SIMNET

r~ Copy 67 of110copies Ü 3 !* * » % JUN0Ö1995%i% 3. m ijj if IDA DOCUMENT D-1661 SIMNET: AN INSIDER'S PERSPECTIVE L. Neale Cosby March 1995 Preparedfor Advanced Research Projects Agency Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. JLf'ii ro Ua liTV^^vgv-l INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES 1801 N. Beauregard Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22311-1772 ;MJ^i?gK5l$!¥tfSS!p5SK.'y^HS-it^m^rrr^'^f"Er-^->v:;;y;n.i;<va| IDA Log No. HQ 95-46334 DEFINITIONS IDA publishes the following documents to report the results of its work. Reports Reports are the most authoritative and most carefully considered products IDA publishes. They normally embody results of major projects which (a) have a direct bearing on decisions affecting major programs, (b) address issues of significant concern to the Executive Branch, the Congress and/or the public, or (c) address issues that have significant economic implications. IDA Reports are reviewed by outside panels of experts to ensure their high quality and relevance to the problems studied, and they are released by the President of IDA. Group Reports Group Reports record the findings and results of IDA established working groups and panels composed of senior individuals addressing major issues which otherwise would be the subject of an IDA Report. IDA Group Reports are reviewed by the senior individuals responsible for the project and others as selected by IDA to ensure their high quality and relevance to the problems studied, and are released by the President of IDA. Papers Papers, also authoritative and carefully considered products of IDA, address studies that are narrower in scope than those covered In Reports. IDA Papers are reviewed to ensure that they meet the high standards expected of refereed papers in professional journals or formal Agency reports. Documents IDA Documents are used for the convenience of the sponsors or the analysts (a) to record substantive work done in quick reaction studies, (b) to record the proceedings of conferences and meetings, (c) to make available preliminary and tentative results of analyses, (d) to record data developed in the course of an investigation, or (e) to forward informationthatisessentiallyunanalyzedandunevaluated. ThereviewofIDADocuments is suited to their content and intended use. The work reported in this document was conducted under contract DASW01 94 C 0054 for the Department of Defense. The publication of this IDA document does not Indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official position of that Agency. IDA DOCUMENT D-1661 SIMNET: AN INSIDER'S PERSPECTIVE L. Neale Cosby March 1995 Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. IDA INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES Contract DASW01 94 C 0054 ARPA Assignment A-132 I. INTRODUCTION II. THE PROGRAM A. A Vision B. ABriefSummary 1 2 2 4 5 5 8 11 14 14 14 14 17 17 17 19 G L-1 R _1 III. THE IDEA A. TwoLearningEntrepreneurs B. ConvergingTrends C. CourageousDecisions IV. THE TECHNOLOGY A. TheEvolutionofaName B. TheBasicNetworkArchitecture C. AThreattotheEstablishedIndustry V. THEFUTURE: WHATISNEXT? A. Looking Back B. Looking Ahead V. CONCLUSION Glossary References CONTENTS u 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. FIGURES Collecting the Data 2 Analyzing the Collected Data 3 Executing the Plan in a Virtual Mode 3 Assessing the Plan for Real-Time Execution 4 TheSIMNETTestbed 6 Focus on the Point of the Arrow 7 Trends in Land Warfare 8 General Powell's Thoughts About Joint Warfare 9 Requirements vs. Capabilities Moore's Law Leadership Time Span The Basic Network Architecture Around the World in Eighty Seconds Concept of Operations Functional Connectivities 10 11 12 15 16 18 18 in I. INTRODUCTION Numerous histories have been written about the Simulator Networking (SIMNET) program of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) (Ref. 1). This author does not intend to repeat these works; rather, he hopes that an insider's perspective will interest future developers of innovative technology. Dr. Victor Reis, the former Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),1 used to say that the job of DARPA "is to do what cannot be done" (Ref. 2). In the early 1980's, most people in the defense community accepted the notion that building an affordable, large-scale, free-play, force-on-force, worldwide networked warfighting system was impossible. Fortunately, however, some innovative thinkers also were inspired by Reis1 challenge to explore unknown territory. SIMNET comes as close to a revolution as any ARPA technology in recent mem- ory. It changed the way the military does business, it also changed the simulation industry. Throughout the course of SIMNET's development, hard lessons were learned and relearned. In the end, courageous decision-makers won the day. This document attempts to substantiate what was done, to show how simulation technology has influenced the future, and to recognize the people who made this revolution possible. DARPA was renamed ARPA in March 1993. A. A VISION II. THE PROGRAM On September 15, 1978, Captain Jack A. Thorpe, a young scientist with the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) at Boiling Air Force Base in Washington, DC, wrote a paper entitled Future Views: Aircrew Training 1980-2000 (Ref. 3). Thorpe hypothesized that "advances which are seen on the horizon are not simple improvements in teaching techniques or higher fidelity simulators, but rather bold concepts which tightly aligntrainingsystemswithrealcombatreadinessandmakethemindistinguishable." The four figures that follow, commissioned by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978, depict Thorpe's original concept. Figure 1 shows a real-time overhead source collecting information about simula- tions worldwide and communicating these data to distributed simulation planning centers. Figure 1. Collecting the Data Figure 2 shows planners analyzing the situation, using a three-dimensional (3-D) holographicrenderingofthedeniedarea,andplanningafutureoperation. Theelectronic sand table allowed planners to study the terrain and develop options. Figure 2. Analyzing the Collected Data Figure 3 shows four aircraft simulators, with crews flying in the virtual environ- ment and attempting to execute the plan. Coordination, timing, reaction to defenses, and mission effectiveness are assessed. Figure 3. Executing the Plan in a Virtual Mode Figure 4 shows the chain of command observing the real-time dress rehearsal, assessing the overall plan, and determining whether the plan should be recommended to the command authority. Figure 4. Assessing the Plan for Real-Time Execution The concepts depicted in Figures 1 through 4, in addition to being used to plan a mission, could be used to monitor the actual mission and to support mission analysis during post-mission debriefings. B . A BRIEF SUMMARY In 1981, Captain Thorpe was assigned to DARPA. In 1983, with the help of Dr. Craig Fields, Thorpe began to work on developing this futuristic (SIMNET) technol- ogy. Their goal was to develop a new generation of high-tech, realistic, networkable, microprocessor-based simulators that would cost 100 times less than existing simulators. Later, DARPA teamed with the Army to demonstrate this objective in a combined arms environmentof260networkedsimulatorsat11sitesintheUnitedStatesandEurope. This demonstration was an immense success and spurred further interest in this revolutionary technology. In 1990, the SIMNET program was transferred to the Army. Under the lead- ership of Colonel James Shiflett, Program Manager of Combined Arms Tactical Training (CATT) System, the Army began procurement in 1992. Over a 10-year period, DARPA and the Army invested approximately $300 million to develop and prove simulation technology; field a comprehensive testbed, which remains in full operation today; and conduct training, analysis, test and evaluation (T&E), and advanced concept exercises. Presently, the Army is in the early stages of committing roughly $1 billion to acquire a global, large-scale network of virtual simulators for collec- tivetrainingandcombatdevelopmentinthe21st Century. III. THE IDEA SIMNETisnotaperson,place,thing,orsystem. Itisanideathatisconstantly and rapidly changing. In the late 1980's, SIMNET meant high risk to most military researchersandwasperceivedasafinancialthreatbythestandardsimulationmakers. In the early 1990's, it became synonymous with an opportunity to become part of the revolu- tion and, perhaps, to increase the bottom line. Today, SIMNET means what it has meant since its inception—a new technology that can be applied to many challenges. SIMNET has always meant excitement, but the genius of SIMNET is in the unexpected. Simulation technology is still finding new applications in the military and civilian marketplace. From the beginning, the technology for SIMNET was oriented toward training and readiness challenges—fighting the present—because these challenges weretheprimeconcernsoftheArmyleadership. Later,itexpandedintotheacquisition business—fighting the future—by giving those who procured weapon systems some insightintobattlefieldperformance. ThePentagondecision-makerswereinterestedinmore effective and more economical ways of developing doctrine, material, tactics, and weapons systems, including analysis and testing. Thus, DARPA's initial plan included a develop- mentaltestbedthatnewtworkedthemilitary,industry,andacademia. Figure5isdiagram that shows the vision for a SIMNET testbed that was conceived in 1985 (Ref. 4). The Army now has a network of battlefield development laboratories located at the proponent schools and the material development laboratories. In October 1992, the Army Chief of Staff demonstrated for the Army's four-star generals the use of simulation tech- nology to influence acquisition decisions, systems development, doctrinal development, andorganization(Ref.5). Theideabehindthisdemonstrationwastointroducethepower of networked simulation in preparing for war. A. TWO LEARNING ENTREPRENEURS Without a doubt, Captain Jack Thorpe was the dominant force behind SIMNET's success. Hespent12yearsatDARPA,duringwhichtimeheadvancednetworkedsimula- tion from concept to reality. He had technical expertise, a tolerance for high risk, high UNIV Industry #2 - FT. BENNING Industry UNIV Figure 5. The SIMNET Testbed personalenergy,andakeenawarenessofthelong-termgoal. Ironically,atthesametime Thorpe was developing his concept, another visionary was working along the same lines. General Paul F. Gorman, while assigned to the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), envisioned a worldwide, networked training system that would connect field forces with the Army schools (Ref. 6 ). His idea would create a distributed learning sys- tem using subject-matter experts as tutors for operators deployed around the world. In 1983, Thorpe and Gorman, two of the military's most creative and prolific training minds, met for the first time to discuss potential uses of an innovative, DARPA- sponsored low-cost computer image generator (CIG) under development at Boeing Aircraft. Beginning in 1985, Thorpe and Gorman collaborated on the development of SIMNET and its successor applications. During their illustrious careers, these two uniformed officers conceived and delivered profound learning systems for the military. Independently, and later together, they worked to advance three of the most powerful, overarching models in warfare: 65540-6 The first model (Ref. 7 ) says that commanders must prepare joint forces (Read: Units) for war by focusing at the point of the arrow (see Figure 6). The preparation must occur with the tactical, operational, and strategic com- mandersactivelyparticipatinginanexperimentallearningenvironment Inthe 1970's, Gorman developed the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) for this purpose. In the 1980's, Thorpe did the same with SIMNET. In the 1990's, they advocated tying MILES (Live) and SIMNET (Virtual), along with war games (Constructive), in what was called the Synthetic Theater of War (STOW). ENVELOPMENT CORPS RESERVE Figure 6. Focus on the Point of the Arrow SUPPORTING ATTACK The second model (Ref. 8) says that if we must fight, we must fight with fire- power,notmanpower. ThisconcepthasbeenthetrendsincetheCivilWar. Figure 7 shows the number of people per kilometer of battlefront over the past 200years. Thechallengeistoexposeevenfewerpeopletothehazardsofwar buttoarmeachpersonwithgreateramountsoffirepower. Themostimportant elementofthischallengeistoprepare(Read: Train)eachpersonatallechelons to apply the greater firepower adroitly. The third model (Ref. 9 ) says that joint warfare is essential to victory. All members of the team must be structured, practiced, and evaluated (Read: Trained)asaunitbeforetheyaresentintocombat. Allteammembersmust believethattheyareapartofajointteamthatfightstogethertowin. Figure8 is an 11 November 1991 memorandum about joint warfare from General Colin 100,000 I- 10,000 1,000 100 _ ^nntfAl rtf one battalion .>/\V/:ivv.;/öyv.y:-.-*- Conjecture ■".*■'• ""."■ /•"*M*.*"• £-:-T^-vy£ :^y/M\(-:/y/y/;: 65540-7 4n 1860 : 1 t£&:&& "... Division Firepower 1 - ^fti#; | ■»■VivVOvV- I •,•■«-■,- ■,- ■ ■ ÄVsVsV I Division men/km front Dispersion „.-..■..-. !^ .•■•.•■•.•■•■■••■.■• ■. v.'W-v-- "■'-v-'■/•'•■/•'•■/•''•"!■'■/.■••/, lbs/man/hr - ^rjaJiS?*" 1* ' 1 „^H ^' WHil: 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 • . .4® #?* . . J . " K •f't'f'j--' .-fifififi' ■% ■% ■% H .siWftft !V/^A"/\;^;V.;{'-. Figure 7. Trends in Land Warfare Powell, who was then Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The Vice Chairman, JCS and the Defense Director of Research and Engineering (DDR&E) recognized the joint warfare concept in 1992 when they signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to pursue Advanced Distributed Simulation (ADS) to improve joint warfighting capabilities (Ref. 10). B. CONVERGING TRENDS Early on, Captain Thorpe recognized three dominant trends that could be merged to accomplish his goal of developing a networked combat training system: 1. The needs of the warrior 2. Advanced technology 3. Disciplined training requirements. The Air Force's visionary warfighters were demanding a greater capacity to develop the skills that were essential for surviving and winning in combat. The first trend focused on the need for a capability to practice critical combat skills that could not be practiced in actual aircraft. SIMNET was designed to fill this training shortfall through in-flight trainingwithflightsimulators. Theanalysisoftherequiredlevelofproficiencyversusthe capability for training at all echelons showed the disparity of command at the unit level (see Figure 9). v^####v\ Acresunder •'•ili-i- .;■ifit ^.■'. - ■« ■>*.■.•■.•••:•.■:•.•:• ••%•>'S»V ■;.■. ••.■••■•. ..■..■. THE CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF WASHINGTON, DC 20318 11 November 1991 MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN Joint Warfare is Team Warfare When a team takes to the field, individual specialists come together to achieve a team win. All players try to do their very best because every other player, the team, and the home town are counting on them to win. So it is when the Armed Forces of the United States go to war. We must win every time. Every soldier must take the battlefield believing his or her unit is the best in the world. Every pilot must take off believing there is no one better in the sky. Every sailor standing watch must believe there is no better ship at sea. Every Marine must hit the beach believing that there are no better infantrymen in the world. But they all must also believe that they are part of a team, a joint team, that fights together to win. This is our history, this is our tradition, this is our future. COLIN L. POWELL Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Figure 8. General Powell's Thoughts About Joint Warfare During the early stages of SIMNET's development, rapid advances in the com- puter, communication, and display technology fields were occurring. The second trend facilitated Thorpe's idea of networking large numbers of low-cost simulators together, thus making his goal technically possible and affordable. Dr. Craig Fields and Thorpe c n0) üc 65540-9 Crew Small Large Unit Team Individual Skills Joint Task Forces Decreasing Opportunity To Practice and Achieve Mastery Increasing Risk of Attrition and Mission Failure Without Mastery Increasing Skill Complexity Figure 9. Requirements vs. Capabilities subscribed to Moore's Law2 (see Figure 10). This law states that semiconductor technol- ogy doubles in speed every 18 months. The same law of exponential increases also applies to communications transmissions capacity—bandwidth. Fields often encouraged Thorpe to assume that all soldiers would have CRAY- capacity computers in their pockets and that they would have instant personal communications worldwide. The developer's challenge was then and is now to provide the most cost-effective system interface with the human being (Ref. 11). A behavioral discipline that structured collective training skills from realistic, mea- surable training requirements supported the third trend. Before the 1970's, training analy- sis had been applied predominantly to individual tasks, duties, and jobs. However, in the late 1970's, the military Services agreed to apply the techniques of Instructional Systems Design (ISD) to their training management (Ref. 12). ISD techniques allowed commanders and training managers to focus task analysis on collective skill deficiencies that were caused by the inability to practice. ISD techniques also assisted system developers in designing Moore's Law was postulated by Intel cofounder Gordon Moore in the early 1970's. 10 3,200 re ö O w 3,147 H* Q■_ 0) a 2,200 at "55 1,26C c re v. X 1,200 o 0) z3E 65540-10 916 JI 372 200 J-U_ 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 Year Figure 10. Moore's Law the functional fidelity of the simulators to save resources by not producing superfluous knobs, dials, controls, and displays. This approach enabled the production of simulators that could be afforded in large numbers. C. COURAGEOUS DECISIONS Clearly, the SIMNET program benefited from plucky decisions by leaders with strategicvisions. However,onemayaskhowsuchahigh-riskprogramcouldsurvivein the hostile, ruthlessly competitive business environment of the 1980's. The short but straightforwardansweriscourage: courageousleaderswholistenedtotheirconsciences andmadecourageousdecisionsforfuturewarfighters. Thesevisionaryleadersunderstood the need for a better technology to enhance collective training, and they were confident that DARPAcoulddeliverthistechnology. Asfuturegenerationsofwarriorsreviewthefast- paced history of SIMNET, they will surely realize that the leadership—at many key mile- stones during program development—could have taken the easy route and scuttled the entireprogram. Instead,theleadershippersevered,andtheirdecisionshaveleftalasting imprint. 11 Figure 11 reflects the long-range vision of the SIMNET decision-makers in what Dr. Elliott Jaques cites in his book, Executive Leadership, as the requisite time span for top-level leaders in managing third order categories of complexity (Ref. 13). 65540-11 Figure 11. Leadership Time Span In addition to General Gorman, Captain Thorpe was aided by the late retired Colonel Gary W. Bloedorn from 1982 to 1992. Bloedorn introduced Thorpe to the Army leadership that would eventually provide the bulk of the research funds. Bloedorn also introduced Thorpe to retired Lieutenant General Frederic J. Brown, who was then the Commander of Fort Knox. Brown became a driving force in the full development that assured SIMNET's acceptance in the Army. In January 1985, General Maxwell R. Thurman, Vice Chief of Staff, made the fateful decision to commit the Army to support the SIMNETprogram. Later,ChiefofStaffGeneralCarlE.Vuonoassuredwarfightersfuture prowess by continuing to make the tough decisions that were necessary for SIMNET's survival. Earlyon,ColonelBobReddyexecutedtheArmydecisionsinthePentagon,and todayhecontinuestoapplysimulationtechnologyinARPA. ColonelJamesShiflett,who replaced Thorpe at DARPA, completed the research program and transferred it to the Army. Today, he is leveraging the Army research and development (R&D) investment with the procurement of the CATT system. 12 STRATEGIC All of these resourceful, dedicated people were vital links in the chain of events that led to SIMNET's development. Unfortunately, however, while millions of men and women in the Services will enjoy the benefits of SIMNET's success, these sagacious leaders have never been given the proper credit for their courageous decisions. 13 IV. THE TECHNOLOGY A. THE EVOLUTION OF A NAME In 1978, Captain Thorpe used the term "tactics development network/center" to introduce the future technology. In 1983, the name SIMNET became an acronym for simulator networking. When DARPA transferred the program to the Army in 1990, the Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM) changed the name to Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS). The 1992 Defense Science Board (DSB) sympo- siumonSimulation,Readiness,andPrototypingcoinedthetermVirtualSimulation. Later, General Gorman framed the model of Live-Virtual-Constructive Simulation. ARPA's Colonel Robert Reddy fashioned the current moniker, STOW (Synthetic Theater of War). In commercial applications by the education and entertainment industry, names like Virtual Reality, Virtual Environment, 3-D graphics, realistic simulations, and so forth abound. B. THE BASIC NETWORK ARCHITECTURE Regardless of the name, this technology allows many different ways to develop newmilitaryorcivilianbusinessapproaches. Thecoresimulationtechnologyisalarge "synthetic environment" that can be entered in real time from stations worldwide. Figure12showsthebasicnetworkarchitecturefortheindividualsimulator. Thisarchitec- ture emphasizes the desire for flexibility in graphic systems, host computers, programming languages, and operating systems. Networks allow widely dispersed participants to be brought together on a virtual piece of the Earth without anyone leaving home. Figure 13 is a useful depiction of the flexibility and speed in visiting any spot on the globe, including denied locations. C. A THREAT TO THE ESTABLISHED INDUSTRY Initially, the stand-alone simulator industry perceived SIMNET's technology as a threat. Inthespringof1986,whenthistechnologywasbeingexpandedfromnetworksof tank simulators to networks that included helicopter simulators, the DARPA program came 14 Any Graphics Computer GE 'Graphics^ * u> Microcomputer Singer-Link VBBN • Own Vehicle • Remote Vehicles • World Database • Network Comm V UNIX Any Programming Language SIMULATOR /VisionBlocks} (IControlsand • • Any Computer Cray *■Apple II V M68000 VM68020 V Butterfly Any Operating System \ ^ and Sights J I / Sound "N ^Generator/ Instruments E&S V(CIG)/ Host MDOS *■UNIX x«c<ccceecoc*^^gco*^^^^K'g««ccccggo*x*ax^ DATA PACKETS 1 KBit Position Appearance Vehicle/Weapon/Sensor Performance Algorithms Visual/Auditory/Kinesthetic World Terrain Databases Ethernet [or any Local Area Network (LAN)] Standards specified and certified by cues delivered to crews V f Terrain J FORTRAN 77 vc IEEE 802.3 (e.g.) *■ADA Figure 12. The Basic Network Architecture under attack by selected lobbyists from the large manufacturers of flight and conduct-of-fire simulators. Atthattime,CIGs—thesystemsthatpainttheenvironmentalscenes(e.g.,the pilot's view through the canopy or the armor crewman's view through the vision block of the tank)—cost millions of dollars each. SIMNET's technology enabled the design and productionofanaffordableCIGthatwas30to50timeslesscostly. Theselow-costCIGs threatened the established market of the big defense contractors, and their well-placed lob- byistsvehementlyfoughtthisup-startresearcheffort. Consequently,theDARPAprogram manager spent many unnecessary hours participating in Congressional inquiries and General Accounting Office (GAO) and Inspector General (IG) investigations. Industry accolades are reserved for the modest and small businesses that pioneered the innovative simulation technology (Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. and Perceptronics, Inc., with Delta Graphics, Inc.) To be honest, big industry was a hindrance. However, many of the former "critics" now pose as self-appointed discoverers who want more than anything to say that they saw the next wave coming before anyone else. 15 Network Plug «TRAINING/CONTINGENCY PLANNING • DOCTRINE DEVELOPMENT •REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION - DESIGN/PROTOTYPING NATIONAL (INTERNATIONAL) COMMUNICATIONS HIGHWAY 65540-12 National Training Center (NTC) SOMALIA KOREA VIRTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATIONS MANNED REAL ANY SYNTHETIC TERRAIN Figure 13. Around the World in Eighty Seconds The undeniable fact is that SIMNETs technology has changed the industry. For instance, the 1985 Industry/Interservice Training Systems and Education Conference (I/TTSEC) permitted only one SIMNET paper to be presented and allowed only one SIMNET technology exhibit to be displayed. By contrast, at the 1994 LTTSEC, DIS was referenced in almost every individual paper and company display (Ref. 14). Meanwhile, during this short period of less than 10 years, CIGs have become faster, smaller, more reli- able, and less costly. Today, the market is teeming with high quality, high-powered CIGs in the low hundred-thousand-dollar range, and the good news is that these CIGs continue togetbetterandlesscostly. Competitionisagreatdriver. 16 SIMULATORS PLATFORMS V. THE FUTURE: WHAT IS NEXT? A. LOOKING BACK Before pondering the future, one should search for critical factors that ensured pro- gram success. Clearly, young high-tech program managers must comprehend the military need and understand the present and future value of technology. Most importantly, however, they must appreciate the need for people with good instincts or "gut feelings." People were the decisive factor in developing SIMNET. The right people create the successful chemistry between military subject matter experts and industry technology experts. This chemistry results in a push-pull team effort—technology people pushing and militaryrequirementspulling. Onewithouttheotherisaprescriptionforfailure. SIMNET enjoyed a successful push-pull effort. SIMNET is another instance of a lesson learned by ARPA many times over: goodpeople are the most important ingredient for success in the business of doing "what cannot be done." B . LOOKING AHEAD For cost and safety reasons, the military Services of all countries have developed simulations of fighting systems like tanks, airplanes, and helicopters. The idea is to build actual weapon system replicas that are used as substitutes for practicing the art of warfare. The immediate challenge facing ARPA's ADS team is to converge live field exercises (with actual equipment), SIMNET-like virtual simulation, and constructive war games into a seamless joint forces exercise. Figure 14 demonstrates this challenge (Ref. 15). SIMNET, together with CATT, will attack the collective training challenge of mechanized forces. However, today's military also is faced with different challenges. The United States' increasing deployments of light dismounted U. S. forces are being made to areas such as Haiti, Somalia, and Cuba in pursuit of Operations Other Than War (OOTW). i.e., peacekeeping. This practice poses another challenge for simulation technology: how to simulate the individual in a SIMNET-like training system. ARPA is developing an R&D program to investigate this new challenge. In support of ARPA's new R&D efforts, 17 65540-14 XXXX TECHNOLOGY AND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT Figure 14. Concept of Operations Figure 15 describes the 1994 DSB Task Force on Military Operations in Built-up Areas (MOBA), which emphasizes the functional connectivity for individual combatants to existing and future simulation. FÜ Existing I I Proposed 65540-15 XUseTsX Existing Technology Figure 15. Functional Connectivities 18 SYNTHETIC THEATER OF WAR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SYSTEM PROTOTYPE New Technology TECHNOLOGY INSERTION AND TRANSITION TO OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS \ O Information System O N (GIS) \ Urban \ V. CONCLUSION Byeverymeasure,simulationtechnologyhasbeenahugesuccess. Itturnedthe simulation industry around, and it has revolutionized military training and readiness for war. However, trying to describe SIMNET's full impact is like an astronaut 225 miles above the Earth's surface trying to do justice to the beauty of Space for the command center in Houston—your appreciation depends on where you are standing. Analysts used to say that users of realistic simulation have a choice of two of the three characteristics of this simulation—fast, good, or less costly—but not all three. ARPA's simulation technology has changed the "rules." The marketplace is teeming with quality, inexpensive programs that can be run on fast, inexpensive hardware to produce realisticgraphics. Althoughprogrammingusedtobeverytimeconsuming,today'susers can purchase commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) programs—all for a few thousand dollars— that reduce from months to days the time needed to prepare the basic code for 3-D simula- tions. Forafewhundredthousanddollars,userscanbuy256MBofmemoryand5GB of storage hardware. In a few years, almost everybody in training, education, business, and the arts will be able to afford and program his/her own virtual simulation scenarios withoutstandingresults. Inshort,thefuturewillprovideuserswithmind-bendingtools for authoring and delivering ideas. In short, ARPA has accomplished what it set out to do—change simulation technology. Itchangedtheindustryfromahigh-pricedwholesalemonopolytoalow-cost consumerretailbusiness. Simulationtechnologyhasprovidedexponentialgrowthforthe electronics industry in the areas of education, training, and entertainment. At the same time, military training has leaped ahead in unimagined ways in a progression of changes that gathers speed and breadth as it goes forward. Undoubtedly, the civilian education, training, and entertainment industries will capitalize on this technology as they ride the "information highway" into schools, workplaces, and homes. Meanwhile, thanks to a young officer with an idea, the military will also ride into the 21s t Century better equipped and better trained to meet future challenges. 19 GLOSSARY 3-D three dimensional ADS Advanced Distributed Simulation AFOSR Air Force Office of Scientific Research ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency CATT Combined Arms Tactical Training CIG computer image generator COTS commercial off-the-shelf DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DDR&E Defense Director of Research and Engineering DIS distributed interactive simulation DoD Department of Defense DSB Defense Science Board GAO General Accounting Office i/rrsEC Industry/Interservice Training Systems and Education Conference IDA Institute for Defense Analyses IG Inspector General ISD Instructional Systems Design JCS Joint Chief of Staff MILES Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System MOBA Military Operations in Built-up Areas MOU Memorandum of Understanding NTC National Training Center OOTW Operations Other Than War R&D research and development SIMNET Simulation Networking STOW Synthetic Theater of War STRICOM Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command T&E test and evaluation TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command U.S. United States GL-1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. REFERENCES Earl A. Alluisi, "The Development of Technology for Collective Training: SIMNET, A Case History," Human Factors, 1991. Dr. Victor H. Reis, Presentation to the Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate, 21 May 1992. Capt. Jack Thorpe, Future Views: Aircrew Training 1980-2000, Boiling Air Force Base, Washington, DC, 15 September 1978. Chart prepared by LTC Jack Thorpe, Program Manager, SIMNET, 1985. First Board of Directors Meeting, Louisiana Maneuvers (LAM) Task Force, IDA Simulation Center, Alexandria, Virginia, 21 October 1992. "How the Army Will Train in 1985," Video Tape, IDA Simulation Center, Alexandria, Virginia, Serial Number 40145, 1975. GeneralPaulF.Gorman,SecretofFutureVictories,InstituteforDefenseAnalyses, IDA Paper P-2653, February 1992. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Military Operations in Built-Up Areas (MOBA),Washington, DC, November 1994. "Joint Warfare of the US Armed Forces," Joint Pub 1, National Defense University Press, Washington, DC, 11 November 1991. Memo, Defense Director of Research and Engineering (DDR&E) and Vice Chairman, JCS, 1992. Personal conversations with Dr. Craig Fields, former Director of DARPA, 1985-1990. Instructional Systems Design (ISD), Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Alexandria, Virginia. Elliott Jaques and Stephen D. Clement, Executive Leadership, Cason Hall & Co. Publishers, Arlington, Virginia, 1991. Proceedings, 16th Interservice/Industry Training Systems and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), Orlando, Florida, November 1994. Synthetic Theaters of War Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration, ARPA Program, 1994. R-l REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 PublicFloporongburdonhitoocollodionofintorrmlionitotlitmtodtoivorogo1hourparnoponoi.including*•»m.brrovioiMngji.tnidion..lurching«it»nod.U«ouicoigohoringandnnlmghodoknoodod.and eompMng Kid raviooing ho eolloclion of inlormalion. Sand commonla ragardmg hi« buidon oatmala of «ny ottof aopocl oj tiia cooocton of infoimaion. indudrig ouggoaaona (of roducing *«. bufdon to Woohington Haodguartoi. Sorvieot. Diroctofalo lot kltormoton Op.ra.ooi and Ftopon». 1215 JoHonon D.vi. Highway. So.» 1204. AAooton. VA 22202-4302. and to ho Ofioa ol Monogam«.! and Budo»t Paporwork Roduofon Pfoiocl f07D4-niaa) w-hinoion nc jnvw 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE SIMNET: An Insider's Perspective 6. AUTHOR(S) L. Neale Cosby ""• 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES) Institute for Defense Analyses 1801 N. Beauregard St. Alexandria, VA 22311-1772 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Advanced Research Projects Agency 3701 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203-1714 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITYSTATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 180 words) 2. REPORT DATE March 1995 3. REPORTTYPEANDDATESCOVERED Final-January 16-0anuary 26,1995 5. FUNDING NUMBERS DASW01 94 C 0054 A-132 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER IDA Document D-1661 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 12b. DISTRIBUTIONCODE Simulator Networking (SIMNET) began as an advanced research project aimed at developing a core technology for networking hundreds of affordable simulators worldwide in real time to practice joint collective warfighting skills and to develop better acquisition practices. A young Air Force scientist, Col. Jack A. Thorpe, originally brought the concept of a synthesis of combat training and advanced technology to the Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA). There he and others worked to develop a microprocessor-based network of simulators for combat training. Today SIMNET is an established technology that can be applied to many challenges. This document providesaninsider'sviewoftheprogram'shistoryandrecordseventsthatwillbeof interesttofuturedevelopersofinnovativetechnology. Thedocumentsubstantiateswhatwas donetocreateSIMNET, discusseshowsimulationtechnologywillinfluencethefuture,and recognizes the people who made the program possible. 14. SUBJECTTERMS SIMNET, simulator, network, computer, advanced technology 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 27 16. PRICECODE 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT SAR Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Praocribod by ANSI Sid. Z38-18 17. SECURITYCLASSIFICATION OF REPORT UNCLASSIFIED NSN 7540-01-280-5500 18. SECURITYCLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE UNCLASSIFIED 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT UNCLASSIFIED