[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-171]
MODELING AND SIMULATION: ENHANCING MILITARY READINESS
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JULY 20, 2010
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-291 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas, Chairman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas ROB BISHOP, Utah
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
GLENN NYE, Virginia JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland CHARLES K. DJOU, Hawaii
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
Vickie Plunkett, Professional Staff Member
Lynn Williams, Professional Staff Member
Katy Bloomberg, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2010
Page
Hearing:
Tuesday, July 20, 2010, Modeling and Simulation: Enhancing
Military Readiness............................................. 1
Appendix:
Tuesday, July 20, 2010........................................... 33
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2010
MODELING AND SIMULATION: ENHANCING MILITARY READINESS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, a Representative from Virginia, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Readiness.............................. 2
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative from Texas, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Readiness...................................... 1
WITNESSES
Burke, Vice Adm. William, USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations,
Fleet Readiness and Logistics (N4)............................. 4
Gibson, Maj. Gen. Marke F., USAF, Director of Operations, Deputy
Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements,
Headquarters U.S. Air Force.................................... 7
Layfield, Maj. Gen. Stephen R., USA, Director, Joint Training and
Joint Warfighting Center, U.S. Joint Forces Command............ 5
Lewis, Rear Adm. Fred L., USN (Ret.), President, National
Training and Simulation Association............................ 9
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Burke, Vice Adm. William..................................... 39
Forbes, Hon. J. Randy........................................ 38
Gibson, Maj. Gen. Marke F.................................... 82
Layfield, Maj. Gen. Stephen R................................ 74
Lewis, Rear Adm. Fred L...................................... 91
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P........................................ 37
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Forbes................................................... 103
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Ortiz.................................................... 107
Mr. Wittman.................................................. 115
MODELING AND SIMULATION: ENHANCING MILITARY READINESS
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Readiness,
Washington, DC, Tuesday, July 20, 2010.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Solomon Ortiz
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Ortiz. The subcommittee will come to order. Today the
Readiness Subcommittee meets to hear testimony on the use of
modeling and simulation [M&S] to enhance military readiness.
I want to thank our distinguished witnesses from Department
of Defense [DOD] and industry for appearing before the
subcommittee today, and thank you so much for joining us this
morning.
As co-chairman of the Congressional Modeling and Simulation
Caucus, with my good friend Randy Forbes, of Virginia, I am
very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss how modeling
and simulation can improve training, reduce operation and
maintenance costs, and increase the life cycle of weapons
systems. Our thanks go to Joint Forces Command for providing
the Future Immersive Training Environment simulator so that
members would get a firsthand experience with the latest
simulation technology.
And I had a chance to look at the weapon and fire, and I
just could tell by just--that I am out of shape.
But anyway, the military services have all, to some degree,
invested in modeling and simulation to improve training, reduce
costs, and improve the accuracy of budgeting and material
maintenance projects. The services' efforts vary in complexity
and change continuously as technological advances in modeling
and simulation provide improved capability shaped to meet
Department of Defense needs.
Today we will examine a few of the modeling and simulation
tools available to the department as examples of how this
technology helps enhance military readiness. These range from
the Navy's readiness models, used to determine resourcing
requirements, such as flying hours and maintenance activities,
to immersive training for ground combat, realistic flight
simulation, and network missions operations.
We will also look at how industry responds to the
department needs for modeling and simulation capabilities as
well as examine potential downsides to overreliance upon
simulated versus real-world training.
And we are very fortunate to have the witnesses that we
have today, at this hearing today. We have Vice Admiral William
Burke, United States Navy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations,
Fleet Readiness, and Logistics.
Sir, thank you so much.
Major General Stephen R. Layfield, United States Army,
director, Joint Training and Joint Warfighting Center, United
States Joint Forces Command; and Major General Marke F. Gibson,
United States Air Force, director of operations, deputy chief
of staff for operations, plans, and requirements, Headquarters
United States Air Force; and Rear Admiral Fred L. Lewis, United
States Navy, retired, president of Naval Training and
Simulation Association.
And at this moment the Chair recognizes the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, my good friend, for any
remark that he would like to make.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz can be found in the
Appendix on page 37.]
STATEMENT OF HON. J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Forbes. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I have a written
statement that, with your permission, I would like to put in
the record, but I would like to just make a few other
comments----
Mr. Ortiz. No objection. So ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes can be found in the
Appendix on page 38.]
Mr. Forbes [continuing]. If I could.
I am not sure, when we are up here oftentimes we say this
is one of the most important hearings that we will have in
Congress, and I don't know that too many people would, perhaps,
agree with us if we said that this morning, but I would say
this: I think that the topic we are talking about is one of the
most important topics that we can be talking about, given the
current situation of where we are in the country.
Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank you for co-chairing the
Modeling and Simulation Caucus. I want to thank you for holding
this hearing.
I want to thank each of our witnesses, because it will be
up to us to be able to articulate to all of our colleagues and
to Congress the importance of what you are able to give to us
as a country. We know the incredible economic value of modeling
and simulation that we look at, and we can see that any place
we go across the country. We also know, pretty much, the
training capacity.
I just don't think we can get to the jointness capability
that we need to be as a nation without modeling and simulation.
You guys can help bring that to the forefront so that our
colleagues understand that.
Secondly, I don't think we can afford to do all the testing
that we need to do today without modeling and simulation. That
is just beyond our reach.
General, I think you are going to be able to tell us some
of the things that we can utilize modeling and simulation for
as far as keeping the readiness of our fleet and our aircraft
and the stuff that we are going to be utilizing there. But
there is a third component that I hope that at some point in
time we can have a discussion on, if not today then down the
road.
Recently I had a lady that met me in the hall and she gave
me an envelope. And she said, ``Congressman, will you just read
this envelope? I have been trying to get it in somewhere in
government, and I can't get it there.''
And that night I took the envelope, I opened it, and I read
it. Her husband worked for an environmental company and they
had a piece of equipment that literally would take oil out of
water. It wasn't a theory; it wasn't a prototype they were
working on. It was functioning right then in West Virginia. All
they needed to do was put it on barges.
When I began to examine it I found out that it was not only
that letter but thousands of ideas like that across the country
that we just don't have a mechanism in government to handle
those kinds of ideas and those kinds of thoughts.
I think we know now, whether it is a hurricane situation
like Katrina or an oil spill, one of the things that is very
difficult for us as a government is when we are trying to make
decisions we oftentimes put a few smart men and women in a
room, and we are trying to filter out all of these ideas,
concepts that are taking place with people in garages somewhere
across the country, laboratories somewhere across the country,
and we are not able to do that and process that very well.
So Congressman Scott and I are working on a piece of
legislation called the American Response Act that would really
take the component that we are working on on interagency
cooperation, and where we can really create an opportunity for
agencies to talk with each other, which they still can't do the
way the military can do, but then overlay that with modeling
and simulation so that we will be able to take those thousands
of ideas that are coming in and process them through a virtual
world so that we can walk in and look 80 days down the road, 90
days down the road, and then come back on day 2, day 3, day 4,
and say, ``Now we are going to make decisions based on the way
the world will look 80, 90 days down the road.''
Doesn't matter what administration or where it is. America
needs that to be able to respond to the kind of crises we will
take in the future.
And you gentlemen have the key to that in what you are
doing in modeling and simulation.
And the last thing I will tell you is this: There is always
a fear, when we have a hearing like this, there will be people
who will say, ``Well, I don't want them to think we are going
to actually be able to do these things.'' I remember years ago
one of my favorite places for my children to go was Disney
World, and about 15 years ago I remember coming out of one of
their futuristic displays and looking, and they had people
talking to each other and having their pictures on telephones,
and I remember looking at that and we were laughing and saying,
``I wonder if that will ever happen?'' Today when you look at
some of those exhibits they look historic because we have
surpassed that.
I know in the early part of the 1960s when we talked about
putting men on the moon there were people who said, ``You know,
that is never going to happen.'' We had people walk on the
moon.
You guys have an opportunity for us to create a world where
as policymakers we can walk into the future, we can look
around, we can decide if we like it or not, and then we can
come back and have more informed decisions, and we have not
cost as much money, we haven't cost lives, and we have saved
quantities of time. And for that I just thank you for being
here. We are looking forward to your testimony.
And then hopefully the chairman and I and this committee
can help move this entire industry along to do what we think
you can do for our country. So thank you so much for being
here.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
Mr. Ortiz. You know, the world has changed a lot and we
need to stay ahead of the curve. We need to do that--as the
world moves we need to move with it, and there are a lot of
changes. We see China; we see other countries moving ahead.
And you probably saw on CNN what they saw--they thought it
was a, you know, extra terrestrial, but they think it was a
missile being fired. So this is great, what we are doing now.
So now let me--Admiral Burke, please proceed with your
testimony, followed by General Layfield, General Gibson, and
Admiral Lewis. So whenever you are ready, Admiral, go right
ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. WILLIAM BURKE, USN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
NAVAL OPERATIONS, FLEET READINESS AND LOGISTICS (N4)
Admiral Burke. Yes, sir.
Chairman Ortiz, Representative Forbes, distinguished
members of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, it
is my honor to appear before you to testify on the Navy
readiness models alongside General Layfield, General Gibson,
and Admiral Lewis.
Today our Navy remains engaged in supporting operations in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and all other combatant commander [COCOM]
areas of responsibility. We have over 120 ships deployed, which
is more than 40 percent of our fleet, a Global Force for Good
on station around the world deterring interaction, keeping sea
lanes open for free trade, and, when necessary, projecting
power.
Several dozen ships and subs are underway as part of
preparations for deployment, and dozens more are in port
training and conducting maintenance as they prepare for
deployment. Others are in deep maintenance, resetting, and
stride. Our Aviation, Special Warfare, and Naval Expeditionary
Combat Command assets are going through a similar regimen.
The Combatant Commander demand signal, as managed by the
Global Force Management Board process, defines the capability
needed to satisfy presence and surge requirements worldwide.
The Fleet Response Plan describes the Navy process necessary to
maintain, train, sustain, and deploy our forces in response to
that demand.
Our readiness models identify the resources necessary to
deliver that capability. As a result, I have high confidence in
the accuracy of the readiness and maintenance budget
submission.
A few years ago we recognized the need to transition from a
requirement based heavily on historic norms to a model
requirement based on quantitative analysis of force generation
and operations parameters. We have four interdependent
readiness resourcing models that have been subjected to
rigorous verification, validation, and accreditation supported
by Johns Hopkins University of Applied Physics Laboratory
[APL].
Our models are fully accredited and give us the ability to
predict the cost of global operations in a dynamic operating
environment. These results form the basis of the Navy's
readiness budget submission throughout the programming,
budgeting, and execution process.
Navy ships and aircraft are capital-intensive forces that,
when properly maintained, are designed to remain in service for
decades. Scheduled maintenance of these ships and aircraft and
the associated training and certification of our crews between
deployments is a key element of the cost to own and operate the
fleet. Our readiness models are designed to accurately reflect
the cost to own, train, and operate our naval forces.
The readiness models account for each phase of the Fleet
Response Plan and are integral to our readiness funding
decisions. Readiness is a function of capable forces of
sufficient capacity ready for tasking.
The return on investment in our fleet readiness program is
measured by our ability to deliver required capabilities in
rotational deployments while simultaneously responding to
emergent needs of the COCOMs. Our models provide the fidelity
necessary to accurately define required resources and predict
readiness capacity based on varying financial resource levels.
Thank you for your unwavering support and commitment to our
sailors, Navy civilians, and their families, for all you do to
make our Navy an effective and enduring global force for good.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Burke can be found in
the Appendix on page 39.]
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, sir.
Major General Layfield.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. STEPHEN R. LAYFIELD, USA, DIRECTOR,
JOINT TRAINING AND JOINT WARFIGHTING CENTER, U.S. JOINT FORCES
COMMAND
General Layfield. Chairman Ortiz, Ranking Member Forbes,
other members of the subcommittee, on behalf of General James
Mattis, the commander of the United States Joint Forces
Command, thank you for allowing me to appear before you today.
The preparation and readiness of the men and women of our
nation's armed forces is our top priority. Since this task
cannot be overstated we want to thank this subcommittee and the
United States Congress for all your continued support for our
warfighters and their families.
My opening remarks will be short. Therefore, I respectfully
ask to submit a more detailed written statement to you for
placement in the record and look forward to more detailed
questions and answers.
Mr. Ortiz. No objection. It will be placed in the record.
General Layfield. Thank you, sir.
My testimony will address three areas. First, the key role
that modeling and simulation plays as a training enabler: We
use modeling and simulation to replicate the equipment that we
have and the environment where our joint forces will operate.
This replication is called the synthetic training environment,
or the synthetic battlespace.
We do this through a federation of models and simulations
composed of joint and service systems and softwares that is
integrated and distributed by Joint Forces Command. The result:
the synthetic battlespace.
A computer-generated model of forces, infrastructure,
weapons systems, and physical terrain, when run together, will
simulate the real world of challenging scenarios that our
warfighters face every day. This synthetic environment supports
exercises across all of our combatant commands and delivers
specific mission rehearsal exercises in support of our forces
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa.
Most of these exercises integrate coalition and interagency
participation. This synthetic battlespace also supports over
200 service-led exercises by replicating the joint environment
inside their scenarios.
Additionally, we are supported by the services--we are
supporting the services by assisting in the development of
models and simulations for individual training applications
which can be used at home stations and at home on the Internet.
The second area that I would like to highlight today is the
direct and the indirect cost savings to be gained through the
use of modeling and simulation. Modeling and simulation allows
us to replicate selected training, conduct it virtually instead
of live, thereby reducing overall costs, personnel OPTEMPO
[operating tempo], and wear and tear on our expensive
equipment.
An example of this with the Navy can be seen when training
the Joint and the Fleet Headquarters staffs within their fleet
synthetic training program. This staff training, which has
traditionally taken place during expensive, full-scale, at-sea
exercises, can now be conducted effectively and efficiently
pier-side at a significant cost savings.
Another efficient use of modeling and simulation is when
the training can be distributed and delivered to the training
audience right at home. This saves travel costs, equipment,
transportation costs, and affords members--servicemembers--more
at-home time with their families. We also use simulations to
create complex operating environments which are cost-
prohibitive to replicate in a live training venue.
My final point today has to do with the training of our
close combat infantry and ground units--specifically the role
of immersive training venues enabled by modeling and
simulation. Throughout history infantry and ground units have
suffered the large majority of combat casualties. The same is
true today in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Research shows that these casualties often occur in the
unit's initial firefights. Yet, we have not developed a
realistic immersive simulation for ground units to prepare
troops for their first engagements with the enemy. The time is
now to bring state-of-the-art simulation to infantry and other
ground units.
To this end, working with the services, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense [OSD], and the Joint Staff, we have
delivered a prototype infantry immersive training system to the
Marine Corps and the United States Army to expose the realm of
the possible for infantry immersive training, and it is
yielding positive results. We have a demonstration of this
system for your viewing in the atrium--outside in the anteroom.
Additionally, the Deputy Secretary of Defense has budgeted
$285 million in fiscal years 2011 to 2015 to the services and
the United States Joint Forces Command to support the urgent
development of infantry immersive training capabilities through
the advancement of close combat infantry immersive training
simulations.
In summary, I would like to thank you, Chairman Ortiz, and
the members of this committee for the opportunity to discuss
United States Joint Forces Command's efforts in the area of
modeling and simulation, and I would very much, again,
especially like to thank you for your deep support and your
sincere commitment to our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen,
and Marines, and our civilians in this fight. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of General Layfield can be found in
the Appendix on page 74.]
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, sir.
General Gibson.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. MARKE F. GIBSON, USAF, DIRECTOR OF
OPERATIONS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS, PLANS AND
REQUIREMENTS, HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR FORCE
General Gibson. Yes, sir.
Chairman Ortiz and Taylor, Ranking Members Forbes and
Bishop, and other distinguished members of the committee, thank
you for this opportunity to address the committee regarding
your Air Force's modeling and simulation programs.
Today's Air Force operates in a complex, post-9/11
battlespace that extended the scope of our mission beyond air
and space into emerging operating environments, such as
cyberspace. The trend towards linking weapons systems across
the domains of air, land, sea, and space, creates a challenging
need for effective individual and collective training for our
warfighters.
Modeling and simulation are powerful tools to expose our
forces to the complexities and uncertainties of combat before
ever stepping into harm's way. As we look to the future with
our fifth generation weapons systems, such as the F-22 and F-
35, or in space--or in cyberspace operations, simulation will
offer the best, and in many cases the only opportunity to
train.
As we continue to operate in a resource-constrained
environment we realize we must strike a balance between the
cost and capabilities of simulation and of live-fly events. Yet
it is clear that maintaining the readiness of today's Air Force
requires the flexible, adaptive, and repetitive training
capabilities that simulation offers.
We increasingly turn to modeling and simulation to meet the
challenge of both efficient and cost-effective training. Our
goal is to produce the most effective and proficient
warfighters in the shortest amount of time.
Your Air Force has a long history of using simulation,
beginning all the way back with the Link Trainer in World War
II. Now we utilize simulation systems to conduct operations
analysis; weapons systems tests and evaluation; command and
control at the tactical, operation, and even strategic levels
of command. We are working to build simulation capabilities
that can operate across networks to integrate training in all
of our core warfighting capabilities with those of our sister
services and of our coalition and allied friends.
Today we use simulation to improve training in every type
of mission. For over a decade we have championed the use of
live, virtual, constructive training technologies to conduct
distributed mission operations that connect geographically-
separated units into a common operating environment.
Let me take a moment to discuss what we mean by live,
virtual, and constructive, or LVC. Live training is what we are
all familiar with--actual airmen operating their equipment and
aircraft in a real environment.
Virtual training are those same airmen operating in a
simulated aircraft in the virtual environment. A basic flight
simulator connected to a virtual environment would be one
example. Constructive training adds computer-generated inputs
to the virtual environment, such as a generated threat that
would make you react.
Today's high-fidelity simulators offer tremendous
possibilities to present high-threat environments and to
rehearse specific mission events, or even entire missions.
However, these high-fidelity systems require significant
investment to be those effective training tools, and it must be
kept in mind that simulation is not really meant to replace
live training, but to complement it, and in most cases, to make
our live training even more effective.
But in many scenarios simulation is the only way we can
adequately train our airmen. For example, space and cyberspace
training events rely almost solely on simulation. Furthermore,
we have been using theater- and operation-level command and
control simulations to train with our sister service components
and joint warfighters for decades now, and now simulation has
become a key component for training our fifth generation pilots
in the F-22 and the F-35.
In conclusion, your Air Force and its combat-ready airmen
remain focused on the mission: supporting ongoing operations
and ensuring the continued security of our great nation.
Modeling and simulation is and will continue to be critical to
building and training a proficient and adaptive force.
I thank the committee for its shared commitment to our
national defense and for this opportunity to appear before you
today.
[The prepared statement of General Gibson can be found in
the Appendix on page 82.]
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, sir.
Admiral Lewis.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. FRED L. LEWIS, USN (RET.), PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL TRAINING AND SIMULATION ASSOCIATION
Admiral Lewis. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it
is a pleasure for me to appear to before you today to discuss
one of America's most exciting and promising enterprises, the
modeling and simulation and training industry. I have been the
president of the National Training and Simulation Association
[NTSA] now for 15 years, and NTSA is this country's premier
organization dedicated to furthering the growth and health of
this critical national asset.
Let me start by saying that simulation technologies are
revolutionizing how we learn. In areas such as disaster
response, emergency medicine, cultural interaction, military
and law enforcement, advanced surgical procedures, and
predictions about complex weather systems, modeling and
simulation are enabling us to prepare more quickly, more
effectively, and with far greater flexibility than ever before.
Gone are the days when we learned from texts and then
plunged headlong into the complexities of dangerous and high-
risk real-world situations. Now we train in virtual
environments that uncannily replicate those we will face in
combat, in terrorist attacks, and in the emergency operating
room.
In the last few years we have begun a journey into virtual
worlds that don't just promise to blur the distinction between
simulation and reality; they will soon actually remove it. The
National Training and Simulation Association promotes the
growth and use of modeling and simulation technologies through
a wide variety of activities, including scholarships,
certification programs, sponsorship of extensive research, and
annual events such as the recently-concluded Congressional
Modeling and Simulation Expo, held in the Rayburn office
building, with the close collaboration of the Congressional
Modeling and Simulation Caucus, with which we enjoy an active
and productive relationship.
Our flagship activity is, of course, the annual
Interservice Training Simulation and Education Conference,
ITSEC, held annually in the late fall in Orlando, Florida. This
event, which, like the industry as a whole, is enjoying healthy
growth despite an uncertain overall economy and now attracts
well over 500 corporations, government and research
organizations from around the United States and from over 60
countries around the globe.
Over 100 research and scientific papers are presented and
discussed, making ITSEC not only the world's largest exhibition
of modeling and simulation technology, but also the world's
most important annual focal point for advancement of these
technologies. With over half a million square feet of exhibit
space showcasing an amazing panoply of modeling and simulation,
ITSEC is truly a phenomenal sight, and as an American I take
great pride in seeing this evidence of how vibrant and creative
this sector of our economy is and what great promise it holds
for the future.
During my time at NTSA I have seen the modeling and
simulation industry not only grow exponentially, but undergo
rapid and, in some cases, unexpected changed. The explosion in
computer processing power, which began in the last decade and
which is continuing unabated, has enabled simulation training
to migrate from platform trainers where single individuals
interact with single training devices, the so-called ``man-
machine interface,'' into a wide variety of immersive virtual
environments, including those which link multiple actors into a
unified training matrix.
It is becoming clear that in the not-too-distant future we
will train with avatars, wholly immersed in a three-dimensional
alternative world. Creating such environments is, in fact, the
next great technological challenge for our industry, but we are
on the way to getting there.
With it, among other precedent-setting applications, we
will be able to immerse our warfighters in new and unfamiliar
cultures, allowing them to learn by doing, by living in a
virtual Afghan village, for example. I don't believe this level
of technology will be achieved while we pursue our current
objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we will see it in the
not-too-far future, and it will play an invaluable role in many
critical areas of national importance.
As to today's modeling and simulation industry, I would
like to underscore not only that it is important to a wide
variety of different domains, but also the flexibility and the
agility of our industry to respond to changing requirements
based on changes in the threat environment. A good example of
that responsiveness was the development in Orlando--the
deployment--and deployment to Iraq in six months of a convoy
tactics trainer. Our industry had quickly and effectively
answered a critical battlefield requirement to train our
soldiers and Marines how to react if attacked while en route in
a convoy of trucks and/or other vehicles.
My confidence in the modeling and simulation industry's
technological capabilities is unshakeable, and based on the
solid evidence of creativity and innovation that I have
attempted to briefly outline today. Against this promising
background, however, we face two challenges that each, in very
different ways, threaten to hinder what otherwise would be
further dramatic progress.
The first is a bureaucratic obstacle that can be removed; I
am convinced, with concentrated action by all interested
parties. Specifically, the Economic Classification Policy
Committee of the Office of Management and Budget has rejected
for the third time in eight years our applications for granting
unique industrial classification codes for modeling and
simulation. As we have stated in our request, granting such
stature would not only bestow deserved formal status and
recognition of our industry, but would also greatly facilitate
tracking of economic data pertaining to modeling and
simulation, which at present is an elusive goal.
While we have some economic data for certain geographic
areas where the simulation industry enjoys a pervasive
presence--for example, in Orlando, Florida, or in the Hampton
Roads area of Virginia--we have no unified picture of the
industry's overall contribution to the health of the American
economy, although we know intuitively that it is considerable
and growing rapidly. We intend to vigorously challenge this
ruling and call on those with an interest in furthering the
growth of the modeling and simulation community of practice to
join us in that activity.
The second challenge facing our industry is of a more
fundamental nature. For a number of years alarm bells have been
alerting us to the widening gap between the United States and
most other developed countries in the science and technology
skills of our young citizens. Studies equating our achievement
levels to those of some less-developed countries and indicating
that we have made no improvements in our standings in the--
around the globe since 1990 have begun to focus public and
private organizations upon the urgent need to rekindle student
interest in the hard sciences and to strengthen technology
teaching in the classroom.
But raising awareness of the seriousness of our
shortcomings may prove the easier task. Ahead of us lies the
challenge of creating a sense of excitement and enthusiasm
among our youth about the promise that technology and its
opportunities offer for a lifetime of achievement and personal
reward, just as demanding as the need to provide enhanced
instruction and a clear, viable path for classrooms to careers.
President Kennedy's challenge to reach the moon by the end
of the 1960s motivated several generations of Americans to
great achievement in science and engineering. What we now need
in the 21st century is a similar challenge, and I believe that
modeling and simulation can be a key to that excitement.
Perhaps no other industry is more dependent on a reliable
supply of first-class scientists and engineers than the
modeling and simulation community. At the same time, modeling
and simulation enjoys a built-in advantage in that young people
have surrounded themselves with variations of simulation
technology. Video games in particular are a type of virtual
simulation, and in fact, serious games based on video game
technology are an increasingly important component of the
overall simulation training picture.
But even with that kind of stimulation of the younger
generation our downward trend continues. We at NTSA have
engaged in several efforts to try to reverse the trend, and
while worthwhile and successful, they are only fractural and
affect only the margins.
We must do more to enhance science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education--STEM education--across
the nation. If we do not then we will continue to see our
American leadership in technology erode as other nations
eagerly assume the leadership position previously held by us.
There are challenges ahead for my community, but in the
exciting and dynamic world of modeling and simulation the way
ahead is lit with the promise of being able to address our
nation's most vexing problems.
Sir, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you
today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Lewis can be found in
the Appendix on page 91.]
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you so much.
We have had some very good testimony this morning. And I am
going to ask the--all the panel here a question, and maybe each
one of you can try to answer the best that you can.
In your opinion, what is the proper balance between the use
of simulated training and real-world or live training, and what
criteria are used to evaluate to achieve that balance? And of
course, if I understand correctly, the equipment that I saw
back here is being--is not being used now; it is a prototype. I
mean, once you do that if you can give me a description--do you
get used to either one of the live training or the simulated
training? Maybe you can help me understand some of this.
General Layfield. Thank you, sir. I will take the first
stab at that question.
Without question a balance of all the venues of training,
live or simulated, is a key component of the total force
readiness. All of our services apply great rigor to finding
that balance and making sure that we have the most effective
mix of combination of training venues.
Outside you are watching what is a modeling and simulation
venue. It is not intended to replace live at all; it is
intended to enhance live training and to enhance the readiness
of that small unit that has experienced that--experiencing that
venue.
Mr. Ortiz. Anybody else like to give it a try?
General Gibson. Congressman Ortiz, I think in each scenario
there are several variables that one would have to consider,
given my experience in aviation, especially in the air side.
One is the type of mission that you are trying to replicate,
and then offsetting that with the ability both of the
simulation and the investment and whether you can achieve a
high-fidelity simulator that will do a good job of replicating
that live flying activity, or command and control activity, or
whatever it is you are trying to pursue.
Where we have seen that sometimes begin to drift is
requiring that simulator or simulation to continue to keep a
pace of the aircraft upgrades and things of that nature. As
soon as those two begin to break apart you encounter what we
call ``negative training.'' In other words, the pilots and the
operators know what it is like in the actual aircraft and if
they go so something that doesn't accurately replicate that it
becomes problematic. So there is an investment aspect to this
and a technology aspect of keeping those two joined very
closely.
In the end, I think each system has its own balance. Based
on that and the scenario and what you are trying to do I think
simulation is fantastic in its ability to stop and start again
from an instructional value. You don't have to waste an entire
sortie or mission to come back and talk about what happened;
you have the ability to interrupt and instruct and correct
right then and there, while it is effective.
But in the end, certainly some of the live flying or live
activity has to take place because ultimately that is where the
confidence is built in that system before you have to employ it
for real.
Admiral Burke. Mr. Chairman, I think I would agree with
what has been said up until this point. I think there is--when
you think about simulation there are essentially three things
that occur. You can fully simulate some of the things that you
are required to do and you can get full credit, if you will,
for that simulation.
There are other things that you can simulate that you may
want to do in the actual platform. But you can get to a level
of proficiency faster by doing the simulator, and more cheaply.
And then there are certain things that the simulators just
don't lend themselves to yet at this point, and those are some
of the more complex evolutions. You know, we haven't figured
out how to fully simulate a ship yet, or multiple aircraft
flying together--you know, flying close to one another. That
has got a pucker factor in the real world that you may not get
in the simulator.
We also need to recognize that the simulators are growing
in capability every year, so what was--what we weren't able to
do last year we might be able to do this year. So as we improve
the fidelity of those simulators we can do more in them.
And then the last thing I would like to say is--to follow
on what Marke said--is the--it is critical that we upgrade the
simulators. Now, I am a submariner, and the way we have done
this in my career is we bought the simulator up front and we
made a commitment to upgrade the software when we upgraded the
ship, so what that allowed us to do was continue to train on
that simulator and not get that negative training that the
general mentioned. However, that is a challenge because we are
taking away money from something else to upgrade those.
Admiral Lewis. Mr. Chairman, just let me add one final
comment or thought to what you have heard from the--my
distinguished colleagues here, and that is that the mix and the
balance depends on the scenario, depends on the piece of
equipment that you are trying to train an individual on.
The classic example, of course, is the Apollo program, and
for the air crew, or the astronauts who operated a lunar
module. They only had an opportunity to train in a simulator
before they actually did the real evolution, so that is kind of
one end of the spectrum.
At the other end of the spectrum is the more routine kinds
of scenarios, situations, operations that you might have to
engage in when you are operating that piece of equipment--an
airplane, a ship, or a submarine--you can easily train people
on simulators in that regard.
So the Gordian's Knot of training and simulation is the
question that you just asked, and that is, ``What is the
balance?'' It depends on the equipment; it depends on the risk
involved in operating that piece of equipment and the kind of
environment in which you are going to operate; it also depends
on the requirements that each individual service and the joint
community has for operation of that equipment and those units
who are employing those equipments.
Mr. Ortiz. I am just going to ask one short question before
I pass it to my good friend, Mr. Forbes.
The candidates, the crew that utilize the simulators--do
you have some of them who might have a problem adapting or
learning? Do they fail, or are most of the people that use it--
most of the crew members, or the soldiers, or sailors, or
Marines that use it--do they all pass with flying colors or do
you have problems with them?
Admiral Lewis. Mr. Chairman, can I give a non-military
example of--in response to your question? And that is the--you
know, simulation is used not only in the military case, but
also there are hundreds of applications for utilizing
simulators in the private sector, one of which is in the health
care field.
So one classic simulation in the scenario equipment that is
being used in medical schools around the country and hospitals
around the country are the operating room environment, which
can be simulated with a simulated patient. So the operating
team can come in, do the procedure, the mannequin is hooked up
to life-cycle, life signs monitoring equipment and so forth,
and they can, you know, apply the medications that are required
for a specific case, and if they are successful the mannequin
survives, and if they are unsuccessful then the mannequin dies.
But better on the mannequin than on you or me, I say.
But the beauty of it all is that they can step back away
from that and the whole scenario can be replayed with the
participants observing what had transpired during the execution
of the procedures that they had just used to try to assist that
patient. So it is--not necessarily do they--once they go
through the procedure do they get an upcheck. If they fail they
can fall back and relearn, so that is the beauty of the
simulated environment.
Mr. Ortiz. The reason I ask is because in war you die one
time; in politics you die many times.
Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you, gentlemen, for your expertise and
being here today, and I will try to ask each one of you a
question and then pass it on to my colleagues, and maybe come
back if we have additional time.
But, Admiral Burke, if I could start with you just because
of where you are on the podium there--we know that some recent
studies have at least placed into question some of the Navy's
readiness modeling and financial--don't want to address that
now, but my question for you is this: How do you feel the
current financial models used by the Department of Defense
compare to corporate America? Specifically, do you believe they
rival the corporate models in sophistication and accuracy or do
you believe that there may be room to improve upon these
models?
And I know all of you were being brief in your testimony,
but I read your written testimony and one of the statements
that you mention in there, it says, ``All models meet an
industry standard of less than 5 percent error acceptance
level.'' What industry are we comparing that to for that?
Admiral Burke. Thanks for the question, sir. I think, first
of all, we go through a rigorous verification, validation, and
accreditation process, and that--we have a team within the Navy
staff that works in the model area and does this, but also we
get help from outside folks--Johns Hopkins APL. And Johns
Hopkins is in the business of--or, they have a team that is in
the business of doing this across industry.
And so the standard is essentially that your assumptions
are well-documented, the model results are stable, and there is
a correlation between the input and the output. And the
standard is five--less than 5 percent.
Now, as far as what DOD is doing to do their modeling, I am
not specifically sure----
Mr. Forbes. Address the Navy, then, if you would like.
Admiral Burke. Yes, sir. But in the case of the Navy,
essentially what we are doing is taking a complex set of inputs
and putting that input into databases and spreadsheets to
relate that to a cost output. So if you want to say--if you
want to take the fleet readiness program and say, ``Here is
what we need,'' then we can easily relate that to cost.
Am I getting near what you are looking for or am I missing
your----
Mr. Forbes. You are, and let me try one more stab at it,
because one, I appreciate what you are doing and we truly are--
we are here trying to help jointly and cooperatively getting to
the goal that we want. One of the things in this subcommittee
and in our full committee that I know the chairman is
constantly grappling with is, we have proposals that come to us
where we are given option A, but it is very difficult for us to
say if we pick option A that means we take B, C, and D off the
board, and we are constantly trying to get our arms around that
so that we can ask those questions so we are intelligently
making decisions that help the defense of the country.
And sometimes we can get all the accreditations in the
world, all the check-offs in the world, but if they are not
answering the questions or they are not reaching the goals and
we are still off it hasn't done us much good. So my question--
not critical at all, it is simply groping for, forgetting the
accreditations and the check-offs that we all do so that we
kind of protect ourselves in saying we have done everything we
needed to do--in your experience, when you compare what we are
doing with the Navy or the Department of Defense how do they
stack up in comparison to the models that the private sector is
using?
Are they reaching as good of results? Are they as
predictive? And secondly, when we say they have got to be
within five percent of the industry, what industry are we
basing that on?
Admiral Burke. Sir, let me take the last part first. The
five percent is we look at what the model predicted versus what
actually occurred, so we go back and look at that. So that is
how you get to the five percent. The five percent is the
industry standard for full accreditation of the model. We just
happen----
Mr. Forbes. Okay.
Admiral Burke [continuing]. So both of those come together.
Mr. Forbes. Okay.
Admiral Burke. Now, what we used to do is we used to say,
``What did we do last year,'' so that is probably good enough
for this year. I don't know that there is a--I don't know that
we--there is an industry that would compare to what we do and I
don't know that we have tried to do that, but I will go back
and look at that and figure out how we would compare ourselves
to industry, sir.
Mr. Forbes. And then, Admiral, any suggestions you have
about what we can do to help you do that we would really
appreciate as a committee, because we want to do that.
Admiral Burke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Forbes. General Layfield, Chairman asked a very good
question about balance between live and virtual training, but
General Mattis has been a leader in this area. It is a crucial
speech I heard him give about the amount of lives that we can
save for people in the infantry, because as I recall his
speech, which I heard him deliver, he mentioned the fact that
the infantry was taking the brunt of the casualties and that if
he could narrow that learning curve down months that he could
save a number of lives and he felt that modeling and simulation
was the key to narrowing that down.
If I have misstated that in any way please correct me, but
if that is close to accurate would you tell us and explain the
essence of what he was saying and how we might be able to do
more with modeling and simulation to save those lives in the
field?
General Layfield. Congressman, that is very clear, and I
agree with you completely with General Mattis' comments and the
intent of the message he was trying to portray, which is one of
our keen focuses at Joint Forces Command, is to try and build
an exercise regime, a scenario, an immersive venue for all of
our warfighters so that their very first fight is really no
worse than their last practice, their last rehearsal. Using
modeling and simulations is a great way to enable that.
Out here in the anteroom we have a demonstration of the
exact same thing. On that video--and this is a quote; I would
like to read it to you to bring home the point of how valuable
bringing home an immersive environment to the ground unit,
specifically our great Marines right now and our great Army and
all of our ground forces to help them actually get through that
first firefight and make it really be no worse than their last
practice.
And this is a quote from Sergeant Jose McFadden, from the
29th Infantry, out of Virginia, and recently back from theater,
and he said when he tried on this equipment, ``I got caught up
in the heat of the moment a lot of the time,'' referring to his
experience in the machine there. ``It certainly felt like I was
back in theater.''
Now, that is what we are after. We are after an immersion
simulation capability that allows our great military to
experience combat and all the stresses of that before they have
to actually do it.
So thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Forbes. And, General, again, if I am understanding
General Mattis, we have a disproportionate number of casualties
that take place in that initial deployment situation when that
training is not where we would like for it to be, let's say. By
reducing that down General Mattis believes that we can save a
number of lives and a number of casualties, and feels that
modeling simulation and the immersion training that you are
talking about could be a major assistance in doing that. Is
that a fair statement?
General Layfield. Yes, Congressman, that is fair.
Mr. Forbes. Good.
General Gibson, one of the things that we know that you
mentioned is that we can get there faster and cheaper with
modeling and simulation, but one of the other things that I was
really looking for is, how are we using modeling and simulation
for structural models? I mean, I know we had a concern with our
F-15s not too long ago, the cracks on the longerons. When we
first built those planes we didn't have modeling and simulation
like we have today.
Do we have adequate structural models for, like the F-22,
the F-35? And secondly, how can we use modeling and simulation
to go back on some of our legacy systems and really extrapolate
and look and predict models that--or problems that could be
caused by the OPTEMPO that we have put some of those units
through?
General Gibson. Yes, sir. I wouldn't say that modeling and
simulation is my core competency, but by serendipity I was at
the Fort Worth plant for the F-35 last week on a visit--the
simulator--and I know that they use modeling of their
structures extensively there to make predictions. Obviously
that aircraft is built for all the services and will be exposed
to a number of environments, and they walked me through that
process. And in fact, that is being borne out in many of their
follow-on flight evals.
As far as going back to previous aircraft, I am not
familiar with a lot of that. I know that there is great
interest because we have flown a number of our--what we would
call major combat operations--MCO--aircraft in this
counterinsurgency fight and used up a lot of flying hours and a
lot of flying time, and we are still somewhat uncertain on what
that is--what toll that is taking on those air frames.
I saw some analysis the other day about--on the A-10s
specifically, how much did we think we are consuming them,
essentially, over the predicted rate that we had before. So I
can take that for the record, Congressman. I don't have the
specifics with me but I know there is a concern to go----
Mr. Forbes. If you would just please get us back that
information, because we want to help you with that. That could
be a huge benefit for us to do.
General Gibson. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 103.]
Mr. Forbes. Last thing: General Lewis, take us into
tomorrow land. What can modeling and simulation do for us?
Because you are where the rubber meets the road on both the
policy aspect and also what is out there, but show us tomorrow.
If we are smart enough to be able to use modeling and
simulation how could it help us in dealing with emergency
situations? How can it take these ideas people have across
America?
And then also, what kind of magnet is modeling and
simulation to encourage people to go into math and science,
which is one of the big concerns that you mentioned?
Admiral Lewis. Thank you, Congressman. I alluded to a bit
of what the future might look like in my testimony--earlier
testimony--but to amplify just a little bit, Congressman Ortiz
mentioned the fact about the picture--or I am sorry; that was
you, sir--talked about the phones with the photographs and the
pictures, and so forth. It wasn't too long ago when there was a
television series called Star Trek, starred Leonard Nimoy, Dr.
Spock, and that whole crew. And if you will recall, when they
are on another world they reach into their pockets and they
flip out a little device and click it open, and that was their
communicator to talk to the Starship Enterprise.
Well, that was really quite something back then to imagine
a world wherein you could be able to talk to somebody that
quickly and that easily, and then what do we have today,
probably each one of us in our pockets? Our BlackBerry, or our
cell phones, or whatever.
Another piece of Star Trek of the time--and this is, again,
something I alluded to in my remarks--another piece of that
particular--that show--and those people who wrote that script
were true visionaries, absolutely incredible. But a part of the
Starship Enterprise--one space, one compartment on that ship--
was called the Holodeck, and the Holodeck was a space that was
empty to someone who just happened to walk by it, but once you
entered it and the doors closed and you would say, computer,
take me to whatever place in the world, or whatever planet, or
whatever time that you wanted to be inserted, and suddenly that
whole environment would appear.
Now, just imagine what you have out here in the anteroom or
we have seen demonstrated elsewhere, wherein you see a
different world through glasses, through goggles, through
something you put over your eyes, and this imaginary world is
portrayed for you, and you operate in that environment,
submersive kind of training that we are talking about, and we
are about ready to really march forward with that in the M&S
industry.
It is not too much of a stretch to think that if you have
that world here right now, just in goggles and glasses, before
your eyes to take it out a few feet ahead of you, around you,
to surround you in that virtual environment. Not too stretch of
the imagination to think that that can happen. And I would say
that I have heard estimates that we would have that kind of a
capability not soon, but in certainly the next 25 or 30, 35
years, we would have the ability to totally immerse an
individual in a virtual environment, in a virtual world,
surrounded by avatars and operating in a place wherever you
might think you would like to be and whatever kind of condition
or threat environment that is there for you.
In terms of communicating that kind of a message, that
excitement--and I hope a little bit of my excitement about this
technology has come through in my remarks, because I am very
excited about the opportunities that are ahead for us--but I
personally want to try to communicate that excitement to the
young people in our country, to the youngsters, the children in
grade school, and middle school, and high school, to excite
them about the opportunities ahead if they would become
interested in math, and science, and engineering, and pursue
careers in those fields.
We see that happen, to some extent, at the big event that
we have at the end of each year down at ITSEC, where we invite
students from all over the Central Florida region, we invite
teachers from all over the country to come to visit us to--
science teachers, math teachers--to visit us to see the kinds
of technology that we have displayed on the floor and the kinds
of bells and whistles that they are able to experience
firsthand.
The interesting thing about the technology that we operate
in on a day-to-day basis is that it changes. It is dynamic; it
improves; it gets better every single day, every single year.
As I reflect on my time at ITSEC and in this community I have
seen the change from almost a 90 to 100 percent focus on very
high-end simulators for aircraft, and training air crew, and so
forth, but over time--over the last 10 or 15 years--we have
seen that change based on the threat--the environment in which
our forces, our troops are operating and where we are around
the globe.
It changes, it evolves, it shifts in a particular
direction. We are in the direction now of we have gone from the
convoy tactics training that I talked about to the Humvee [High
Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle] upset trainer that has
been developed for our troops, and now we are moving into the
immersive piece.
And the technology is maturing, it is getting better, and
we will be able to answer the kinds of challenge that senior
leaders like General Mattis have set out for our industry. The
people are there; the creativity is there; and the motivation
is there to address those kinds of problems.
Mr. Forbes. Admiral, thank you.
Thank all of--and, Mr. Chairman, just as I yield back the
balance of my time, we will go there. The question is whether
we get there first or we get there second.
And just to lay out the importance of what you all are
doing, one of the experts that I know that speaks on modeling
and simulation around the world, whenever he goes to any
country, including the United States, he will have an average
of about 200, 250 people that show up to listen to him talk.
When he went to China to speak he had 5,000 engineers that
showed up to listen to him and he said they were asking cutting
edge questions, working on cutting edge technologies.
We cannot afford to be second. We have got to be first.
And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for leading the charge on
this, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you so much.
We have several members here and we will try to stick to
the 5-minute rule so that everybody--and if necessary, we will
have a second round.
Mr. Heinrich.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you for joining us today. I am lucky
enough to have the Air Force's Distributed Mission Operations
Center in my district, which I didn't know a great deal about
before I was elected to Congress. I actually used to work on
Kirtland Air Force Base. I am a mechanical engineer by
training. But I was pretty amazed when I saw what they are
doing out there.
And it speaks to some of what you were talking about about
pulling people together to work in a virtual environment at the
same time. And I pulled up a little article on their Virtual
Flag exercises, where--one of which included 617 warfighters
in--working together in a virtual battlespace at the same time
across a couple dozen weapons systems, 61 different distributed
units, and I think that that is one of the things, as we move
forward, that we need to understand and plan for, is how do we
make sure that the various different simulation platforms don't
work just in isolation of themselves, but work together so that
we can have these more complex simulations as we move forward,
where numerous different people--you know, one--people on the
ground, to somebody flying an HH-60, to somebody in a tanker,
to a CV-22, all can sort of participate in a battlespace
exercise together.
How are we planning to make sure that as we move forward we
plan ahead of time to make sure that those pieces can talk to
each other and work together in a simulated battlespace?
General Gibson. Sir, I will take that one quickly. You are
right: The Virtual Flag exercise intended to complement the
former fairly famous Red Flag exercise, Green Flags, and others
that were live-fly events for training--now we try to
accomplish most of those training events in a virtual
environment and it helps us not only in those systems but to
achieve what we call cross-domain integration, now we bring
space, and cyber, and the other domains in and learn a little
bit more about those relationships.
To your question specifically, we continue to be challenged
on making sure that everybody can ``plug into the network.''
There are two--really kind of three dimensions of that. One is
that system has to be able to come on to the network. That
system, as you acquire that, very rapidly then becomes dated,
where the DMO [Distributed Missions Operations] network
software and connectivity moves ahead.
We are already--I, again, mentioned I talked--was at Fort
Worth last week. I talked to them yesterday about the F-35
simulator and its ability because we had some challenges with
the F-22 and its ability to plug into the DMOC [Distributed
Missions Operations Center] or the DTOC [Distributed Training
Operations Center] that the reserve component runs.
The second piece of that, though, besides U.S. with U.S. as
you begin to plug in this network, and it is even more critical
these days as we use most of our fifth generation capability to
train there, is, frankly, security and how you have multiple
levels of security and be able to operate in that environment,
that you are--you know, everybody on the network can see what
everybody else has and how you train in that coalition
environment.
So that is kind of the--that is the last plug, that you
want to be able to operate in a joint environment with our
sister services--obviously that is the way we are going to
fight--but also, then, as we bring in other members. And the F-
35, as you know, is an international system, so how we are
going to be able to do that in a multilevel security and make
sure that we are able to protect those capabilities that we
have.
So it is the timeliness of what you buy that day and
quickly begins to expire, and then also as you move out into
the out years and capabilities are added, how those are brought
onboard in a multilevel security concern. But we are aware of
them, Congressman, and we try to work those very hard.
Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Franks.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you for being here. This is a critically
important subject. You know, I remember a quote that said
something along the lines that in times of crisis we do not
often rise to meet the occasion; we default to our level of
preparation. And it seems like this is especially apropos to
the whole subject today.
And I really appreciate all of you, because if you do a
good job, of course it makes our soldiers not only the most
lethal but the most protected and safe on the battlefield, and
it is always wonderful when you can have challenges or problems
in the laboratory, as it were--in the environment where no one
is getting hurt--than it is to actually have to learn those
lessons on the battlefield.
So I know that all of you know that this committee wants,
as much as anything, to try to make sure that when our soldiers
do have to go into theater that as many of them come home as
safely as possible. And with that in mind I want to take a
question up that our Ranking Member Forbes put forth, and that
was having to do with our infantry.
I know, General Layfield, that is always the most difficult
situation when you have new infantry going into the field and
don't have some of the battlefield awareness that some of the
overheads might have there, that that is always an especially
challenging environment. So I guess my first question to you
is, how far off are we from having a state-of-the-art immersive
infantry ground simulation system, and is the $285 million over
the fiscal years 2011 to 2015--is that enough to field such a
system?
General Layfield. Let me take your first question first,
Congressman. I agree with you that--completely--like was stated
earlier, that we have to do all we can. The time is now to take
an immersive venue to the ground fight.
We are partnered heavily with our services, particularly
very heavily with the United States Marine Corps, those great
Marine fighters, and our United States Army ground soldiers out
there, and all elements that are on the ground, to do just
that, to make sure that they can survive and be successful in
that very first firefight and not have to learn it on the fly.
That is precisely what it is all about, sir, so I agree with
you completely on that analogy.
The requirements associated with that and how fast we can
achieve that end are constantly under review. As we dialogue
with the services, and work with them, and support their
efforts in this venue, we definitely assess our requirements
and we submit them to the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
and those requirements are being met. We have adequate
resources to pursue that, but I have to caveat that technology
is advancing rapidly and we have to stay with the technology
advances if not ahead of it. Thank you.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, I read just recently where China
now has surpassed the United States in the use of energy. You
know, oftentimes there is a debate in this country as to, you
know, this country uses too much energy per capita, but they
forget that we produce more per capita per the amount of energy
we use than just about anyone in the world. But it does seem to
me a telling situation that the nation of China is now using
more energy than we are, and that seems to translate into some
of the discussion that we are having today, that China is going
to rapidly advance in these areas.
So, Vice Admiral Burke, my next question is for you. In
light of the accreditation of the air crew model of 2008 and in
the ship operations one in 2009, have you noticed--you know,
one of the things that would help us so much in this
committee--I wish there were more people here--but if we had
hard evidence, hard research showing that when these young
soldiers have gone through systems--simulation systems--that
they come home in higher numbers, that they do better on the
battlefield. Do you have any data that would show some
appreciable improvement--readiness and effectiveness in those
two areas, and in the lower casualty rates?
Admiral Burke. Sir, in the readiness models essentially
what we are doing is taking readiness requirements and
translating that to cost. It sounds simple; it is pretty
complex. But what we have been able to do with that is you can
see where there may be growth in certain areas, and we have
been able to get into those areas and look at them, as far as
why is there growth, and maybe tamp that down, if possible.
As far as our simulation efforts, I can't really say that
we have figured out that we have saved people's lives in the
ships and aircraft, although I have to believe that the pilots
that fly the aircrafts--or, fly the aircraft--and the ship
operators are far better than they would be without them.
Fortunately, we have not had a lot of attacks against our
aircraft or against our ships to know whether that is true.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back, but I
hope that we can move forward, especially in this whole
immersive infantry simulation, because it seems to me like that
we could perhaps even gain some data that we could show the
rest of the world that would be compelling.
Thank you all very much.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Lewis, when you were commenting about Star Trek and
describing, you know, the future that was predicted back then
and exists now I found myself thinking the one thing I really
want to be able to say from time to time is, ``Beam me up,
Scotty,'' and so if you can just sort of hurry things along so
that people like me are in a position to say, ``Beam me up,
Scotty,'' and actually get out of the circumstances that we are
in real quickly I would appreciate it.
I wholeheartedly agree with what the chairman has said, Mr.
Forbes has said. Research and development has been a critically
important part of the edge that the United States has had
militarily for decades. It is why, frankly, we are on top of
the world. Nobody can come close to touching us right now.
And this modeling and simulation is just part of that. I
have just finished a lengthy essay on health care, which I
published last week in the National Review Online. A challenge
that we are all facing with regard to programs like this is
funding--across DOD, across the government, across the country.
And we are running up an awful lot of red ink. In this
article I suggest that the principle problem with funding, with
red ink, where health care is concerned is our third party
payer system. And over the last year I have had lots of
discussions with my colleagues, and I am just not able to sort
of break through with my colleagues about the importance of
looking at the impact, cost-wise, of comprehensive health
insurance, and that model nationally, and what would be a
better model, a different model.
And in the article, frankly, one of the things that I say--
I use a couple of analogies. The best one that I can think of
is splitting the tab for dinner, and I hypothesize the entire
country every night going out and splitting the tab for dinner,
and then I hypothesize--I just sort of wonder, well, what
happens to the national economy and to individual wealth over
time as a result of that?
But I specifically call for modeling. I mean, modeling is
the way you wind up getting to the bottom line where--well, at
least narrowing the range of differences of opinion concerning
how much waste, costs, superfluous expenditures there are in
the health care system. And if we don't do that we are going to
be really challenged to fund appropriate research and
development modeling simulation.
Interesting, I walked in here--I am sorry I am late; I was
doing a missile defense talk and came in and heard the last
little bit about medical modeling. I have made a request for
funding for medical simulation, trauma simulation, teaming up
with Georgia National Guard and the Medical Center of Central
Georgia, one of the very few tier-one trauma hospitals in
Georgia, to use simulation as a mechanism for training troops--
not just National Guard troops. Hopefully this center will wind
up offering training that goes beyond the National Guard--
training that will then help these folks where--actually
dealing with trauma events, whether they are overseas or here
in the United States, multiple casualties, and how do you
handle that?
And that takes money. It is a $3.5 million request. Well,
you know, multiply that over all the different things that you
are doing, and I guess I find myself wondering whether or not
it is your impressions--and I guess you will have to rely
somewhat on your predecessors, as well--is it your impressions
that, through the different administrations, our commitment to
simulation and modeling, and the development of simulation and
modeling, has remained fairly consistent and funding has been
stable, if anything it has been increasing in an appropriate
way?
Or do you have the impression that as one administration
comes in and replaces another all of a sudden the programs
change, the funding levels change, and we are on this
rollercoaster ride with regard to this critically important
aspect of national defense that makes it very difficult for
industry to plan how to partner with government to actually
effectively develop the kind of simulation and modeling
programs that we need?
Are we sufficiently stable, gentlemen?
Admiral Burke. Let me start with that----
Admiral Lewis. May I----
Admiral Burke. Go ahead.
Admiral Lewis. May I start, Bill?
Okay. Thank you, Congressman. Those are great questions
related to the private sector, and certainly in the health care
situation that we currently face in the United States now.
Health care itself is certainly out of my lane, but in terms of
the utilization of simulation in training of health care
professionals, it is exploding within the country, I think
partly because of the support that we, in the private sector,
have--and then the health care industry, specifically--have
received from the Congress of the United States.
The M&S Caucus--Modeling and Simulation Caucus--the
inception of that organization--the interest that was shown by
the House of Representatives was a watershed event for the
nation in terms of modeling and simulation is concerned--a
watershed event in the sense that it gave the community the
status that we have so long desired to achieve. But because of
that and the interest that is developing here in this hearing
this morning, for example, is--I think it is truly significant.
It has caused many throughout the nation in different
domains within our economy--specifically in health care--to
focus a lot more attention and their own resources--not federal
resources, but their own resources--on the development of
simulation centers within hospitals and clinics across the
nation. Mayo Clinic has a first-rate simulation center. There
are hospitals in the Northeast that have first-rate simulation
centers.
The Medical College of Virginia, in Hampton Roads, has a
simulation center. There is one now in Central Florida, as part
of the new medical facility down in the Central Florida region.
So it is growing by leaps and bounds.
There is a new organization which stood up about five years
ago in the country. It is called the Society for Simulation in
Healthcare. It began with four people: an anesthesiologist, two
nurses, and an obstetrician. It has now grown to total about
2,500 people.
Mr. Marshall. I find that very helpful. Do you mind if I--I
am, though, specifically interested in your impressions
concerning the sort of steadiness, administration to
administration, of the program and the funding within DOD for
modeling and simulation.
I know that there has been an explosion of interest
nationally in this, and I am just wondering, are we--it is so
difficult for a private sector to partner with government when
government is on a rollercoaster ride from administration to
administration. How do I, as an entity, partner with somebody
who is flaky and can't be relied upon?
So my question specifically is, are we being consistent?
Are we predictable with regard to our investments and our
programs?
Admiral Burke. Thank you, sir, for the question. I don't
detect any change from administration to administration in
funding. What I do detect, however, is that there are a bunch
of things driving the desire for simulation now.
And as an example of the first point I made, I said earlier
I grew up in the submarine force. I remember reporting to my
first submarine and going right to the submarine simulator, or
the attack center simulator, and working with the crew to get
proficient in that arena. So that was some 30 years ago, so we
have been using these for a long time.
Now, what I think is happening is recognition of fuel
costs, and so recognition that fuel costs are going to go up,
and so that is certainly a driver for simulators. If you use
simulators your operating costs will go down, you will have
less wear and tear, therefore less maintenance, therefore
greater operational availability at less cost. So all those
things are working together.
But I would say that the other thing that has happened is
it used to be, in the Navy, for instance, community-specific.
Some communities would be more interested in simulators than
others. And that is a cultural change that is occurring, and
now I know I work for a Chief of Naval Operations that is
pushing simulators. I know I work for a Secretary of the Navy
that is very interested in simulators.
I don't think it is because of a political bent; I think it
is because of the time. I think the technology is exploding,
and so the combination of the technology overcoming some of the
cultural barriers and the requirement to save both fuel costs
and produce operational availability at less cost are driving
the explosion in military use of simulators.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the panel, thank you so much for joining us
today and thank you for your service to our nation. I do want
to get a sense of how our modeling and simulation is being
applied, and I know that there is one dimension that it can
assume, but I want to make sure, too, that there is--or
understand that there is a balance there.
And obviously modeling and simulation can help, but it can
also take us down the road of more of a test-taking, outcome-
based effort than it is to really simulate the realism of what
our men and women in uniform will face. So just to ask the
panel collectively, how are you all seeking a balance in the
full training regimen and using modeling and simulation to meet
those needs and making sure that there is a balance, that we
are not in a ``test-taking realm,'' but that we are in a mix of
simulating reality, but also making sure that there is a
mixture of that hands-on element, that while modeling and
simulation can do a lot it is not the be all and end all.
So I would like your perspective on how you all see that
balance being attained in integrating modeling and simulation
into the force structure needs.
Admiral Burke. Thanks for the question, sir.
I think we were probably there a couple years ago. By our
own internal work we figured out that maybe we had become
overreliant on computer-based training, if you will,
particularly at some of our basic levels. So we have been
striving to achieve balance in that area.
I would say today we have got about--in that school
environment we have about 8,500 instructors, and that results
in a one to six instructor to student ratio, which we would
love to have at our schools today. But we believe in this
blended learning concept, and so a mix of computer-based
training and live instructor.
I think one of the benefits of computer-based training is
we find that the people will dig into areas on their own where
they are not comfortable. They will quickly pass by areas where
they do have a comfort level and dig into some of those more
challenging levels for them, and that may be different than
what you find in a full classroom environment, so there are
positives there.
Now, we have shifted to hands-on training for things like
valve repairs, and then we also have developed some front panel
simulators, which look like a diesel engine, or look like an
oxygen generator, and you can go and push the buttons and you
get the noises and actual indications of a real simulator or of
the real platform, but it is a simulator. So I think it is a
step in the right direction, but we do, as you suggest,
recognize there is a need for balance, and we are striving to
achieve that balance today, sir.
Mr. Wittman. Good.
General Layfield.
General Layfield. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for
your support to the military and their families, as indicated.
I would like to specifically talk about computer-based training
as we know it today--our virtual training, our online training,
and our models and simulations.
I do believe that the early days of computer-based training
may have been somewhat test-oriented. It may have been
programmatic and lockstep. However, today's computer-based
models and all of our learning has grown so fast--our
methodologies and how we learn--and that our modeling and our
simulations associated with that are also growing, and we are
learning from advancements in technology.
I will give you a specific example. We have online, in
conjunction with our services, developed a course that is
called Virtual Cultural Awareness Training. It is called VCAT
for short. It is a place you can go; it utilizes modeling and
simulations. You can go to it online from home station or
forward deployed, for that matter.
But it immerses you in a set of challenges, a set of
scenarios. It takes you to a place where you have to make
decisions and it provides you feedback. And it allows you to
see what happens when you maybe make the wrong decision.
And it doesn't give you a test, and it doesn't give you a
score. It gives you very clear feedback on how you are
performing in this particular environment. And we find that to
be very valuable.
Thank you.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
General Gibson.
General Gibson. Sir, I apologize. I may have misunderstood
your question initially. I thought you meant the balance
between tests through modeling and simulation versus using it
in an experiential training method.
Mr. Wittman. Well, that can certainly be one dimension of
the question. If you would like to answer that dimension that
would be great.
General Gibson. Sir, and I will touch on the other in the
sense that, yes, we use computer-based training throughout and
strike a balance with the hands-on training before final
evaluation all the way through OJT [on the job training] and
supervision.
But coming back, we are organized, obviously, as we bring
new systems onboard from corporate to developmental testing,
which we explore how that better applies with the blue-suit
operator, and in our scenarios, then to operational test and
evaluation, where again, we take it to the next level of
application of new systems--introducing new systems, weapons,
software. And finally, obviously, we use a lot of simulation
in--from steps of par task training, where you just
repetitively begin at the beginning, as it were, to where we do
these networked operations that we talked about in a virtual
environment.
And as I have mentioned earlier in my testimony, especially
today in many of our fifth-gen [generation] aircraft and
systems, that is the only place that we will choose to operate
and use all those weapons and systems that are available to us.
So a very expansive into the mission testing capability.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you.
Admiral Burke, this subcommittee is much aware of
challenges that the Navy is facing in regard to manning,
training, and maintenance of surface fleet ships. Could you
please explain how the Navy's response to those challenges
would be reflected in the readiness models?
Admiral Burke. Yes, sir.
The way the readiness models work is they take a bunch of
different inputs, and so all of them consider the force
structure, they consider the schedule, they consider the
training requirements and what happened in previous years, and
then dependent upon which portion you are talking about--and in
this case I think we are talking about ship readiness models--
then they take specific steps to figure out what the cost
requirement would be.
So the model simply responds to the database that we would
have entered into it. So if we said, in the case of surface
ships, that we would now want to--we now recognize that we have
not been doing enough maintenance on them and we raise the
maintenance requirement then that will raise the cost of doing
business. Now, that is easy to understand but it is not simple
to figure out how much that cost requirement will change.
So additionally, if you put more people on board then that
will change the amount of maintenance that is being done by the
ship--by the ship's force--and consequently should reduce the
maintenance that is being done off the ship. So there are
competing pieces in that and the model will take all that
information in once we tell it what the new requirements are
and it will give us a cost.
Does that get at your question, sir?
Mr. Ortiz. Yes. But let me ask you, now, when you take the
retakes some steps to figure out that how long does this step
that you have to take--how long does it take to get to the
bottom of the problem that you are looking at?
Admiral Burke. From a model perspective, sir, it is very
simple. It is changing a few inputs.
The more challenging piece to this is determining what the
actual requirement is. So if you decide that you now need to do
much more maintenance on the ship you have to figure out what
that specific maintenance is. Does that maintenance mean we are
going to open up some tanks and we are going to do some repairs
to those tanks? Does it mean we are going to do additional
maintenance on pumps, valves, et cetera?
That is the more challenging work, and that is the work
that the Naval Sea Systems Command is doing now as they have
completed several inspections of ships to know better what
areas will need additional work. Once they have done that work
it is--very rapidly, inside a day, we can generate new cost
requirements, sir.
Mr. Ortiz. Because I know that throughout some of the
hearings that we have had in the past one of the problems I see
is that even when we get new ships coming aboard some of them
are rusted, the doors don't close, you know what I am talking
about. So we also need to see how we can correct that, because
the taxpayers are paying a heck of a lot of money, you know,
and we hope that we get what we are paying for. And sometimes I
think that maybe we are not--maybe we don't have enough
personnel.
But this is something that we need to look, you know,
forward to, to correcting all this. And I know that you are
doing your best, but we are here to see--how we can help you to
reduce some of this.
Now, the next question that I have is, what type of facts
or events would require you--and I know you got into some of
them--to require you to modify the readiness models? How
quickly can the models respond to changing operational
requirements?
Admiral Burke. Yes, sir.
Once again, the models will respond very rapidly to
changing operational requirements. So what would happen in this
case is COCOM X would require additional forces; we would--once
that demand signal was adjudicated then we would--we could
easily determine what it would take to generate that
requirement and what it would cost to do that.
Now, you know, there is only so much you can do. I mean,
you can't get blood out of a stone, but within reasonable
parameters of the same force structure and the same training
requirements it is relatively easy to generate that new cost
requirement, sir.
Mr. Ortiz. And I will ask another question before I yield
to my ranking member here, but your testimony stated that there
was no direct connection between program steaming days and what
was actually required to prepare for and execute the operations
schedule. How have the models changed this, and how is the
change reflected in the Navy's annual budget submission?
Admiral Burke. Sir, I am not sure I heard the first part of
your question. Could you repeat it, please?
Mr. Ortiz. Yes, sir--your testimony there was no direct
connection between--and this is what you stated--between
programs steaming days and what was actually required to
prepare for and execute the operational schedule. How have the
models changed this and how is that change reflected in the
Navy's annual budget submission?
Admiral Burke. Yes, sir.
In the past there was no real connection between--there
was--I guess I--maybe I was too strong. There was a connection,
it just wasn't as obvious as it is today with the model. So
what we would essentially say was, ``Here is what worked last
year. We need to generate about the same amount of presence, so
therefore we need the same amount of steaming days or flying
hours to do that.''
Now what we do is we start from the demand signal and we--
once that is adjudicated--and then we use our FRP, our Fleet
Readiness Program, to figure out--let's talk ships for a
minute--to find out how much time the ship is going to be in
the basic phase, the intermediate phase, the sustainment phase,
and the maintenance phase to produce that level of presence at
a particular readiness.
And then from that we go into the specifics of how much the
fuel costs, how much the utilities cost, how much training
costs, et cetera, and then that generates the number of
steaming days and the cost to do that.
So it is more than steaming days because some of that time
is spent alongside the pier doing other training, and we
don't--so that output at the end is based on all those
different pieces for the force that we have.
It is pretty complicated, sir, and I know we have taken
some of your staff through it and shown them how it works, but
it is not real easy to explain. I am trying to do my best here.
Mr. Ortiz. I know, I know. And I know that you always try
to do your best, but--and the reason I ask this is because in
prior budget requests we have seen where the Navy has cut
steaming days.
Admiral Burke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ortiz. You know that. But I think that this is a very--
part of the training that needs to be done----
Admiral Burke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ortiz [continuing]. But I hope--you know, we are here
today because we are working together and we hope that with
this simulation modeling can help us get to where we want to go
by not only protecting our sailors and Marines and soldiers,
but also, you know, giving the equipment that we utilize longer
life because--and save the taxpayers as much money as we can,
because I know that Secretary Gates came down not too long ago
and said, ``We need to cut down.''
Admiral Burke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ortiz. You know, it is not easy. You know, it always
comes to mind that we are concerned for the lives of these
young men and women who are serving. We want to be sure that
they have what they need so that they can survive these
horrendous two wars that we are involved in.
But I know that you are doing your best and we want to work
with you at any idea that you come to us so that we can help
you, let us know.
Let me yield to my good friend, Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief.
I want to kind of follow up on what Mr. Marshall asked. And
Jim, your question, I think, a lot was on the funding
rollercoaster that we have had, but it is more than funding.
And so the question that I would leave to all of you to
respond to is, how can DOD be kind of a national leader in the
preemptive use of modeling and simulation so that we can
respond to crisis situations? Is our current DOD governance
such that it maximizes our modeling and simulation investment?
But then the third thing--and this is what I was listening
to as Jim was asking his question--are we giving the right
signals to the industry as to what DOD needs in terms of
modeling and simulation, because it is not just the funding
stream, but sometimes it is that the industry is sitting out
there saying you want one thing on Monday and another thing on
Wednesday. Do we have a mechanism--to be able to give a clear
picture to industry--this is what we need and this is what we
think we are going to need over the next several years?
And so I will throw that out to any of you who want to take
a stab at that. You know, how do we become that preemptive
leader and are we sending the right messages out to the private
industry?
General Layfield. Congressman, let me take a stab at that
from a Joint Forces Command and training angle. The bread and
butter of what we do for an exercise when we deliver a mission
rehearsal exercise to the combatant commander for him to train
on is relevance. And with respect to that, our modeling--our
models and our simulations need to deliver. They need to
deliver relevant simulations that replicate the battlespace
that they are operating in.
With respect to that, we have to spend and focus all of our
efforts in the right direction, and there is no room for waste,
of course. Therefore, the requirements systems that we have
inside Joint Forces Command, with the services, and with the
Office of the Secretary of Defense do, in fact, provide us
adequate oversight to lay out those requirements on the table
and match the appropriate resources with it, and I want to
thank you for supporting the President's budget in that
respect.
I have to say that subordinate to that, at the flag officer
and general officer level, where we meet in forums like a
training community of interest or an executive board for the
application of the $285 million for immersive training, we meet
frequently to make sure that our requirements are in balance
and that they are delivered to the Office of the Secretary of
Defense appropriately. As a matter of fact, today I will attend
the meeting specifically with that in mind where I will gather
with other flag officers and general officers and SESers
[Senior Executive Service] at OSD to discuss, are we getting
after immersive training with the resources we were given?
So thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss that
from Joint Forces Command.
Mr. Forbes. Anyone else want to take a bite at that?
General Gibson. Sir, just briefly, I think, not to
necessarily address the rollercoaster but as budgets come and
go, obviously I heard the term earlier ``culture.'' We have
that in our Air Force and DOD as we do anywhere, but as you
begin to prioritize, as resources become constrained obviously
we put a priority towards maintaining the aircraft and the
actual systems because in the end that is what you will go to
war with.
And so there is a tendency sometimes, and those difficult
challenges in the times that the simulation budgets will shrink
or you will delay some of that concurrency that we talked
about, keeping them relevant, and then that has a negative
impact on the trainers' perceptions of the value.
So I would just offer that as you begin to have budgets
that become constrained, the first priority goes to the live-
fly and the actual systems and the maintenance of those, and
then the simulation and the virtual environments sometimes take
a second tier, and that is where I have seen the impact.
Mr. Forbes. And, General, one thing I would just throw out
to all of you--and I think we are united on saying this but I
don't want to speak for my colleagues--it seems, almost, we
should be doing the reverse. It seems like modeling and
simulation of everything that we are utilizing, when budgets
get tighter and things are tougher, modeling and simulation is
the one vehicle that helps us navigate through those tight
budgets, also helps us become more efficient and make sure that
we have the readiness that we need.
And so we need help from you as to how we continue that to
make sure that we are not having that trimmed and cut.
And, Admiral Lewis, do you have any comments on----
Admiral Lewis. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman.
One comment, and that is, as you described and were looking
at is the relationship between and government, specifically
with DOD. For the most part industry has a fairly good
understanding of the requirements as they emerge from the
different services and from the joint apparatus that we work
with.
However, there is always room for improvement. And so we
strive and work very hard on both the industry side and on the
government side to have a continuing dialogue between the two,
to ensure that both sides understand the art of the possible,
as far as the government is concerned, and that, as far as
industry is concerned, we have a full and complete
understanding of the requirement.
Now, that dialogue ebbs and flows over time, and it depends
on a number of different factors, but sometimes we find the
dialogue is hindered by regulation, restrictions, and so forth,
and then there are periods when there is complete open and
honest and forthright communication between the two sides. But
that is something we have to live with. We know that occurs and
we have to deal with it.
So I would say that for the most part, because of that
dialogue--the interchange--and the bridge that is provided by
industry associations like mine ensure that that communication
is enhanced and continues to flow. I think that overall,
though, we have an understanding of the way this system works
and we go forward from there.
Mr. Forbes. Well, I want to thank all of you for your work.
I am going to yield back the balance of my time, but I also
want to encourage you that even though the hearing technically
will end in a few minutes the record is still open, so we would
love to have your responses or thoughts if you would like to
put anything in there that we can utilize to help with this
industry and the great work all of you are doing.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Marshall [presiding]. Thank you, Randy.
Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have one quick question. I want to kind of follow up
on Congressman Forbes' question to Admiral Lewis.
I know as we talk to folks in the modeling and simulation
industry we talk about encouraging innovation, encouraging
creativity, encouraging them to kind of push the envelope. Do
you think that--number one--that the capacity is there for them
to push the envelope, and do you think that they are doing that
in such a way that precipitates thought amongst our service
branches on what the future capabilities of modeling and
simulation bring to the table?
In other words, I see it kind of as a two-way street, not
only as a clear demand signal, but also the industry pushing
the envelope so that the service branches can understand
potentially what is out there and what the capabilities might
be in the future, and that hopefully that spawns innovation and
creativity.
Admiral Lewis. Well, thank you, Congressman, for that
opportunity. But very briefly, just let me say that the
stimulation of innovation and creativity, I think, is alive and
well within the modeling and simulation industry and the
companies and corporations that are involved in that kind of
activity.
I will give you an example. I know you have been to ITSEC.
Thank you, sir, for your participation. We look forward to you
returning again later on this year.
But at that event we have about 500 exhibitors, and
typically we have 100 new--100 to 150 new exhibitors every
year. So what happens between--to those 100 to 150 that are
replaced each and every year? Well, most of them are small
companies, small--20 to 25 personnel within a company. They
have got one idea.
This is America at its best when we see this kind of
activity occurring, these people, these entrepreneurs with one
good idea. They showcase that idea at an event like ITSEC, for
example, and they either succeed and they go on, they get
bought up, or, sadly, some of them probably fail.
But that is alive and well. The ability--the capacity is
there. The desire is there. And the intellect is there to go
forward and develop these new things that the services do find
of value even though they may not have had a, you know, an
overt requirement for that particular piece of capability.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Admiral Lewis.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Marshall. All of us have experienced your simulators. I
have been in a couple of Air Force simulators, done one Army
simulator.
But I have to say, Admiral, that the naval simulator up at
Annapolis was very helpful to the Navy, at least in one
instance. A group of us from Congress went up there on a CODEL
[Congressional Delegation]--pretty easy. You just drive up to
Annapolis, no big deal--with the idea that we were going to be
playing faculty and staff in baseball after the CODEL. And
right before we were going to go out and play the baseball game
you put us in a simulator and half the team was seasick for the
game. So I thought that was actually a pretty good strategy in
the use of simulators.
I want to thank you all for what you do. It is terribly
important to national defense. We need to fund you adequately,
give you the kind of support that you need in order to do this.
And with that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
July 20, 2010
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
July 20, 2010
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
July 20, 2010
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES
General Gibson. The Air Force relies on modeling and simulation
(M&S) for predicting the structural integrity and reliability of its
fleet. This is critical since many aircraft remaining in the Air Force
inventory are far exceeding their design service life and being
operated at more severe levels than those for which they were designed.
To keep the fleet flying, numerous aircraft systems and major
components require replacement, such as wings and airframe structural
elements.
In response to numerous fatigue-related structural failures in the
1950s, the Air Force established the Aircraft Structural Integrity
Program (ASIP) in 1958. ASIP established a systems engineering
framework to develop, certify, and maintain the structure of an air
vehicle with the least possible economic burden throughout its service
life and is required on all aircraft weapon systems per Air Force
Policy Directive 63-1 with requirements documented in Military Standard
1530C.
The Aircraft Structural Integrity Program has proven instrumental
in controlling the loss of aircraft due to structural failure. In fact,
the probability of loss due to structural failure is now approximately
50 times lower than all other causes. Since ASIP's inception in 1958,
M&S has been integral to achieving this demonstrated structural
reliability. Structural models (e.g., finite element models) and
analytical tools are widely used to predict the aircraft structure
strength, stiffness, service life, etc. During development, models are
calibrated using data from ground and flight testing. During
sustainment, models are updated to reflect configuration changes and
are calibrated through additional ground and flight testing when
required. Structural models are also updated and refined with real
world usage and maintenance data. In addition, structural models are
updated to reflect unanticipated events such as the November 2007 crash
of a 25-year old F-15C. [See page 17.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
July 20, 2010
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ORTIZ
Mr. Ortiz. How might the Department of Defense serve as a national
leader in the pre-emptive use of modeling and simulation to develop
responses to various national crises scenarios?
Admiral Burke. The Department of Defense conducts joint and
collaborative analyses, synchronized with the Planning, Programming,
Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) System, to support the development and
evaluation of defense strategy. This is accomplished through the
Analytic Agenda initiative which develops the processes and products--
including planning scenarios, concept of operations, and analytic
baselines--that form the basis for strategic analysis and assessments.
Modeling and simulation is used in developing and assessing the
Analytic Agenda, its planning scenarios, and in the detailed follow-on
analyses and assessments used for the PPBE.
The majority of the planning scenarios are contained within the
analytic agenda and focus on potential future crises where the military
is expected to be the lead agency. These scenarios include full-scale
warfare campaigns; foundational defense activities such as presence and
engagement; defense of the homeland; and irregular warfare and security
operations--all of which leverage modeling and simulation.
Several national crises scenarios, which leverage modeling, are
focused on crises where the Department of Defense supports other
departments and agencies. For example, the Enhanced Protective Posture
(EPP) scenario examines a variety of potential homeland security
concerns that arise in conjunction with overseas contingencies. In this
effort, modeling assists in determining how to prepare for, mitigate,
and respond to those concerns. The EPP includes the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Homeland Defense (ASD-HD), National Guard Bureau (NGB),
Coast Guard, as well as the normal DOD analytic agenda participants.
Other examples that leveraged modeling and simulation which supported
inter-agency crises scenarios include the Homeland Defense Analytic
Baseline which examined a range of natural and man-caused homeland
crises as well as Defense Support to Civil Authorities for Consequence
Management (DSCA-CM) studies.
Thus the Department of Defense is active in using models and
simulations in the pre-emptive planning and assessment of a variety of
national crises scenarios. These efforts within the Department of
Defense could be used as a template for other departments and agencies
to follow and perhaps form the basis for collaborative inter-agency
planning and crises response.
Mr. Ortiz. How does the expansion and technological advancement of
surface ship and aviation training simulators fit within each of the
department's energy conservation goals?
Admiral Burke. The use of surface ship and aviation training
simulators facilitates the reduction of fuel consumption. Consumption
reduction is critical to the achievement of Navy energy goals. Navy is
drafting a plan outlining the competencies that can be effectively
accomplished within the training simulator environment. Simulation use
is being assessed for current levels of utilization to ensure that
available simulators are being used to the maximum extent possible.
Additionally, fidelity assessments will ensure that each module is an
effective reflection of ``real-time'' operating environments. Navy
recognizes that maximizing simulation use will require significant
culture change. However, given the technology that is currently
available, Navy is confident that increased simulator use will help
meet the Navy's fuel consumption reduction goal.
One recent example of the expansion and technological advancement
of Navy simulation is the MH-60R Seahawk simulator installed April 13,
2010, at Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville, the first of its kind on
the East Coast. The MH-60R Seahawk simulator was also approved to
support Helicopter Sea Combat Wing U.S. Atlantic Fleet in training
pilots. The ability of the new simulator to create multiple training
environments and situations will enhance readiness and enable MH-60R
Seakhawk pilots to complete a greater percentage of training
requirements in the simulator, reducing fuel consumption and
contributing to the Navy's energy conservation goals.
Mr. Ortiz. In your opinion, does the existing governance in the DOD
maximum M&S investments to enhance readiness? If not, what changes can
be made to improve the management structure to add value and increase
return-on-investment?
Admiral Burke. The existing DOD and Navy Modeling and Simulation
governance is designed to support the effective generation of Navy
units and battle groups ready to support the Combatant Commanders. DOD,
working with the Combatant Commanders and individual Services, has
developed the Joint National Training Capability which provides a
standard infrastructure to support interservice and interagency
training while remaining flexible enough to respond to Service and
Community specific needs. While interoperability might potentially be
increased by more central authority, the responsiveness to the end-
user, i.e., Service and Community specific needs, may be reduced. The
current, flexible and cooperative approach strikes an appropriate
balance for all.
Mr. Ortiz. What is the relationship between the M&S industry and
the DOD? Does industry have a clear demand signal for the types of M&S
capabilities DOD is seeking to improve readiness?
Admiral Burke. We believe industry is keenly aware of DOD M&S needs
and requirements for Readiness. Individual programs work closely with
vendors to ensure system level requirements are understood, and at a
broader, enterprise level, the core technology and standards have been
adopted for at least the last four years. We are focused on our need to
ensure the ability of the government to exercise M&S building blocks
and achieve reuse where appropriate. We continue discussions in
multiple venues with our industry partners to move toward a more open,
standards-based environment to facilitate integration and reuse of M&S
while taking into account industry's sensitivities to sharing products
across industry partners.
One such venue is the annual Interservice/Industry Training,
Simulation and Education Conference which provides an opportunity for
significant interchange and dialogue between government and industry.
The 2009 conference had approximately 19,000 registrants, roughly half
of which were government. This venue provides a technology showcase
that drives discussion and ideas, as well as both government and
corporate leadership panel discussions and sessions to review subject
matter experts' papers on all our requirements, goals and needs of the
community.
Mr. Ortiz. What led the Navy to recognize that it needed accredited
models for determining its readiness resourcing requirements? What
contact has the Navy had with the other services about adapting the
Navy's models to their requirements? Has Military Sealift Command
approached the Navy about adapting the readiness models for its own
use?
Admiral Burke. The Navy's Performance Pricing Model initiative was
started in 2003 after Resource Sponsors and Budget Submitting Offices
were unable to: (1) relate desired readiness outputs to specific
funding levels, and (2) clearly articulate the impact of budget
reductions to Fleet Readiness due to a lack of clearly defined output
metrics.
The purpose of the Performance Pricing Model initiative is to
provide senior Navy leadership quantitative tools that would allow them
to have confidence in the requirements being submitted for funding as
well as visibility in how that funding requirement was developed, the
readiness risk associated with not funding to that requirement, and/or
at various funding at levels. By shifting to a process where the
elements of Fleet Readiness can be quantified in a modeling process the
leadership debate shifts away from a pure resource level discussion to
a more productive conversation of the risk associated with each output
level which can then be tied to the overall planning and programming
process.
Mr. Ortiz. What contact has the Navy had with the other services
about adapting the Navy's models to their requirements?
Admiral Burke. There have been numerous readiness model briefings
by Navy personnel to DOD and other service personnel. Recently the
Flying Hour Program Team briefed USAF personnel on the Flying Hour
model/methodology and readiness metrics. On 12 August, the Aviation
Depot Maintenance Team briefed representatives from the USAF on the
Aviation Depot Maintenance models and requirement determination. We
have also routinely briefed members of the OMB Staff on our Readiness
models.
Mr. Ortiz. Has Military Sealift Command approached the Navy about
adapting the readiness models for its own use?
Admiral Burke. While MSC and Navy operations have significant
differences, many similarities in ship material readiness modeling
exist. Both have maintenance, fuel, parts and other operational
requirements in common. In an effort to take advantage of these
similarities and find efficiencies in operations, there has been an
ongoing exchange of information and expertise between MSC and the Navy.
MSC participates in the Navy's Fleet Readiness Enterprise, an
initiative to improve understanding of business practices to better
manage the efficient and effective production of current readiness and
future capability. MSC also utilizes established models from the
commercial maritime industry, and shares its experience in this area.
Currently there is no formal program for adapting Navy readiness models
for use by MSC.
Mr. Ortiz. What type factors or events would require you to modify
the readiness models? How quickly can the models respond to changing
operational requirements?
Admiral Burke. Typical factors or events that require changes to
the readiness model inputs include changes in:
Global Force Management Schedule
Presence & Surge requirements
Force Structure
Number of ships and airplanes by Class and Type Model
Series
Pilot crew seat ratio (required number of pilots per
aircraft)
Homeport assignments
Flight Student Training requirements
Class/Type Model Series Maintenance Plans
Maintenance schedules
Fleet Response Training Plan (FRTP) requirements
Basic and Intermediate Phase steaming day requirements
Training and Readiness Matrix requirements
Cost data:
Labor cost
Material cost
Fuel cost
Escalation (inflation) guidance
Mr. Ortiz. How quickly can the models respond to changing
operational requirements?
Admiral Burke. There is a virtually unlimited capacity to produce
model variations based upon ``what if'' scenarios of OPTEMPO and FRP/Ao
configurations. Adaptation of the models to scenarios that do not
require significant changes in force structure or operational practices
is relatively easy. Adaptation of the models to scenarios that require
significant force structure changes or assume different operating
practices are significantly more difficult.
Mr. Ortiz. How might the Department of Defense serve as a national
leader in the pre-emptive use of modeling and simulation to develop
responses to various national crises scenarios?
General Layfield. DOD uses modeling and simulation to develop,
refine, and adjust response plans for a multitude of national crisis
scenarios. These efforts account for the complex nature of the
operating environment and challenges of integrating with a full range
of mission partners. These capabilities are currently used to support
interagency and multinational exercises and experimentation. Given
DOD's unique ability to create complex scenarios supported by modeling
and simulation, it is ideally suited to serve as the national lead, if
so designated.
There are some areas where DOD is already using modeling and
simulation to support our Inter Agency partners. For example, DOD's
Joint Knowledge Online (JKO) is an online training capability that
continuously and rapidly adapts to meet emerging training needs by
leveraging simulation technology. The Small Group Scenario Trainer
(SGST) application is a JKO-hosted, Web-based exercise application for
multiplayer, small group teams, cells and battle staff training
exercises. The system uses interactive capabilities to teach creative
thinking skills, addressing problems encountered during virtual,
mission-based, simulated scenarios. Most recently, U.S. Southern
Command (USSOUTHCOM) teamed with JKO to create two SGST scenarios that
provided training in a Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR)
environment.
Mr. Ortiz. How does the expansion and technological advancement of
surface ship and aviation training simulators fit within each of the
department's energy conservation goals?
General Layfield. Surface ship and aviation simulators are an
important component of the military services' training regimen. Because
the military services have primary responsibility for surface ship and
aviation training simulation, they are appropriately positioned within
the Department of Defense's energy conservation efforts. Accordingly,
we have contacted my colleagues within the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force
and U.S. Navy to assist in answering this question and will report back
to you upon receiving their inputs.
U.S. Air Force: HQ USAF/A3/0--Operations, Plans and Requirements
Given that the Air Force is the largest user of fossil fuels within
the DOD, it is paramount for us to continually look towards
capitalizing on M&S tools to ensure our requirements for both aircraft
and training simulators are in step and complement one another. We
continue to make great strides in level of fidelity of our immersive
combat trainers and we have found several ways in which training can be
accomplished in simulators or with simulation to reduce the energy
consumption footprint. Examples include:
In 2009, Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)
crews conducted 1,968 training events in Virtual Flag, and the Joint
Surveillance and Targeting Attack Radar System (JSTARS) accomplished
760 training events in their mission simulators.
No fuel is used during the check-out of a C-17 copilot.
All of his training is accomplished in the schoolhouse using immersive
tools such as simulations so that his first sortie in a C-17 is
actually transporting personnel and materiel in support of our world-
wide operations.
In line with the commercial airline industry, Air
Mobility Command uses full motion simulators with six degrees of
freedom providing realistic training that permits us to decrease the
number of live training flights. KC-10 air refueling aircraft
simulators have allowed us to decrease the number of flights required
to produce a mission ready pilot. The initial qualification syllabus
prior to 2005 consisted of 17 simulator lessons and nine flights. The
current syllabus increases the simulator lessons to 23 and decreases
flights to six.
We will continue to evaluate which tasks must be accomplished in
the cockpit versus which can be completed in simulators to ensure the
training and readiness of our forces is not compromised. With continued
advancements of high fidelity, immersive simulators, we will be able to
train for additional mission tasks. The use of mission certified
simulators reduces fuel consumption by shifting the balance between
live and simulated flight with the objective of producing combat
capable aviators through maximum, cost-effective training.
U.S. Army: HQ USA/G-8--Programs
The Army's increased use of aviation simulators has led to energy
conservation. The task of maintaining the proficiency of experienced
and trained pilots is a necessary task that would consume many more
gallons of fuel if not for the use of aviation simulators. Pilots
require an annual robust training program that uses both live and
virtual methods to maintain proficiency.
The table below is the FY10 HQDA G-3/5/7 Aviation Directorate
estimate of fuel cost avoidance due to simulation use. Lastly, the Army
did not program to purchase fuel for live flight training in FY10 due
to simulator use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight Simulator Fuel Cost Avoidance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army (-) USAACE................... $61.9M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAACE............................ $37.3M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Total........................ $99.2M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Navy: HQ USN/N-4--Material Readiness & Logistics
The use of surface ship and aviation training simulators
facilitates the reduction of fuel consumption. Consumption reduction is
critical to the achievement of Navy energy goals. Navy is drafting a
plan outlining the competencies that can be effectively accomplished
within the training simulator environment. Simulation use is being
assessed for current levels of utilization to ensure that available
simulators are being used to the maximum extent possible. Additionally,
fidelity assessments will ensure that each module is an effective
reflection of ``real-time'' operating environments. Navy recognizes
that maximizing simulation use will require significant culture change.
However, given the technology that is currently available, Navy is
confident that increased simulator use will help meet the Navy's fuel
consumption reduction goal.
One recent example of the expansion and technological advancement
of Navy simulation is the MH-60R Seahawk simulator installed April 13,
2010, at Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville, the first of its kind on
the East Coast. The MH-60R Seahawk simulator was also approved to
support Helicopter Sea Combat Wing U.S. Atlantic Fleet in training
pilots. The ability of the new simulator to create multiple training
environments and situations will enhance readiness and enable MH-60R
Seahawk pilots to complete a greater percentage of training
requirements in the simulator, reducing fuel consumption and
contributing to the Navy's energy conservation goals.
Mr. Ortiz. In your opinion, does the existing governance in the DOD
maximum M&S investments to enhance readiness? If not, what changes can
be made to improve the management structure to add value and increase
return-on-investment?
General Layfield. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD AT&L) is the designated
focal point for coordinating all matters related to DOD modeling and
simulation. USD AT&L has established a Modeling and Simulation Steering
Committee which is the centralized organization to coordinate and
synchronize efforts across the DOD. This committee, working with the
designated communities of interest within DOD, develops a Modeling and
Simulation Corporate and Crosscutting Business Plan. That plan guides
the investment and management priorities for DOD modeling and
simulation efforts, fostering coordination of the Services, as well as
other communities.
As the Secretary of Defense recently articulated, the DOD must
continue to align itself and refine its processes to improve
efficiency. Within the area of modeling and simulation there may be
room to improve the coordination and establishment of a DOD-wide
approach to further reduce duplicative efforts and increase synergy
through collaborative and transparent business processes, incentivizing
Services to deliver ``born joint'' models and simulations.
Mr. Ortiz. What is the relationship between the M&S industry and
the DOD? Does industry have a clear demand signal for the types of M&S
capabilities DOD is seeking to improve readiness?
General Layfield. DOD components participate in forums such as the
Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference,
MODSIM World, Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Advanced
Distributed Learning Implementation Fest and the International Training
and Education Conference. DOD does this to demonstrate its
capabilities; collaborate on challenges; and solicit partnership
opportunities with industry, academia and international partners. DOD
elements also author articles on initiatives and challenges in
publications such as Military Simulation and Training and Military
Training Technology magazines to communicate to industry. These forums
have enabled positive engagement and brought together subject matter
experts across the community to address readiness issues as related to
modeling and simulation (e.g., small unit immersive training, human
social cultural and behavior modeling).
Mr. Ortiz. How does JFCOM collect feedback from users of your
virtual/simulated training regarding its realism and effectiveness? How
long does it take to implement changes that such feedback might
produce?
General Layfield. USJFCOM collects feedback from combatant commands
on the realism and effectiveness of its virtual/simulated systems by
conducting event after action reviews at the conclusion of each
training event, as well as staff assistance visits in theater
approximately 90 days after the headquarters is deployed. USJFCOM also
has event surveys which are conducted at the end of each event, which
include specific questions on how the modeling and simulation systems
performed in support of combatant command goals and training
requirements. USJFCOM also conducts a series of conferences with the
combatant commands and Services to gather joint training related
modeling and simulation requirements. Required changes to the suite of
modeling and simulation systems can be delivered in days or weeks, if
identified as a critical need, but normally updates are provided on a
semi-annual software release cycle, which has saved money for USJFCOM
and its service partners, while also reducing the risk of systems or
database failures.
JKO Joint Courseware Facilitators (JCF) are key contributors to the
operational relevance of courses and exercise support development for
JKO. JCFs work directly with the exercise Observer/Trainers to
coordinate JKO support for OIF and OEF Mission Rehearsal Exercises and
content for online courses. The JCFs attend MRX planning conferences
with the Observer/Trainers in order to capture ever-changing and up-to-
date JKO courseware content that originates from deployed or soon to
deploy JTF headquarters, identifying ways in which JKO can be
integrated with early exercise planning.
Mr. Ortiz. How might the Department of Defense serve as a national
leader in the pre-emptive use of modeling and simulation to develop
responses to various national crises scenarios?
General Gibson. The Department of Defense already serves as a
national leader in the pre-emptive use of modeling and simulation to
develop responses to various national crises scenarios. In the Air
Force, we do this through the use of constructive simulations such as
Air Warfare Simulation (AWSIM), Information Operations Suite (IOS) and
Air Force Synthetic Environment for Reconnaissance and Surveillance
(AFSERS). Additionally, we federate with other DOD Joint simulations
currently sponsored by JFCOM, the Navy, the Army and others creating a
joint environment that shows the proper representation of Air, Space,
Naval and Land power that can be, and are, used to train for
humanitarian crisis at home or abroad. The command and control tools we
use to prepare our staffs for major crises during a large scale
exercise can also be used to support national crises scenarios at
varying levels and intensity. As a department, we do this around the
world, at COCOM sponsored events such as Austere Challenge in EUCOM and
Ulchi Freedom Guardian in USFK. In preparing for defense of the United
States, the DOD and its accredited Joint Task Force Commanders and
Combatant Commanders are uniquely prepared to respond in case of
national crises at home and abroad. Modeling and simulation is a
powerful enabler that allows us to train to a variety of national
crises, at varying intensities, to assure the DOD is prepared for any
contingency it is called to support. That robust training prepares not
only DOD, but other Inter-Agency personnel, to assure trained,
certified personnel who have experienced the pressures and challenges
of national emergencies.
Mr. Ortiz. How does the expansion and technological advancement of
surface ship and aviation training simulators fit within each of the
department's energy conservation goals?
General Gibson. Given that the Air Force is the largest user of
fossil fuels within the DOD, it is paramount for us to continually look
towards capitalizing on M&S tools to ensure our requirements for both
aircraft and training simulators are in step and complement one
another. We continue to make great strides in level of fidelity of our
immersive combat trainers and we have found several ways in which
training can be accomplished in simulators or with simulation to reduce
the energy consumption footprint. Examples include:
In 2009, Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)
crews conducted 1,968 training events in Virtual Flag and the Joint
Surveillance and Targeting Attack Radar System (JSTARS) accomplished
760 training events in their mission simulators.
In line with the commercial airline industry, Air
Mobility Command uses full motion simulators with six-degrees of
freedom providing realistic training that permits us to decrease the
number of live training flights. KC-10 air refueling aircraft
simulators have allowed us to decrease the number of flights required
to produce a mission ready pilot. The initial qualification syllabus
prior to 2005 consisted of 17 simulator lessons and nine flights. The
current syllabus increases the simulator lessons to 23 and decreases
flights to six.
We will continue to evaluate which tasks must be accomplished in
the cockpit versus which can be completed in simulators to ensure the
training and readiness of our forces is not compromised. With continued
advancements of high fidelity, immersive simulators, we will be able to
train for additional mission tasks. The use of mission certified
simulators reduces fuel consumption by shifting the balance between
live and simulated flight with the objective of producing combat
capable aviators through maximum, cost-effective training.
Mr. Ortiz. In your opinion, does the existing governance in the DOD
maximum M&S investments to enhance readiness? If not, what changes can
be made to improve the management structure to add value and increase
return-on-investment.
General Gibson. The current governance structure in DOD is
effectively used to assure M&S investments used to enhance readiness
are leveraged across the Services. The Air Force has many agreements
with the Army to assure our simulations are integrated to assure the
best possible training for our combat forces. The constructive
simulations federated within the JFCOM exercise program are adding
valued support to our COCOM command and control exercises while
eliminating duplication of effort.
The Services have cooperated in integrating many of our virtual
simulators to assure an immersive training environment utilizing the
latest technologies available on the battlefield. The Joint Terminal
Attack Controller (JTAC) training the Air Force does in concert with
the Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) of the Army assures experienced
personnel are deployed in support of OEF. That training assures our
JTACs are proficient on the latest battlefield procedures, equipment
and rules of engagement prior to deployment. The success of that
program is a testament to the cooperation in DOD to maximize M&S
investments across the Services.
The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)
is currently processing the Enterprise Architecture for Live, Virtual
and Constructive Environments (EA-LVCE) effort. This Joint program, led
by the Air Force, will continue to build on the previous M&S
investments. The continued Congressional support of DOD M&S integration
efforts will help ensure the readiness and combat capability of all our
DOD forces.
Mr. Ortiz. What is the relationship between the M&S industry and
the DOD? Does industry have a clear demand signal for the types of M&S
capabilities DOD is seeking to improve readiness?
General Gibson. Industry deserves a good understanding of the DOD
requirements and that should be a priority of all acquisition
organizations. Within the Air Force, we have periodic ``Industry Days''
where our acquisition community addresses the anticipated future
requirements with its industry partners. There are other events where
the Services join together to present their needs to industry in open
forums and the Services are available to answer questions from industry
both as a group and in smaller settings with more limited
participation.
DOD also has a need for industry to provide information on the
state of technology in the private sector. We continue to strengthen
and foster that integration, as the Air Force regularly receives
updates on the state of M&S as it affects the virtual-constructive
technologies and the Distributed Mission Operations that the Air Force
relies on for training its combat forces. We incorporate those
technologies as appropriate to meet training requirements.
Mr. Ortiz. What is the practical impact of OMB's rejection of the
unique industrial classification code? How is this affecting industry's
ability to bring greater modeling and simulation capability to the
Department of Defense?
Admiral Lewis. The repeated rejection of our proposal to create new
NAICS codes for modeling and simulation has a direct negative impact on
our industry and community of practice in a number of areas. Firstly,
it greatly impedes, if not stifles, any ability to quantify the
considerable and growing contribution the modeling and simulation
industry is making to the national economy. We know, for example, that
modeling and simulation is a commanding economic and technological
presence in areas such as Orlando and Hampton Roads, Virginia, as well
as in a growing number of other centers around the country. Creation of
NAICS codes for M&S would allow us, for the first time, to measure the
economic contribution being made by our industry on a nationwide
scale--a measurement that would be vital to public understanding of the
significance of this technology to our present and future. Such
recognition would also enable DOD to gain an understanding of the
importance, growth and health of modeling and simulation as a component
of overall industrial support of national defense. Understanding of
modeling and simulation as an industrial component of DOD support would
enable more accurate estimations of the value of its contribution to be
made, in the context of comparison with other elements of readiness.
Mr. Ortiz. How might the Department of Defense serve as a national
leader in the pre-emptive use of modeling and simulation to develop
responses to various national crises scenarios?
Admiral Lewis. In my view, the Department of Defense is already
playing a significant national leadership role through its use of
modeling and simulation in a number of critical national security
areas. In recent years, for example, we have witnessed DOD harnessing
M&S to address the challenges of COIN and other asymmetric threats.
Through synthetic, immersive environments, our warfighters are now
exposed to training, which, with ever increasing fidelity, mimics those
situations they will face in Iraq, Afghanistan and other potentially
hostile environments.
This ability to create convincing synthetic battlespaces for
counterinsurgency warfare training is a comparatively recent
development, and testimony to the flexibility and adaptability of the
modeling and simulation industry in response to rapidly shifting DOD
training requirements.
Even more recently, we have witnessed heightened awareness of the
grave threat to our national infrastructure posed by cyber aggression.
The Department of Defense, along with other national security agencies,
is utilizing simulation technology--in particular, constructive
simulations--to depict large-scale cyber attacks against elements of
our national energy grid, satellite and internet communications and
other critical components of our infrastructure critical to continued
functioning of our national security apparatus.
Turning to the Defense Department's role in responding to natural
disasters, again we see a variety of simulation training regimes in
play. We can now replicate disaster consequences with great fidelity,
enabling elements of DOD to design and test responses to ensure maximum
effectiveness. This translates directly into amelioration of human
suffering and more rapid recovery.
In all these areas, the Defense Department is playing and will
continue to play a leading role, having pioneered the use of simulation
training technologies in the first place. I think it is important to
note, however, that DOD must be careful to integrate its efforts where
appropriate with those of other agencies involved in national security
enhancement, such as DHS and the civilian intelligence community, to
maximize the effectiveness of our overall efforts to prepare the nation
for events we all hope will not occur.
Mr. Ortiz. How does the expansion and technological advancement of
surface ship and aviation training simulators fit within each of the
department's energy conservation goals?
Admiral Lewis. Simulator training on all platforms, be they surface
ships, aviation, or land systems, contributes directly and measurably
to DOD energy savings, as well as savings in other critical areas. The
``man-machine'' training interface is now a very mature technology,
with simulation very closely replicating the sights, sounds and feel of
the real thing. This fidelity allows these virtual environments to
supplant, to a great extent, live training. Each hour thus spent in a
simulator is an hour's fuel saved, as well as lubricants, and even use
of land, in the case of surface vehicles. But simulation training's
benefits extend even further. Simulation dramatically reduces wear and
tear on our increasingly taxed equipment, as well as its ``down time''
and even personnel savings, as less maintenance means fewer man hours
dedicated to turning wrenches. So--simulation training contributes
directly to reductions in both the Operations and Maintenance and the
Personnel accounts--savings that can be redirected to other critical
DOD budget categories such as RTD&E and procurement.
Mr. Ortiz. In your opinion, does the existing governance in the DOD
maximum M&S investments to enhance readiness? If not, what changes can
be made to improve the management structure to add value and increase
return-on-investment?
Admiral Lewis. Until fairly recently, I sensed some reluctance in
some DOD sectors to recognize the full potential of modeling and
simulation to contribute to economies and efficiencies in important
areas. This is rooted, I believe, in reservations about the payback of
time spent training in artificial environments and away from the ``real
thing''. Now, this reticence is being reduced by the undeniable
attributes of simulation training in many areas. But--reservations
remain in some important areas. Our member corporations point out, for
example, that some DOD elements have yet to embrace as fully as they
might the use of simulations in MOUT environments, preferring to rely
on live training to prepare warfighters. This reluctance follows the
pattern of lag between the maturation of simulation capabilities in
given environments and the full realization of their utility in that
context on the part of DOD operators. It has only been in the last
several years that M&S has reached the point that it can play a useful
role in small unit training, and therefore we are again seeing a gap
between attainment of this capability and its full utilization by DOD.
Several of our corporate members are ready and able to provide such
environments, but are waiting for DOD elements to provide major impetus
to this capability.
Mr. Ortiz. What is the relationship between the M&S industry and
the DOD? Does industry have a clear demand signal for the types of M&S
capabilities DOD is seeking to improve readiness?
Admiral Lewis. In general, our corporate membership thinks that DOD
requirements--the ``demand signal''--are usually clear, realistic and
conform to industry capabilities. The problem lies with the contracting
cycle, which is viewed as far too drawn out and cumbersome. This of
course touches on the wider issue of acquisition reform, which is being
properly accorded priority attention within the defense establishment.
Our membership reports that, by the time the contractual exercise has
run its course, in many cases the original requirements have been
rendered obsolete by advancing technology and inherently involve too
many corporate resources to satisfy. In addition, our membership
reports that DOD needs to be willing to contract for longer periods--
for ten years at least, rather than the typical five. After a contract
is finally let, it takes the winners some time to get up to speed on
the requirements--a period during which disproportionate resources are
dedicated. Once the work settles into a mutually satisfactory pattern
that brings on economies of scale for the producer, the contract
typically has little more time to run, often reducing profit margins
still further after the initial out of pocket expenditures during the
protracted contracting cycle. Some of our members note that their
international customers typically contract for much longer periods,
realizing that a given system will be in the inventory for decades, and
the need for training on that system will therefore exist for a long
time period. While there is some merit in the inherent flexibility
built into shorter contractual timeframes, this appears to be largely
negated by the factors cited by our membership.
The OMB assertion that modeling and simulation is a ``specialized
regimen'' and that the attributes of the industry--production of
simulators, elaboration of software--are separate and distinct
activities, not components of an industrial whole--is patently false.
Such reasoning could be applied to any high-tech industry. Symptomatic
of the illogic of the Economic Classification Policy Committee is the
fact that the latest judgment is based on guidelines elaborated in
1992. We submit that stipulations of nearly two decades ago are wholly
inadequate to the classification of most high technology industries
that have exploded onto the scene in the intervening years.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN
Mr. Wittman. If carried out, how would the Defense Business Board
recommendation to eliminate Joint Forces Command impact modeling and
simulation efforts underway or planned within DOD?
General Layfield. No decisions have been made about how functions
will transition based on the Secretary of Defense's decision to
disestablish USJFCOM. The current Unified Command Plan assigns USJFCOM
the responsibilities to lead the development and operation of joint
training systems and architectures, develop new concepts, test them
through experimentation and, in collaboration with other combatant
commands, services and agencies, recommend solutions to better
integrate joint and combined warfighting capabilities. These
responsibilities require the development, integration and sustainment
of a joint modeling and simulation environment for training and
experimentation. The joint modeling and simulation training environment
supports force preparation for deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the
Horn of Africa, readying combatant command staffs and joint task force
headquarters. This training addresses command and control of joint
operations; Service tactical level units executing Joint tasks; and
preparing individual augmentees to join a deployed joint staff. In
concert with Office of the Secretary of Defense, the services and
coalition partners, USJFCOM currently develops and maintains
interoperability standards and protocols for Joint training systems in
order to integrate partner simulations into a collective/seamless joint
training environment. The joint modeling and simulation experimentation
environment is used to address warfighter challenges submitted by the
combatant commanders and services, focusing on the most pressing
challenges and issues. USJFCOM also integrates requirements and
facilitates development efforts across the combatant commands and
services for modeling and simulation in order to replicate the evolving
joint operating environment. USJFCOM is also currently chartered to
provide an integrating role across the Services training modeling and
simulation programs in order to moderate and facilitate the Joint
requirements, and design solutions across and with the Services.
OSD would ensure the proper transition of the modeling and
simulation functions currently performed by USJFCOM if the
disestablishment action is executed.
Mr. Wittman. What advances in modeling and simulation has Joint
Forces Command contributed to?
General Layfield. USJFCOM develops and maintains an all Service
Joint modeling and simulation training federation, integrating joint,
inter-agency and service models to create a seamless joint training
environment. When tasked to address deficiencies in the Joint
Simulation System (JSIMS) program, USJFCOM developed a federation of
models that addressed JSIMS requirements. This was accomplished through
sound systems engineering practices, with service collaboration, and at
a fraction of the cost of the JSIMS program.
USJFCOM also develops, integrates, and sustains both the Joint
Theater Level Simulation (JTLS) system and the Joint Live Virtual
Constructive (JLVC) federation, which provided training support to 16
separate combatant command events in FY10, and multiple Multinational
and Service led training events. These unique modeling and simulation
systems have allowed combatant commands to analyze courses of action
and provide training in preparation for potential operation plans
(OPLANS) and contingency plans (CONPLANS). These systems have also
allowed for expanded training with partner nations and with other DOD
Service training programs.
DOD's Joint Knowledge Online (JKO), managed by USJFCOM, is an
online training capability that continuously and rapidly adapts to meet
emerging training needs by leveraging simulation technology. Two
simulation-based training applications available via JKO in 2010 are
the Virtual Cultural Awareness Trainer (VCAT) and the Small Group
Scenario Trainer (SGST). VCAT uses advanced learning techniques to help
students quickly and efficiently develop operational cultural
knowledge, and acquire cultural skills. As previously described, the
SGST application for scenario-simulating training exercises is a JKO-
hosted, Web-based exercise application for multiplayer, small group
teams, cells and battle staff training exercises. The system uses
interactive capabilities to teach creative thinking skills and address
problems encountered during virtual sessions using mission-based,
simulated scenarios.
JKO is developing two use cases for the USJFCOM Joint Advanced
Concepts Division's NEXUS Virtual World capability. NEXUS is a
collaborative project between the Defense Acquisition University (DAU),
the Army Research and Development Command (RDECOM), Joint Advanced
Distributed Learning Co-Lab (JADL Co-Lab) and Engineering and Computer
Simulations (ECS). It is avatar-based, synchronous classroom training
for government users. The overarching goal is to give user's access to
a blended curriculum that uses virtual, avatar-based environments,
providing both synchronous and asynchronous learning opportunities that
can be integrated with JKO. NEXUS enables key virtual world
instructional and functional capabilities, including student and
classroom management, media sharing, and voice/text communications,
linking to external content and other features.
USJFCOM, in conjunction with the Services and Agencies conducts
Joint Concept Development and Experimentation (JCD&E) for the DOD,
developing the synthetic environments within which assessments are made
to determine the viability of the numerous concepts and solutions that
address the Warfighter Challenge defined by COCOMs and Services. These
synthetic environments are critical to forming the data required to
support analytic rigor--essential for effective JCD&E. USJFCOM has been
successful in driving change within the DOD in the form of improved
technical and operational architectures, new tactics, techniques and
procedures, and materiel solutions, enabling the current and future
joint warfighter. USJFCOM developed a simulation environment capable of
scaling more than 10 million entities to enable experimentation within
large population centers, leveraging supercomputers capacity provided
by the DOD High Performance Computing Modernization Program (DOD
HPCMP).
USJFCOM has provided the initial test environment for modeling and
simulation initiatives within DOD, such as the evolution of protocol
which enables the federation of more than 40 different simulations into
a singular joint warfighting environment (known as the High Level
Architecture or HLA).
USJFCOM routinely supports deployed combatant command and NATO
efforts to ``reach back'' to technical modeling and simulation
capabilities and analytic support. USJFCOM was the first organization
to implement those capabilities, by examining the impact of a region's
political and economic systems, as well as culture, infrastructure and
information systems. It also addresses how warfighters might influence
those regional systems through diplomatic, informational, military and
economic actions in order to achieve combatant command objectives.
USJFCOM habitually uses and improves upon the best modeling and
simulation capabilities produced by the services as well as agencies
such as the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), producing and
providing environments rich in joint context for joint training and
experimentation.
Mr. Wittman. What enhancements to military readiness through
modeling and simulation efforts has Joint Forces Command played a role
in?
General Layfield. USJFCOM has enhanced and sustained readiness
levels at all of the combatant commands, across several service
training programs, and with many of our multinational partners through
the use of its unique modeling and simulation capabilities. We have
enabled joint training across the DOD through the development of a
globally distributed Joint training environment, integrating Service
and combatant command training sites, facilities and systems. By
accurately portraying a joint operating environment, USJFCOM has
provided a realistic synthetic playing field from which training
audiences can analyze options, train on specific tasks, sustain
readiness on critical skills and be better prepared as a whole for the
operations of tomorrow. We do this by conducting intense, high quality
training today. There is a direct correlation from the modeling and
simulation development efforts led by USJFCOM to enhancements in
military readiness.
The Geospatial Analysis and Planning Support (GAPS) Toolkit is a
collection of capabilities developed through experimentation by USJFCOM
Joint Urban Operations Office (JUOO) and JCD&E (J9), which models
sensor coverage and improves sensor placement for infiltration analysis
in border regions. The GAPS toolkit was initiated as a response to
Commander USCENTCOM's request for assistance in Pakistan-Afghanistan
border Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) planning.
GAPS toolkit and training provides operational units in Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom with sensor visibility analysis,
pathfinder analysis and other optimization capabilities. In September
2009, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan requested our continued support to GAPS
toolkit for combat deployed units. After Action Reviews with the 82nd
Airborne Division and Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization (JIEDDO) highlighted GAPS utility to the warfighter.
Some additional highlights regarding VCAT and SGST use and
advancements include:
USJFCOM JKO Enabling the US Army. Partnering with the U.S. Army
Training Support Center (ATSC) at Fort Eustis, VA., JKO is assisting
the Army in developing one of its top training enablers, the Persistent
Learning Capability (PLC). JKO collaboration supports individual
training components as the Army attempts to replace resident New
Equipment Training (NET) Fielding Teams via online venues. It supports
the collective brigade/battalion staff training component by leveraging
existing JKO SGST technologies. Additionally, the Army Center of
Excellence for Professional Military Ethic (ACPME) is collaborating
with JKO focusing on developing a truly Web-based immersive ethics
training simulator. ACPME plans on leveraging JKO's success with
Virtual Cultural Awareness Trainer (VCAT) technologies.
USJFCOM JKO VCAT Support. Personnel deploying to augment HQ CJTF-
HOA in 2010 represent the first staff rotation exposed to VCAT prior to
initial deployment in theater. JKO Joint management Office provided
login and access information to Commander, 2nd Fleet staff, hosting the
individual augmentation replacements, as well as to members of the HOA
core staff replacement group. Approximately 47 personnel took the VCAT
course, including five core staff members of varying ranks and billets.
The overall reaction was extremely positive. Those surveyed judged VCAT
as much superior to the cultural awareness provided by any of the other
courses taught in their training program (including an instructor-led
cultural awareness briefing). Recipients were especially impressed with
the videos presented in the course. VCAT scenarios are also being
developed for USCENTCOM (Afghanistan), USAFRICOM (North Africa),
USSOUTHCOM (Andean Ridge region).
SGST Scenario Development. Since its operational availability in
2009, JKO has received several requests for scenario simulations in
response to specific Combatant Command training requirements, including
U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) Humanitarian Assistance/
Disaster Relief Environment Exercise; JIEDDO Joint Training Counter-
Improvised Explosive Device Operations Integration Center Afghanistan,
USSOUTHCOM Pandemic Flu and Humanitarian Assistance and USJFCOM Special
Operations Command procedures scenarios.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
