L. Boylan on Mar 23, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
UNTR
United
States
Military
Academy
West
Point,
New
York
10996
OPERATIONS
RESEARCH
CENTER
OF
EXCELLENCE
TECHNICAL
REPORT
#DSE-TR-0610
DTIC
#:
ADA448073
Lead Analyst
MAJ
Gregory
L.
Boylan
M.S.
Analyst,
Operations Research
Center
Senior Investigator
LTC
Simon
R.
Goerger,
Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department
of
Systems
Engineering
Directed
by
LTC
Simon
R.
Goerger,
Ph.D.
Director,
Operations Research Center
of
Excellence
Approved
by
Colonel
Michael
L.
McGinnis,
Ph.D.
Professor
and
Head,
Department
of
Systems
Engineering
June
2006
The
Operations
Research
Center
of
Excellence
is
supported
by
the
Assistant
Secretary
of
the
Army (Financial Management
&
Comptroller)
Distribution
A:
Approved
for
public
release;
distribution
is
unlimited.
20060613015
PEO
Soldier
Simulation
Roadmap:
Continued
Efforts
in
Implementation
Lead
Analyst
MAJ
Gregory
L.
Boylan,
M.S.
Analyst,
Operations Research
Center
Senior
Investigator
LTC
Simon
R.
Goerger,
Ph.D.
Associate Professor,
Department
of
Systems
Engineering
OPERATIONS
RESEARCH
CENTER
OF
EXCELLENCE
TECHNICAL
REPORT
No.
DSE-TR-0610
DTIC
#:
ADA448073
Directed by
LTC
Simon
R.
Goerger,
Ph.D.
Director,
Operations Research
Center
of
Excellence
Approved
by
Colonel
Michael
L.
McGinnis,
Ph.D.
Professor
and
Head,
Department
of
Systems
Engineering
June
2006
The
Operations
Research
Center
of
Excellence
is
supported by
the
Assistant
Secretary
of
the
Army
(Financial Management
&
Comptroller)
This Research was
sponsored
by
PEO Soldier
Distribution
A:
Approved
for
public
release;
distribution
is
unlimited.
Abstract
The
Army
acquisition community
requires
high-resolution
simulations
that
represent
the
dismounted
infantry
soldier in
enough
detail
to
conduct
an
analysis
of
alternatives
(AOA)
for
individual
weapons
and
equipment.
These
models must
also
be
capable
of
assessing future,
proposed
capabilities
and
technologies. Previous
work
completed
in
May 2004
proposed
the
creation
of
a
federation between
three
different simulation models
to achieve
this
capability.
Over
the
past
two
years,
the
Operations Research Center
at
the
United
States
Military Academy
has
worked
with
PEO
Soldier
to
implement
this
proposed solution.
In
this
report,
we
discuss
second year
of
the
implementation
process.
We
first will
describe
the
process
of
refining
the
requirements developed in
the
first
year
of
implementation
into
a
more
useable
set
of
analytical
focus-areas for
the
three
combat
model developers.
We
will
then
address
the
critical
topic
of
linking
the
three
models.
Finally,
we
will
detail
the procedure
we
used
to
capture
the
analytical
needs
and
linkage
elements
into
a
comprehensive,
flexible, and
long-term Memorandum
of
Agreement between
PEO
Soldier
and
the
proponents
for the
three
combat models.
We
will
conclude
with
a
discussion
the
current
state
of
the
implementation process
as
we close
out
the
second
year
and the
road
ahead
for
continued implementation
efforts.
111
About
the
Author(s)
Major
Gregory L.
Boylan
is
an
Assistant
Professor
in the
Department
of
Systems
Engineering
and
Analyst
in the
Operations Research
Center
at
the
United
States
Military
Academy (USMA)
at
West
Point.
He
is
an
Infantry officer
and
has
served
in
various
positions,
including
platoon
leader,
company executive
officer,
staff
officer and
company
commander.
He
holds
a
Bachelor
of
Science
degree.
in
Environmental
Science from
USMA,
May
1994,
and
a
Master
of
Science
degree.
in
Industrial Engineering
from
the Georgia
Institute
of
Technology,
May
2003.
MAJ
Boylan
may
be
contacted
at
gregory.boylan(aus.amrry.mil.
Lieutenant
Colonel Simon
R.
Goerger
is
an
Associate
Professor
in the
Department
of
Systems
Engineering
at
the
United
States
Military
Academy, West Point,
New
York.
He
earned his
Bachelor
of
Science
from
the
United
States
Military Academy
in
1988
and
his
Masters
in
Computer
Science
and
Doctorate
in
Modeling
and
Simulations
from
the
Naval
Postgraduate
School,
Monterey,
CA in
1998
and
2004,
respectively.
His
research interests
include combat
models,
agent
based modeling,
human
factors, and
training in virtual
environments. LTC Goerger
has
served
as
an
infantry
officer
with
the
6
th
Infantry
Division
in
Alaska
&
Sinai,
Egypt,
as
a
cavalry
officer
with the
2
d
Armored
Cavalry
Regiment
at
Fort
Polk,
LA
&
Port-au-Prince,
Haiti,
and
as
a
software
engineer
for
COMBATxxI,
the
US
Army's
future
brigade
and
below
analytical
model
for
the
21st
Century. LTC
Goerger
may
be
contacted
at
simon.goergcr(d9;usma.edu.
iv
Acknowledgements
This
study
was
funded
by
PEO
Soldier
based
on
the
proposal
entitled "Simulation
Roadmap for
Program
Executive
Office
(PEO)
Soldier
Programs"
(18
August
2005)
and was
completed
in
May 2006.
We
would
like
to
acknowledge
the
contribution and
support
of
several
individuals.
Specifically,
key members
of
PEO
Soldier,
Mr.
Ross
Guckert
and Mr.
Steve
Kishok
of
the
Systems
Integration division
were
critical
to
our
continued understanding
of
PEO
Soldier's
evolving
needs.
Additionally,
our
continued
implementation
efforts have
been directly
influenced
by
the
M&S
Coordination
and
Working
Group,
without
which
we
could
not
have
achieved
the
implementation milestones
we
did
this
past
year.
This group
consists
of
the
following
persons
from
the
listed
agencies.
Mr.
Steve
Kishok
PEO
Soldier
COL Greg
Hoscheit
Mr.
Walt Butler
TRAC-WSMR
Mr.
Dave
Durda
Mr. Imre Ballogh (Combat XXI Proponent)
Dr.
Bruce
Gafner
Mr. Bob
Auer
Natick
Soldier
Center
Mr. Casey Boardman
(IWARS
Proponent)
Mr.
Medhat
Koma
Mr.
Tom Ruth
Mr.
Dean
Muscietta
AMSAA
Mr.
Brad Bradley
(IWARS
Proponent)
LTC
John
Surdu
PEO
STRI
Mr. Doug
Parsons
(OneSAF
Proponent)
Our
mention
of
these contributors
does
not
imply
their
approval
of
our
results.
The
opinions contained herein
are
the
opinions
of
the
authors and
do
not
necessarily
reflect
those
of
PEO
Soldier,
the
United
States
Military
Academy, the
United
States
Army,
or
the
Department
of
Defense.
v
Table
of
Contents
A
bstract
..............................................................................................................
iii
A
bout
the
A
uthor(s)
...............................................................................................
iv
A
cknow
ledgem ents
.....................................................................................................
v
Table
of
C
ontents
.......................................................................................................
vi
List
of
Figures
...........................................................................................................
viii
List
of Tables
............................................................................................................
viii
C
hapter
1:
Introduction
.....................................................................................
1
1.1
Background
...............................................................................................
1
1.2
PEO
Soldier
..............................................................................................
2
1.3
The
Sim
ulation
Federation
......................................................................
2
1.4
The
M&S
Coordination
and
Working
Group
..........................................
3
C
hapter
2:
Im
plem
entation Efforts
..................................................................
5
2.1
Phase
I
O
verview
:
June
'04
-
June
'05
....................................................
5
2.2
Phase
II:
June
'05
-
June
'06
....................................................................
5
2.2.1.
O
verview
..............................................................................................
5
2.2.2.
A
nalytical
A reas
of
Endeavor
.............................................................
6
2.2.3.
Linkage
Fram
ew
ork
.........................................................................
7
2.2.4.
M&S
Coordination
and
Working
Group
Meetings
..............................
9
2.2.5.
Memorandum
of
Agreement
(MOA) with
the
Model Proponents
.........
11
2.2.6.
A
nnexes
to
the
M
O A
............................................................................
11
Chapter
3:
Current
Progress &
Conclusion
....................................................
14
3.1
W
here
the
Effort
Currently
Stands
........................................................
14
3.2
The
Road
A
head
.....................................................................................
14
3.3
Conclusion
...........................................................................................
15
vi
Bibliography
..........................................................................................................
16
Appendix
A:
List
of
Abbreviations
....................................................................
17
Appendix
B:
PEO
Soldier's
Analytical Areas of
Endeavor
............................. 18
Appendix
C:
Model
Linkage
Framework
..........................................................
24
Appendix
D:
Base
MOA
between
PEO
Soldier
and
Model Developers
......
26
Appendix
E:
Annex
B
to
the
Base
MOA
-
Objective OneSAF
(PEO
STRI)
......
31
Appendix
F:
Annex
C
to
the
Base
MOA
-
IWARS
(Natick
Soldier
Center
and
A
M
SA
A
)
.................................................................................................................................
34
Appendix
G: Annex
D
to
the
Base
MOA
-
COMBATxxI
(TRAC-WSMR)
........
38
Distribution
List
...................................................................................................
42
Chapter
4:
REPORT
DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
-
SF298
.........................
43
vii
List
of
Figures
Figure
1.
Concept
sketch
articulating
the
broader context
of
PEO
Soldier's
analytical
objectives
as
they pertain
to the
modeling
of
STMS
components
or
capabilities
..... 7
List
of
Tables
Table
1.
Table
describing
each
of
the
three
simulation
models
in the
PEO Soldier
federation. These
descriptions
have
been
adapted
from
(Martin,
2005)
......................
3
Table
2.
Prioritzed
list
of
five
products
or
STMS
components/ capabilities
that
model
developers
would
focus
on for FY06
...........................................................................
6
Table
3.
Upper
tier
of
the
linkage framework
between
the
three
simulation models,
which
identifies
the
critical
linkage
areas
that
must
be
addressed.
Appendix
C
contains
the
full
fram
ew
ork
.........................................................................................................................
8
Table
4.
Alignment
of
efforts
within
the
federation
as
they pertain
to
achieving the
analytical
areas
of
endeavor
........................................................................................................
10
viii
Chapter
1:
Introduction
1.1
Background
The
Program
Executive Office
Soldier
(PEO
Soldier),
the
Army program manager
for the
acquisition
of
nearly
all
the
items carried
or
worn
by
the
Infantry soldier,
specifically
requires
high-fidelity
models
of
the
Infantry
soldier
in
order
to
evaluate
the effectiveness
of
its
products
(Tollefson,
et
al.,
2004). In
November
2003,
PEO
Soldier
commissioned
the Operations
Research
Center (ORCEN)
at
the
United
States
Military Academy
to
assist them
with
this
growing need.
In short, they
required
the
identification
of
a
simulation
package
that
would
allow
them
to
quantify
the
platoon-level operational
effectiveness
of
a
new
system
or
component.
Over
the
course
of
the ensuing
six
months,
we
applied
the
Systems
Engineering
and
Management Process
(SEMP)
to
develop
and
analyze
alternative solutions
and
then provide
PEO
Soldier
with
a
recommended
course
of
action
that
would
best
meet
their
needs.
Our Technical
Report
(Tollefson,
et
al.,
2004)
provides
a
detailed discussion
of
our
methodology
and
results.
In
May,
2004,
we
presented
the
results
of
our
analysis
to
PEO
Soldier
and
recommended
that
they
pursue
a
federation
of
three
developing
simulations
as
the
most
effective
way
to
achieve
the
multi-facet
aspects
of
their
need. These simulations
included:
the
Infantry Warrior
Simulation
(IWARS),
Objective
OneSAF
(OOS), and
the
Combined
Arms Too
for the
21st
Century
(COMBAT
XXI). PEO
Soldier
accepted our
recommendation
and
we
have since
continued
our
work
to
implement
our
recommendation.
This
report documents the
ORCEN's
continued
efforts
in the
implementation
process
since we
recommended
our
course
of
action.
Although
we
will
discuss
the
entire
implementation
effort
to
date,
which
we
have
broken
down
into
Phase
I
(the
first
year,
June
'04-
June
'05)
and Phase
II
(June
'05
to June
'06),
we
will
focus
primarily
on
the
most
recent
work
in
the
last
year, which
has
been more
of
an
exercise
in
management
than analytical
rigor.
Specifically,
we
will describe our
work
in
coordinating
the
efforts
of
PEO
Soldier
and
the
proponent
agencies
of
the
three
simulations
to
achieve
the
federation
we
recommended.
This
coordination occurred
on
three
parallel
tracks:
1)
the
refinement
and
articulation
of
PEO
Soldier's
near-term analytical needs,
2)
starting up
the
Model
&
Simulation
(M&S)
Working
Group
to
address
ways
to
achieve
those
needs
through
model
adjustments
and
hard/soft
linkages
between
the
three
simulations,
and
3)
the
development
and
implementation
of
a
Memorandum
of
Agreement
(MOA)
between
PEO
Soldier
and
the
simulation proponents.
We
will
close
with
a
description
of
the
current
state
of
the
implementation effort
as
Phase
II
draws
to
an end
and
then
briefly
discuss
the
road
ahead for
further implementation
efforts.
1.2
PEO
Soldier
PEO
Soldier
is
the
US
Army's
materiel
developer
for
virtually
every
item
of
equipment
carried
or
worn
by
the
infantry
soldier.
Subordinate
to
PEO
Soldier
are
three
Project
Manager
Offices:
Soldier
Warrior, Soldier
Equipment
and Soldier
Weapons. They
are
responsible
for
selecting
from
among candidate
systems
those
new
items
of
equipment
which will
enhance
a
soldier's
combat
effectiveness.
To
accomplish
that
assessment and
selection
of
individual
pieces
of
equipment,
they rely
on
combat modeling
and
simulations.
Specifically,
it
would
be
necessary
to
simulate
a
soldier
who was
equipped
with
a
particular
item,
a
new
helmet
for
example.
Following
the
required
number
of
runs, the
analyst would review
the
results and
then
run
a
similar
simulation
with
a
different helmet. With
the
improved modeling
capability
and
level
of
detail
desired,
the
statistically significant
changes
in
performance
that would most
likely
be
accrued
with the
improved helmet
would
be
reflected
in the
results.
However,
as
mentioned
above, advances
in
combat
modeling technology
have
not
matched the pace
of
advances
in
equipment
technology,
currently rendering
comparisons
of
such
equipment differences not
possible
(Martin,
2005).
1.3
The
Simulation
Federation
The
simulation federation
consists
of
three simulations
currently
under
development.
Each
of
these models
possesses
a
unique
set
of
capabilities with
respect
to
their
primary
modeling
focus
as
it pertains
to
the infantry
soldier,
but
there
are
considerable overlaps,
as
well.
Table
1
on
the
following
page
provides
a
description
of
each
model.
Table
1.
Table describing
each
of
the
three
simulation
models
in
the PEO
Soldier
federation.
These
descriptions
have
been
adapted
from
(Martin,
2005).
Simulation
Description
Model
Dsrpo
One-Semi-Automated
Force
(OneSAF)
is
a
combat
simulation developed
by
the
Army's
Program
Executive
Office
for
Simulation, Training, and
Instrumentation.
It
has
two
components.
The
first
is
OneSAF Testbed Baseline
(OTB),
which
is
a
"high-resolution
entity
level
simulation
that
represents combined
arms
tactical operations
up
to the
battalion
level."
It
will be retired
in
FY
2006.
Objective
OneSAF
(OOS)
is
the
follow-on
version
of
OTB
and
will
have full
operational capability
in
FY
2006. OOS
will
be
able
to
represent operations
up
to the
brigade
level.
It
is
intended
for
use in the
Training,
Objective
Equipment
and
Military Operations (TEMO), Advanced Concepts
and
Requirements
OneSAF (ACR),
and Research,
Development
and
Acquisition
(RDA)
domains.
It
will
replace
Brigade/Battalion Battle
Simulation
(BBS), Janus,
Aviation Combined
Arms
Tactical
Trainer
/
Close
Combat
Tactical
Trainer
(AVCATT/CCTT)
and
Joint Conflict
and
Tactical
Simulation
(JCATS) for
Military Operation
in
Urban
Terrain (MOUT).
It
will
be
able to
conduct closed-form analysis
of
equipment,
as
well
as
Soldier
in
the
Loop (SITL)
operational
testing
and training.
PEO
STRI
plans
to
release
Version
1.0
in
September
2006,
1.1
in
December
2006, and
1.2
in
June 2007.
The
Combined-Arms Analysis
Tool for
21st
Century (COMBATXXI)
is
a
closed-
form combat simulation developed
by
the
TRADOC Analysis
Center
at
White
Sands
Missile Range
(TRAC-WSMR)
and Marine Corps
Combat Development
Command
COMBAT
(MCCDC).
It
is
an
entity-level analytical simulation
that
models tactical operations
at
the
XXI
brigade-level
or
lower.
It
has
been constructed
for
use
in
support
of
the
ACR
and
RDA
domains, and
is
intended
to
replace
the
Combined Arms
and
Task
Force
Evaluation
Model
(CASTFOREM),
which
is
used
in
selected Analyses
of
Alternatives. TRAC-WSMR
released
Version
5.0
of
COMBATxx'
in
the
summer
of
2005.
The
Infantry
Warrior
Simulation
(IWARS)
is
a
closed-form
combat
simulation
developed
jointly
by
the
Natick
Soldier Center
(NSC) and
the
Army
Materiel Systems
IWARS
Analysis
Activity
(AMSAA).
It
is
designed
for
use
in
the
RDA
and
ACR modeling
and
simulation
domains. This
model targets "individual
and
small-unit dismounted
combatants
and
their
equipment."
IWARS
replaced the Integrated
Unit
Simulation
System
(IUSS).
Natick
released
Version
1.0
in
September
2005.
1.4
The
M&S
Coordination
and
Working
Group
The
M&S
Coordination
and
Working
Group stemmed
from
our
initial
recommendation
to
PEO
Soldier
in
May 2004.
It
consists
of
representatives
from
each
of
the
organizations
involved
in the
simulation
federation,
including
PEO
Soldier
(Group Chair), PEO
STRI,
TRAC-
WSMR,
Natick
Soldier
Center,
and
AMSAA.
These
representatives
are
essentially
the
model
development
teams
for
their
respective
organizations
and
are
provided limited decision authority
to
act
within
the
scope
of
the
federation's
goals. Ultimately,
the
purpose
of
this group
is
to
3
identify
and
implement
the
best
ways
to
achieve PEO
Soldier's
analytical needs.
This includes
necessary
modifications
to
their
respective
models,
as
well
as
hard
and soft
linkage
requirements
between
the
three,
which
we
will discuss
in
greater
detail
later.
As
part
of
its
charter,
the
Working
Group
meets via
VTC
or
teleconference
at
least
once
per
quarter,
or
more often
as
necessary.
4
Chapter
2:
Implementation
Efforts
2.1
Phase
I
Overview:
June
'04
-
June
'05
The
period
spanning
June 2004
through
June
2005
comprises
what
we
call
Phase
I
of
the
implementation
effort.
During
this
period,
the
ORCEN's
primary
focus was
1)
developing
and
completing
a
Memorandum
of
Agreement
(MOA)
between
PEO
Soldier
and
the
model
proponents
and
2)
providing
explicit
descriptions
of
the
modeling requirements.
Although
much
work
was
done
pursuant
to
the
former,
the
ORCEN
was
unable
to
complete the
MOA
in
Phase
I,
thus
we
move MOA
coordination
to
the
next phase
of
implementation discussed
in the
following
section.
Work
on
the
latter
area
yielded
a
comprehensive
set
of
analytical needs
delineated
by
specific
products
or
capabilities, both current
and
future. This
functionality
set
began
with
a
list
of
450
different products
or
capabilities either
in
use
or
under
development.
The
analysts
streamlined
the
list by culling out
unnecessary
items and
grouping
them
into
families
of
systems.
Using
these
needs,
the
analysts applied
a
combination
of
effects-based, analysis-based,
and
universal modeling
language approaches
to
translate
the
needs
into more
explicitly
defined
simulation
requirements.
This
resulted
in
a
prioritized
set
of
modeling requirements
that
reflected
PEO
Soldier's
analytical
needs and served
as
the
starting
point
for the
next
phase
of
implementation.
A
complete explanation
of
the
work accomplished
during
this
phase
is
found
in
(Martin,
2005).
2.2
Phase
II:
June
'05
-
June
'06
2.2.1.
Overview.
Phase
II
began
in
June
2005
and
ends
with
the
completion
of
this report
in
June
2006.
From
the
outset,
one
of
our
primary
objectives
was
to
complete
the
MOA between
PEO
Soldier
and
the
simulation proponents.
With
a
solid,
detailed
agreement
in
place,
PEO
Soldier
could
apply
funding
toward
achieving analytical
needs
and
linkages
between
the
three
models
and
thereby
begin
to
realize
the anticipated
results
of
the federation.
However,
in
order
to
develop
a
useful
MOA, we first
needed
to
determine
a)
PEO
Soldier's
analytical needs for
the
year
and
b)
the
modifications
to
and
linkages
between
the
models that
would
be
necessary
to
fill
those
needs.
5
These
two
critical
steps
would
essentially
allow
us
to
define
the
MOA
in
terms
of
which
simulation
development team would
perform
what
work
to what
end.
2.2.2.
Analytical
Areas
of
Endeavor
The
results
from
Phase
I
provided
a
detailed
listing
and
modeling description
of
over
400
PEO
Soldier products.
Since
we
could
in
no
way
achieve
the
modeling
needs for
all
of
these
products,
we
narrowed
this
list
to
a
prioritized
manageable modeling
load
for
the
year.
Accordingly,
we
worked
with
PEO
Soldier
to
extract
a
prioritized
list
of
products
or
STMS
(soldier
tactical
mission
system)
components/capabilities
from
the
Phase
I
results.
We defined
"manageable
load"
as
what
the
model
developers
could reasonably accomplish in
a
year.
Our
process began
with
determining what
that
load
should be from
the
modelers'
perspectives.
Based
on feedback
from
the
three
model proponents,
we
(PEO
Soldier
and
the
ORCEN)
agreed
that
a
manageable
load
would
consist
of
five
products or
component
capabilities. We
then
identified
the
five
capabilities
to be
implemented
from
the
list
of
PEO
Soldier
products
discussed
above.
Table
2
lists
the
five
capabilities selected
for
implementation.
Next,
we
began
coordination
with
the
M&S
Working
Group
to
determine the
best
way
to
integrate these items
into the
modeling
process.
Table
2.
Prioritzed
list
of
five
products
or
STMS
components/
capabilities
that
model
developers would
focus
on
for
FY06.
1)
Advanced Combat
Helmet
2)
Interceptor
body
armor
and
integrated
head,
neck,
and
face
protection
3)
Direct
fire
weapons
4)
Sensors
(optics,
sights, aiming
devices,
etc.)
5)
Communications equipment
(analog
and
digital)
These
five
items were
inadequate
from the
combat modelers' perspectives.
The
list
failed
to
articulate
one
critical aspect
of
the
modeling
process
in
terms
of
what
PEO
Soldier
wanted to
achieve
with
respect
to each
of
these
items. As
each
of
the model
proponents
stated,
incorporating these
items into
their
respective models
would
be
a
relatively
easy
task.
However,
what they
really needed
to
know
was
what
analytical
questions
PEO
Soldier needed
addressed
as
6
a
result
of
the
items'
incorporation. From
their
perspective
this
is
the
more
important
(and
complicated)
issue.
Pursuant
to
providing
the
modelers with analytical
focus
points
for
each
of
the
five
items,
we
rephrased them
in
terms
of
five
analytical
areas
of
endeavor.
This
required
us to
ascertain
and articulate
the
broader context
in
which
PEO
Soldier
needed
STMS
components evaluated.
Figure
1
serves
to
capture
this
context.
The
figure attempts
to
capture,
conceptually, what
PEO
Soldier
requires
in
terms
of
analysis.
Following
this
concept,
we
strived
to
articulate
the
initial
set
of
analytical needs
as
clearly
and
concisely
as
possible.
We
structured these analytical needs
around
the five
specific
system components, categories,
or
configurations
as
described
earlier.
What
chingy,
are
required
iII
the
ub-fprovessas
of
the
model
no a
result
of
covpo~nit
enhincements
(fe,
chovgcoq
in
P,/JPI
Model changes In attributes
taes,
iCM
proc
ses,
For example: etc.)
Cncpture
the
erfectsio
teWhat re
the
synergistic
or
on
the
solde
holistic Impacts
on
soldier
i.effectiveness
In
terms
of
the
soldier's
battlefield
functions
Model
associated changes
In
Sense
the
soldier's
attributes
Engage
SFor
example:
Move
Communicate
increase
In
protection Increase
In
courage
Enable
improved
camouflage
to
do certain
things
•k -
Increased
capabilty
(morel
S-fighterwelght
4 -
Decreassif
gei
Figure
1.
Concept
sketch
articulating
the
broader
context
of
PEO
Soldier's
analytical
objectives
as
they
pertain
to
the
modeling
of
STMS
components
or
capabilities.
2.2.3.
Linkage
Framework
The goal
of
linking the
three
models
is
to
utilize
the
strengths
of
all
three
simulations to
support
analysis.
These
linkages
ultimately provide
PEO
Soldier with
the
flexibility
to
use
any
one
of
the
three
simulations independently
to
support
specific
analytical needs, while
at
the
same
time enabling
the use
of
the
other
two
to
supplement those
needs or
other
needs. In
order to
7
effect
the
linkages
between
them,
we
worked
with the
model
developers
to
identify
the
critical
areas
and
challenges that
the
M&S
Working
Group
would
need
to
address:
1)
the
development
of
a
linkage
framework
or
outline
and
2)
the
partitioning
of
the
framework
into
either
"hard"
or
"soft"
linkage
categories.
The
linkage
framework, located
in
Appendix
C,
delineates
the
critical
areas
and
challenges
the
model developers
must
address.
It essentially represents
the
bridges between
the
models that facilitate
the
transfer
of
data. Table
3
below
shows
an
abbreviated
rendition
of
the
framework.
Table
3.
Upper
tier
of
the
linkage
framework
between
the
three
simulation
models, which
identifies
the critical
linkage
areas
that
must
be
addressed.
1.
Equivalent
terrain
representations for
specific
areas
of
common
interest
2.
Equivalent
environments,
as
appropriate
3.
Equivalent methodologies
or
utilization
of
the
preferred
methodology
from
one
of
the
simulations,
as
appropriate
4.
Equivalent
algorithms,
as
appropriate
5.
Equivalent
data,
as
appropriate
6.
Ghosting
and
/
or
proxies
of
entities
7.
Time
/
Event
management
8.
Development
of
behaviors
sets
9.
Method
to
obtain
appropriate
behavior
interactions
between
the
COMBATxxI
and IWARS entities
10.
The
best
way
to
keep
proxy
elements
in
complimentary
model
updated
11.
Use
of
simulation
specific capabilities
/
constructs
12.
Usability
of
the
combined simulation
13.
Data output and
analysis
While
the
development
of
the
framework
was
a
critical
step
towards
realizing
the
linkages
across the
federation,
equally
critical
is
how
the
model developers
address
its
implementation. This
is
primarily
due to
the fact that, although
they will
each
address
the
framework
from
their perspective, certain
aspects
must
be executed
in
concert with
the
other
models.
To
better
facilitate
this
synchronized
execution
of
the
framework,
we
divided
the
linkage
efforts
into
two categories:
hard
and soft
linkages.
Hard linkages
represent
the
actual coded
implementations
within
the
models
that
enable
the
transfer
of
data
between them
(i.e.,
running
sub-processes
between models).
Soft
linkages simply
involve
running
one
model
to
obtain
data
elements
(results)
and
then using those
elements
as
inputs
into one
or
both
of
the
other
models.
8
The key
difference
between
the
two types
of
linkages
is
the
amount
of
time
required
to
implement coding
solutions.
Hard linkages
will require
much more
time
to
develop
and
implement coding
solutions because
of
the
complexities
associated with recoding
models
to
"talk"
to one
another. Likewise,
some
of
the
elements
listed
in the
framework
must
be
completed
in
their
entirety
before
others
can
be
addressed.
Soft
linkages, on
the
other hand,
will
certainly
normally occur
more
quickly
and
are
designed
to
provide data
partial
bridges
for
current
technology
gaps.
2.2.4.
M&S
Coordination
and
Working
Group
Meetings
The
M&S
Working
Group (M&S
WG) convened via
VTC/teleconference
four times
since
October
2005.
These
meetings provided
the
pretext
for
discussing
the
analytical
and
linkage
issues
within
the
federation. Moreover,
they
enabled the
M&S
WG
to
determine
1)
who
would
take
responsibility
for
what work,
2)
associated timelines,
and
3)
what
levels
of
work
each
participating organization
and
the
M&S WG
as
a
whole
could expect
to
reasonably
accomplish during
the
year.
The
first meeting on
13
October
2005
set
the
conditions for
the
subsequent meetings
in
December, February,
and
May.
Three
key
results stemmed
from
the
October
meeting.
The
first
of
these
was
an
alignment
of
the
efforts
within
the
federation
against
the
analytical
areas
of
endeavor.
The
second
and
third
results concerned
implementation
and/or
execution timelines
and
what could be
accomplished
within
the
fiscal
year.
To
achieve the
first result,
we
aligned
the five
analytical
areas
of
endeavor against
each
of
the
models,
identifying which
model
developer
would
assume
the
lead
for each
area.
We
based
the
assignment process
on
the
attributes
and
current
direction
of
a
particular
model.
For
example, IWARS
will
have
the
highest
fidelity
with
respect
to the
individual soldier and
was
already
developing
various aspects
associated
with
the
combat
helmet
and
body
armor.
As
such,
IWARS
assumed
the
role
as
the
lead for these two
areas.
Similarly,
COMBATxxI
will
address more
of
the
aggregated
effects
of
groups
of
soldiers
or
units
in
a
combined
arms
setting,
therefore
it
assumed
the
lead
for
communications
equipment. What
this means
is
the
"Lead"
for
a
particular
analytical
area
coordinates
the
federation's
efforts to
address
the
areas
and
associated
issues. The
following
table
reflects
the
resulting
Area
Leads.
9
Table
4.
Alignment
of
efforts
within
the federation
as
they
pertain
to achieving
the
analytical
areas
of
endeavor.
Analytical Area
Lead
Advanced Combat Helmet
IWARS
Body
Armor,
et al.
IWARS
Direct
Fire Weapons Collaborative
Lead
Sensors
Collaborative
Lead
Communications
Equipment
COMBATxx'
The
second
result evolved
from
the
recognition
that
the
group
could
not
productively
address
all
five areas
of
endeavor
in one
year.
Before
each
model
began
to
address
the
specifics
of
a
particular
area
independently,
we
had
to
determine
how those
efforts
would
fit
into
the
larger
system
of
systems,
or
the
federation.
Accordingly,
the
group
collectively
agreed
that,
for
this year,
it
would
be
better
to
focus
on
one
of
these
areas
vice
multiple
areas.
This
would
enable
all
models
to
go
into
considerable depth for the
designated
area
to
learn
about the
level
of
complexity
in
store
for
this
effort.
Moreover,
we
felt the
resulting
learning
process would
facilitate
taking on
the
remaining
areas the
following
year.
Pursuant
to
this,
the
group
selected
the
Body
Armor
area
as
the
most
appropriate place
to
begin, primarily because
of
the current
high
demand
for
analysis
pertaining
to
this topic.
The
third result
dealt
with
implementing
the
linkage
framework. Early
on,
the
M&S
Working
Group
recognized
the
need
to
start both
hard
and
soft
linkages
simultaneously
in
order
to
expedite
the
process
and
thereby
more
quickly
realize
the
objectives
of
the
effort.
However,
the
simultaneous effort
would
have
to
be
tempered
with
what could reasonably
be
accomplished.
Since
hard
linkages require more
time,
we
decided that
the
integration
should
begin
in
manageable
steps.
Thus,
rather than
attacking
the
hard
aspects
of
the
framework
in
total,
we
would
work
on
each
of
the
13
areas
to
varying
degrees,
striving
to
maintain
a
balance
between
the areas
and
recognizing
that
some
would
have
to
occur
completely
before
others
could
begin.
In
contrast,
the
soft
linkages require
no-prerequisites. Although they may
require
some
minor modifications
to the
models,
nothing
has
to be
fully
completed
prior
to
working
on
another
part. Moreover,
just
as
with
the
second
result
above,
pursuing
soft linkages
initially
would
generate
a
learning
process
that
would
allow
all
parties
to
learn
about the existing
and
required
connections between
the
models
and
what
they
would
entail.
Based
on
these
observations,
the
group
agreed
the
primary
linkage
focus
for Phase
II
would
fall
on
the
soft
linkages,
particularly
as
they
relate
to
the selected analytical
area
of
endeavor.
10
2.2.5.
Memorandum
of
Agreement
(MOA)
with
the Model
Proponents
The
purpose
of
this MOA
is
to establish
a
collaborative effort
between
PEO
Soldier
and
the
organizations
affiliated
with
the
three
simulation models.
The
overarching
goal
of
the
effort:
to
facilitate
the
development
of
a
complementary
and,
where
possible, linked
set
of
simulation
models
that
will
enable
high-fidelity representations
of
the
individual
Soldier
within
varied
operational environments
and across
the
spectrum
of
missions.
One
of
the
key
objectives
of
the
resulting
models
and
linkages
is
to
support quantitative
analyses
that
address
PEO Soldier
requirements.
To
achieve
the
purpose
of
the
agreement,
we
developed
a
two-tiered
approach.
The
upper
tier
consists
of
the
base MOA, which
established
the
broader context
of
the
roles,
responsibilities,
and agreements
within
the
federation. It
outlines
the
process
by
which
PEO
Soldier
will identify
and
prioritize
its
analysis
requirements,
coordinate
the
fulfillment
of
those
requirements
with
selected
Soldier Modeling
&
Simulation
(M&S)
development programs,
determine
which
analysis
requirements
can
be met
within
the M&S
programs currently
funded,
and identify
additional
PEO
Soldier
M&S
development
funding
required
to
address
supplementary
analysis needs.
Within
the scope
of
this
tier,
PEO
Soldier,
PEO
STRI,
Natick,
TRAC,
and
AMSAA
agree
to
collaborate
in the
planning, development, management, funding,
linkage,
and
fielding
of
M&S
capabilities
aimed
at
addressing
PEO
Soldier
analysis
requirements. Pursuant
to
that
end
is
the
development
of
a
process
to
coordinate
PEO Soldier
analysis requirements
and
resources with existing M&S programs
in
order
to
maximize
the
Army's
M&S
investments
in
bridging
current
gaps
in
Soldier
system
analysis.
Appendix
D
contains
the
complete base MOA (minus signatures).
The
second
tier
consists
of
a
series
of
sub-MOAs
between
PEO
Soldier
and
each
of
the
individual model developer
groups.
For
administrative
purposes,
we
constructed
these
as
annexes
to
the base
MOA,
as
they
act
as
specific
extensions
of
the
understandings
and
agreements delineated
therein.
We
discuss these annexes
in
greater
detail
in
the
next
section.
2.2.6.
Annexes
to
the MOA
The
M&S
Working
Group
developed the sub-MOAs
or
annexes
to the
base MOA
in
full
collaboration
with
each
other.
This was
particularly
important
for
reasons
previously
discussed
11
concerning
the
interdependent
nature
of
the
analytical
and
linkage
efforts.
These annexes
serve
to
capture
the
following
information:
"*
The
work
that
each
respective model
proponent
agrees
to
undertake
for
the
year
toward
addressing
specified,
and
agreed-upon
PEO
Soldier analytical
needs and
model linkages;
and
"*
The
funding
level
that
PEO
Soldier
will
provide
to
accomplish
the
work
for the
year.
In
total,
there
are
four annexes
to
the
base MOA.
Annex
A
consists
of
the
analytical
areas
of
endeavor
discussed
in
section
2.2.2.
Annexes
B, C,
and
D
comprise
the
set
of
sub-agreements
between
PEO
Soldier
and
PEO STRI,
Natick/AMSAA,
and
TRAC-WSMR respectively.
Appendices
E,
F,
and
G
contain these annexes, minus signatures.
The
purposes
of
the
annexes
are
two-fold.
First, they articulate
the
unique
aspects
of
specific
agreements
between
PEO
Soldier
and
the
respective model
proponents,
as
described
above.
This
is
important,
as
each
model
had,
to some
degree, already
endeavored
to
achieve
various aspects
of
the
analytical
areas
PEO
Soldier deemed
important.
Moreover,
given
the
different objectives with
respect
to
levels
of
fidelity
in
representing
the
individual soldier,
each
of
the
model developers
would
need (and
want)
to
pursue this
work
in
the
particular
way
best
suited for
their
model.
Second, they
provide
a
degree
of
flexibility
within
the scope
of
the
MOA.
In
and
of
itself,
the
base
MOA
is
intended
as
a
long-term agreement
between
the
signatories
that
will,
in
general,
not
change
over
time.
However,
as
work
and
linkages
get
accomplished
and
new
analytical
needs
arise, the
agreements
and responsibilities therein
will
have
to
change.
Since the
signatories
to the
base
MOA consist
of
the
senior-most
individuals
in
their
respective
organizations,
a
single
MOA with
no
annexes
would
require
a
re-staffing
and
re-signing
process
with
each
change,
consuming
considerable amounts
of
time.
The
use
of
annexes
mitigates
these
impacts
by providing
flexibility
in
the
decision
and funding
processes.
The
following
three
points
taken
from
paragraph
4(b)
of
the
base
MOA
capture
the
essence
of
this
flexibility:
(1)
These
annexes
represent
individual
agreements
between
PEO
Soldier
and
the
respective
model developers
that
fall
within
the
scope
of
this
MOA. While the
base
MOA
remains
unchanged,
the annexes will be
revised
at
the start
of
each
fiscal
year
in
order
to
update
analytical and
linkage objectives,
as
well
as
funding
allocations.
It
is
understood by
all
that these annual
revisions will
not
require
a
resigning
of
the
MOA.
12
(2)
The
decision authority
for the
annex
development
will
be
delegated
to the
respective
representatives
in the
M&S
Working
Group. This
authority
extends only
to
deciding
what
objectives
are
deemed
feasible
for
the
year,
the
level
of
commitment
(i.e.,
the
amount
of
work
each
proponent
agrees to
perform
for
the
year),
and developing
funding
estimates.
Final
funding
decisions
will remain
with
the PEO
Soldier.
(3)
The
funding
levels
apportioned
to
each
M&S
effort
at
the
outset
of
the
fiscal
year
will
remain
set
for
the
year.
In
the
event that
a
particular
objective
supported
by
PEO Soldier
funds
is
attained
through
some
other
means,
those
PEO
Soldier
funds
will
be
reallocated
within
the
respective
annex
to achieve
other
linkage
or
analytical requirements.
As
with
most projects,
the
single
greatest variable concerns funding.
This
project
is
no
different.
Further
indicative
of
the
flexibility
in
these
annexes
is
the
inclusion
of
a
matrix
that
aligns
certain
levels
of
work
with funding levels
for each
proponent.
This
provides
a
quick-reference starting
point
to
correlate
work
levels
with
available funding.
Moreover,
if
certain
aspects
of
work
require
less
time/money than
originally expected,
we
can
potentially bring
feasible
aspects
from
other
parts
of
the
matrix
into the
fold.
13
Chapter
3:
Current
Progress
&
Conclusion
3.1
Where
the
Effort
Currently
Stands
As
of
31
May
2006, the
annexes
to
the
base
MOA
have
been
signed
and are
with
PEO
Soldier, awaiting
the
base MOA,
which
is
in the
signing process.
Ultimately,
this process
took
far
longer than
originally anticipated,
due
to
unforeseen
administrative
delays and
fiscal
constraints
beyond
PEO
Soldier's
control. As
it
stands,
although
the
Working
Group's
initial
estimates for funding FY06 objectives
exceeded
$1.2
million, budget
reductions
and
unexpected
shifts
in
priorities reduced
the
actual
allocation
to
$1.0
million, approximately
80%
of
the
original
request. Accordingly,
we
have
elected
to
partition
the
$1.0
million by
funding
the
model
developers
at
80%
of
their
original estimates.
Using
the
matrices
mentioned
in
2.2.6,
we
worked
with
the
members
of
the M&S
Working
Group
to
delineate
precisely
what
each
proponent
would
strive to
perform
and
the
period
of
performance.
As
of
9
June 2006,
all
three
model groups
have
received
funding from PEO
Soldier,
and
they have
begun their work
in
earnest.
Although
the release
of
funds
occurred
late
in
the
fiscal
year
(May
2006),
the
work
will
still
span
a
12-month
period
ending
in June 2007.
This date
is
tied
to
the
release
of
OOS
Version
1.2.
3.2
The
Road
Ahead
In
mid-July, members
of
the
Working
Group
will
convene
to
conduct
a
Technical
Interchange Meeting
(TIM)
to
discuss
several
of
the details
involved
with the linkages
and
analytical efforts. In
particular,
the
meeting
will cover
the
integration
of
the
OOS
synthetic
natural
environment
(SNE) into
IWARS and
COMBATXXI,
the
integration
of
the
Integrated
Casualty
Estimation
Model (ICEM)
into
OOS
and
COMBATXXI,
and
the
development
of
scenarios
to
drive
analytical
efforts.
The
first
two
are
critical
with
respect
to
linking
the
models
and
feed
directly
into
the
third. Ultimately,
the
integration
of
the
SNE
and
the
ICEM
across
the
three models
will
mitigate
compatibility
issues
between
the
models
and
essentially
assist them
with
"talking"
to one
another using
a
common
frame
of
reference.
The
scenarios
themselves
are
important because
they
must
be
common
between
the models
to
facilitate
standardized
entity
processing
and
logic.
Incompatibility
issues
herein would
render
any
data
virtually
useless.
14
Over
the
next year,
the
Working
Group
will
continue
to
meet
to
review
the
year's
objectives, discuss
progress,
and
look
to the
year
beyond. Based
on
progress
or
other
events,
the
group will
decide
on
modifications
to the
work
load and
funding,
as
necessary.
As
an
example,
if
the
integration
of
the
SNE
requires
less
time
and
money
than originally anticipated,
then
the
excess
funds
earmarked
for
that
purpose
will either be
reallocated
among the
current
set
of
objectives for the
year or,
if
time
and
resources allow it, applied
to an
additional objective (one
of
the
secondary efforts
mentioned
in
Annexes
B, C,
and D).
The
group
will
also continue
to
conduct
TIMs
as
necessary
to
facilitate
the
exchange
of
data
and
technical information required
to
stimulate
the
linkages
and analytical
efforts,
as
well
as
to
ensure
each
of
the
three models are
on
parallel courses from
a
technical standpoint.
From the
ORCEN's
perspective,
we
will
need
to
work
with PEO
Soldier
in the
August-
September
2006 to
refine
the
next
set
of
analytical
areas
of
endeavor
that
the
federation will
begin
to
address
at
the end
of
FY07 and
throughout
FY08.
These
areas
will
need
to
account
for
PEO
Soldier
priorities
with
respect
to
equipment/component development,
fielding,
and data
collection,
as
well
as
any
critical
events
(i.e.,
analyses
of
alternatives (AoAs)).
As
with the
set
of
priorities developed
for
this
year,
next
year's
will
also
have
to
be
a
manageable
load
that
we
can
adjust
as
necessary
based
on
time, funding,
etc.
3.3
Conclusion
The
work
the
ORCEN accomplished
for
PEO
Soldier
this
year
has
served
to
further
implement our
Simulation
Roadmap
recommendation
from
May
2004.
Although
this
work
has
been
more managerial
in
nature
vice
analytical,
it has
served
a
critical
purpose. Foremost,
we
have
achieved our primary objective
of
completing the MOA
between
PEO
Soldier
and
the
model
projgonents.
As
a
result,
we have
a
vetted
and
signed,
long-term agreement between
these
organizations that
will
facilitate
the
development
and
use
of
one
of
the
most
beneficial
analytical
packages
the
Army
acquisition
community
has to
support
the
development, acquisition,
and
fielding
of
Infantry soldier
systems.
Beyond
this,
we
have
worked
diligently
with
the
M&S
Working
Group
to
develop
a
comprehensive linkage
framework
and
a
set
of
analytical focus
areas
that
will
drive
the
work
efforts for the
next
year.
In
the
end,
work
has
begun
and
progress
is
being
made
toward
a
viable
and fully
linked simulation federation.
15
Bibliography
Martin,
P.
G.
and
M.
J.
Kwinn,
Jr.,
2005,
"PEO
Soldier
Simulation Roadmap:
Initial
Efforts
in
Implementation,"
Operations Research
Center
of
Excellence
Technical Report
DSE-TR-
0501,
DTIC
#:
ADA435707.
PEO
Soldier. 2004.
PEO
Soldier Portfolio. Fort
Belvoir,
Virginia.
Tollefson,
Eric
S.,
Boylan,
Greg
L.,
Foote,
Bobbie
L.,
West,
Paul
D.,
Kwinn,
Michael
J.
2004.
Simulation
Roadmap
for
Program
Executive
Office
(PEO)
Soldier.
Operations
Research
Center
of
Excellence
Technical
Report
No.
DSE-TR-0421,
DTIC
#ADA425648.
16
Appendix
A:
List
of
Abbreviations
ACR
Advanced
Concepts
and
Requirements
AMSAA
U.S.
Army Materiel Systems
Analysis Activity
AoA
Analysis
of
Alternatives
AVCATT
Aviation Combined
Arms Tactical
Trainer
BBS
Brigade
/
Battalion
Battle Simulation
CASTFOREM
Combined
Arms
and
Task
Force
Evaluation
Model
CCTT Close
Combat
Tactical Trainer
COMBATxxI
Combined
Arms
Analysis Tool
for
the
21st
Century (affiliated with
TRAC-WSMR
and
MCCDC)
DTIC
Defense Technical
Information
Center
ERC
Environmental
Runtime
Component
FFW Future
Force
Warrior Program
FY
Fiscal
Year
ICEM
Integrated
Casualty
Estimation
Model
IWARS
Infantry
Warrior
Simulation
(affiliated
with
AMSAA
and
NSC)
JCATS
Joint Conflict
and
Tactical Simulation
MCCDC
Marine Corps
Combat Development Command
M&S
Modeling and
Simulation
MOA
Memorandum
of
Agreement
MOUT
Military
Operations
in
Urban
Terrain
NSC
Natick
Soldier Center
OneSAF
One-Semi-Automated
Force
(affiliated
with PEO-STRI)
OOS
Objective One-SAF
ORCEN
Operations Research
Center
OTB
OneSAF
Testbed Baseline
PEO
Program
Executive
Office
PEO-STRI
PEO
Simulation, Training
and
Instrumentation
RDA
Research,
Development,
and
Acquisition
SITL
Soldier in
the Loop
SMART
Simulation
and
Modeling
for
Acquisition,
Requirements
and
Training
SEMP
Systems
Engineering
and
Management
Process
SNE
Synthetic
Natural Environment
STMS
Soldier
Tactical
Mission
System
TEMO
Training,
Equipment,
and
Military
Operations
TIM
Technical
Interchange Meeting
TRAC
TRADOC Analysis
Center
TRAC-WSMR
TRAC
at
White
Sands
Missile
Range
TRADOC
Training and
Doctrine Command
USMA
United
States
Military Academy
VTC Video Teleconference
17
Appendix
B:
PEO
Soldier's
Analytical
Areas
of
Endeavor.
As
stated
in
the
report,
Figure
1
attempts
to
capture,
conceptually,
what
PEO
Soldier
requires
in
terms
of
analysis.
Following
this concept,
this
appendix
articulates
the
initial
set
of
analytical
needs
as
clearly
and
concisely
as
possible.
We
have
structured
these
analytical
needs
around
specific
system components, categories,
or
configurations
and
have
tied
them back
to
the
original
soldier
functions developed
in (Tollefson,
et al.,
2004).
1)
ADVANCED
COMBAT
HELMET
Equipment
specifics
&
components
(what
needs
to
be
modeled):
"*
Weight:
"*
Field
of
view:
"*
Ballistic properties:
"*
Subcomponents:
Integrated
commo
(?),
Camo
pattern,
Improved
chinstrap, Improved
internal
webbing,
Night vision mount,
HUD
w/
targeting
&
commo
(future)
Analytical
Needs:
How
does the
Advanced
Combat Helmet
affect
soldier
effectiveness
with
respect
to
the
following
soldier
functions?
MAKE
SENSING
DECISIONS,
SENSE
Effects
of
reduced
weight, increased
peripheral vision
and
increased protection
on
a
soldier's
ability
or
inclination
to:
"*
Select
sensing
equipment
(effects
of
having more robust
subcomponent
capabilities
w/
IR and/or
thermal
capabilities)
"*
Search
for
targets
"*
Track
targets
"*
Acquire targets
MAKE
ENGAGEMENT
DECISIONS,
ENGAGE
Effects
of
reduced weight,
increased
peripheral vision
and
increased
protection
on
a
soldier's
ability
and
inclination
to:
"*
Engage
targets
with
direct
fire
weapon
"*
Engage targets
with
CQC
18
MOVE
Effects
of
reduced weight
on
a
soldier's
ability
to:
"*
Change
physical
location (physiological
effects, such
as
fatigue
and
rate
of
movement)
"*
Change
postures
MAKE
COMMUNICATION
DECISIONS,
COMMUNICATE
Effects
of
increased
peripheral vision, increased protection
and
subcomponent
capabilities on
a
soldier's
ability
and inclination
to:
"*
Receive visual,
verbal
or radio
communications
"*
Transmit
2)
INTERCEPTOR
BODY
ARMOR
&
INTEGRATED
HEAD.
NECK
AND
FACE
PROTECTION
Equipment
specifics
&
components
(what
needs
to
be
modeled):
Weight
(total
system):
16.4
lbs
[9
lbs.
lighter
than previous
system]
Ballistic
properties:
TBD
Level
of
protection
(body
areas
protected):
Analytical
Needs:
How
do
the
Interceptor Body
Armor
&
Integrated
head,
neck,
and
face
protection
affect
soldier
effectiveness
with
respect
to
the
following
soldier
functions?
MAKE
SENSING
DECISIONS,
SENSE
Effects
of
increased protection
on
a
soldier's
ability
or
inclination
to
sense,
et
al.
MAKE
ENGAGEMENT
DECISIONS,
ENGAGE
Effects
of
increased
protection
on
a
soldier's
ability
or
inclination
to
engage
targets,
et
al.
MAKE
MOVEMENT
DECISIONS,
MOVE
Effects
of
reduced weight
on
a
soldier's
ability
to:
"*
Change
physical
location (physiological
effects,
such
as
fatigue
and
rate
of
movement)
"*
Change
postures
MAKE
ENABLING
DECISIONS,
ENABLE
Effects
of
reduced weight,
physical
construct
(impacts
on range
of
motion
of
arms,
legs, head, torso) on
a
soldier's
ability
to:
"*
Alter surroundings
"*
Manipulate
load (carry extra
equipment (pouches),
or
physically
able)
"*
Operate
(administer
first
aid,
operate
equipment)
19
3)
DIRECT
FIRE
WEAPONS
Equipment
specifics
&
components
(what
needs
to
be
modeled):
Dimensions
of
system
Weight
(total
system):
of
the
weapon
itself,
and
with
specific
component
configurations
Ballistic
properties: both the
effects
on the
enemy
AND
the
effects
on
the
firer
(ie,
recoil effects,
concussion
effects,
etc.)
Component
capabilities:
combat
optics,
IR/Thermal
sights, aiming
devices,
reduced
exposure sights,
etc.
Analytical
Needs:
1.
How
do
the
changes
in
physiological
attributes
resulting
from
weapon
specifics
(above)
impact
soldier
effectiveness?
2.
What
is
the impact
of
weapon
attributes on
soldier
effectiveness
(i.e.,
changes to
PH/PI/PK
measures, detect-ability
due to
audible
and
visual signatures
of
weapon,
etc.)
3.
How
do
specific
weapon
systems
(rifle, grenade
launcher,
SAW,
MG,
etc.)
impact
soldier
effectiveness with
respect
to
the following
soldier
functions:
MAKE
SENSING
DECISIONS,
SENSE
Effects
of
system capabilities
and
attributes on
the
soldier's
ability
to
"*
Search
for
targets
(i.e.,
due to
optics,
reduced
exposure
sights,
etc.)
"*
Acquire
targets
"*
Track
and
designate
targets
MAKE
ENGAGEMENT
DECISIONS,
ENGAGE
Effects
of
system capabilities
and
attributes on
the
soldier's
ability
to
"*
Select
a
method
of
engagement
(i.e.,
timeliness; sensor capabilities
of
sights,
aiming
devices,
etc.)
"*
Engage
targets (individual, multiple,
in
rapid
succession;
obviously,
this
must
be
in
conjunction
with
the
SENSE
function,
because
we are
interested
in
whether
the weapon
enhances
effectiveness
by
1)
enabling
the
soldier
to
more
quickly
identify targets,
2)
allowing
the
soldier
to
place
well-aimed
shots
against
that
target
(or
multiple),
and
then
3)
facilitating
a
rapid acquisition
and
engagement
of
additional
targets)
MAKE
MOVEMENT
DECISIONS,
MOVE
Effects
of
weapon
weight
and
dimensions
on
a
soldier's
ability
to:
"*
Change
physical
location
"o
physiological
effects, such
as
fatigue
and
rate
of
movement
"o
other
effects
on attributes
such
as
detect-ability
(i.e.,
a
longer
weapon
might
catch
on
vegetation
or
branches
more,
a
molded
plastic
or
composite material might
absorb
sound
better,
etc.)
"*
Change
postures
20
MAKE
ENABLING
DECISIONS,
ENABLE
Effects
of
weight, physical construct,
and
components
on
a
soldier's
ability
to:
Alter
surroundings
(i.e.,
one
hand
free
or two
hands
free
capability
afforded
by
sling
or
other
component(s))
Manipulate load
(carry
other
things)
Operate
(administer
first
aid,
operate
other
equipment)
'4)
SENSORS (TO
INCLUDE
OPTICS,
SIGHTS,
VIEWERS,
AIMING
DEVICES.
ETC.)
Equipment
specifics &
components
(what
needs
to
be
modeled):
Dimensions
of
system
Weight
(total
system):
of
individual
components
(to
include
batteries/power
supply)
and
the aggregate weights
of
system
configurations
Power
properties:
type
of
power,
duration,
number
of
batteries/power
cells,
power
draw
tied
to
usage
of
devices
(individual components
and
aggregate
draw
on
the
system)
Component
capabilities:
combat
optics,
IR/Thermal sights, aiming
devices,
reduced
exposure
sights,
operational
effects
of
weather,
etc.
Analytical
Needs:
1.
What impact
does the
power usage/draw
of
the
equipment
have
on the
soldier's
effectiveness
(i.e.,
does
it require
him
to stop
more often
to
change
batteries
or
recharge;
does
it
require him
to
carry
a
greater
load
of
battery replacements,
etc.)
2.
What impact(s)
do
various sensor capabilities
have
on
the
soldier's
effectiveness
with
respect
to the
following
soldier
functions?
MAKE
SENSING
DECISIONS,
SENSE
Effects
of
system capabilities
and
attributes on
the
soldier's
ability
to
"*
Search
for targets
"*
Acquire
targets
"*
Track
and
designate
targets
MAKE
ENGAGEMENT
DECISIONS,
ENGAGE
Effects
of
system
capabilities
and
attributes
on
the
soldier's
ability to
"*
Select
a
method
of
engagement
(i.e.,
timeliness; sensor capabilities
of
sights, aiming
devices,
etc.)
"*
Engage
targets
(individual, multiple,
in
rapid
succession;
obviously,
this
must
be in
conjunction
with
the
SENSE
function,
because
we
are
interested
in
whether
the
weapon
enhances
effectiveness
by
1)
enabling
21
the
soldier
to
more quickly identify targets,
2)
allowing
the
soldier
to
place
well-aimed
shots
against that
target
(or
multiple),
and
then
3)
facilitating
a
rapid
acquisition
and
engagement
of
additional
targets)
MAKE
MOVEMENT
DECISIONS,
MOVE
Effects
of
equipment
weight
and
dimensions
on
a
soldier's
ability
to:
"*
Change
physical
location
"o
physiological
effects,
such
as
fatigue and
rate
of
movement
"o
other
effects
on attributes
such
as
detect-ability
(i.e.,
helmet
mounted
optics
might
catch on
vegetation
or
branches
more,
a
molded plastic or
composite
material
might
absorb
sound
better,
etc.)
"*
Change
postures
MAKE
ENABLING
DECISIONS,
ENABLE
Effects
of
weight,
physical
construct,
and
components on
a
soldier's
ability
to:
Alter
surroundings
(i.e.,
one
hand
free
or
two
hands
free
capability
afforded
by
weapon/helmet
mount,
sling
or
other component(s))
Manipulate
load (carry
other things;
i.e.,
does the
equipment
require
so
much space/weight that it
forces the
soldier
to give
up
other
capabilities)
Operate
(administer
first
aid,
operate
other equipment)
5)
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT
(DIGITAL
AND
ANALOG
SYSTEMS)
Equipment
specifics
&
components
(what
needs
to
be
modeled):
Dimensions
of
system
Weight
(total
system):
of
individual
components
(to
include
batteries/power
supply, antennae, </