SOFTWARE ACQUISITION
ARMY SIMULATIONS JUST DON’T CUT THE MUSTARD
Modernization demands an Army migration to modeling and simulation as a service.
by Charles Sanders, Ph.D., and Gene Davis T
he U.S. Army established the Army Futures Command (AFC) to address the realization that changes in technology and threats are outpacing their capability development processes. Te AFC cross-functional teams are focused on more rapid delivery of new capabilities. However, current Army simulations used to analyze, experiment with and test these new
capabilities lack agility and the ability to represent the systems and all domains of the operational envi- ronment to support rapid development. In short, modernization of the Army modeling and simulation (M&S) enterprise is required to enable Army modernization.
Current battlespace simulations should be able to provide the required operational assessments and integration into the force structure. However, they are expensive to operate and slow to modify to accommodate the modeling of new systems performance and behaviors. Simulations across the Army are decentralized; they are resourced and managed by six separate communities: analysis; acquisition; experimentation; test and evaluation; and training and intelligence. For example, training simulations are funded through Training and Doctrine Command G-3/5/7 and simulations used by the analysis community are funded through United States Army deputy chief of staff G-8. Most existing simu- lations developed in stovepipes as standalone capabilities tailored to each community’s requirements. Integration for cross-community cooperation is technically and fiscally challenging. For example, the analysis community typically runs simulations faster than real time to facilitate multiple iterations for statistically valid results while the training community runs their simulations in real time with real players. Tis means that each community separately creates or collects the same models and data to support their simulation, with limited ability to share or leverage the investments of others.
Te long time and high cost to modify a simulation is particularly significant—given the complex, unpredictable and dynamic nature of the forecasted operational environment—the requirement for a simulation to keep up with the pace of change is a serious challenge. Modifying or updating legacy M&S tools is not sufficient for meeting emerging requirements, as they are inherently man-power intensive, require coding skills and are costly to upgrade and sustain. Terefore, a new approach is
https://asc.ar my.mil
29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122
