Strategic Operations WG 1 Chair Rachel Echternach United States Strategic Command CO CHAIRS Greg Brouillett by lbg52283

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 247

More Info
									                              Strategic Operations                                                           WG-1
Chair: Rachel Echternach, United States Strategic Command
CO-CHAIRS: Greg Brouillette, Los Alamos National Lboratory
Karen Phipps, United State Strategic Command
Advisor: Brandon L. Haggard, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.

Methods and Tools for Situational Awareness and Resource Management

Gregory A Brouillette                                           Deborah Leishman
Los Alamos National Laboratory                                  Los Alamos National Laboratory
Decision Applications Division                                  Decision Applications Division
Systems Integration & Engineering Group                         Systems Integration & Engineering Group
PO Box 1663, MS F607, Los Alamos, NM 87545                      PO Box 1663, MS F607, Los Alamos, NM 87545
505 667-6396 FAX: 505 665-5283                                  505 667-6396 FAX: 505 665-5283
brouillg@lanl.gov                                               leishman@lanl.gov

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

The Stability of the Military Balance and War Among Great Power Rivals

Dr. Daniel S. Geller
Professor and Chair Dept of Political Science, Wayne State University
2043 Faculty/Administration Building, Detroit, MI 48202
313-577-6328 // FAX 313-993-3435
dgeller@wayne.edu
         The relationship between power distributions and war is a recurring theme in the literature on international relations. For
example, the distribution of power and shifts in these distributions lie at the core of the explanations of interstate conflict found in
balance-of-power, long-cycle, power transition, hegemonic decline, and world economy theories. All of these formulations assume a
basic relationship between relative capabilities and the occurrence of warfare among the principal states in the international system.
This study examines the question from the perspectives of both the initiation and occurrence of war for a set of great power dyads that
have formed long-term rivalries. The major power rivals identified here on the basis of time/density dispute criteria are conflict-
prone. These dyads engage in a disproportionately large number of both militarized disputes and wars over extended periods of time.
The results of the analysis indicate that, for great power dyads with these characteristics, war occurrence is influenced by an unstable
military balance.

Nuclear Weapon Safety Overview: Technologies, Architecture, Issues

Joseph S. Howard II                                              Ronald G. Martinez
Los Alamos National Laboratory                                   Los Alamos National Laboratory
505-667-6451//FAX 505-667-1878//jhoward@lanl.gov                 505-667-7300//FAX 505-667-1878//ronmtz@lanl.gov
         Safety remains paramount as the nuclear weapons stockpile is sustained beyond its original design lifetimes. Designing,
engineering, and manufacturing reliable and effective weapons through life extension programs (LEPs) must assure that design safety
inherently and reliably precludes adverse consequences under normal operating conditions and under severe accident environments.
         The U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile is and will remain safe. We give credibility to this assertion by discussing: the nature of
the safety threats and the Cold War accident record; the development and fielding of current safety technologies and architectures by
the weapon design laboratories to satisfy numerical accident standards; and the enhanced technologies under development for even
safer weapons.
         Systems analysis and engineering methods undergird the evolution of nuclear weapon design safety. We mention the system
tradeoffs implicit between performance, reliability, and safety in this overview briefing.




D-2
                              Strategic Operations                                                           WG-1
Welcome to the “Softer Side” of Combat OR

LTC Michael S. McGurk
Headquarters, USAAC, ATAL-ZS (McGURK), Bldg 100, 90 Ingalls Rd.
Fort Monroe, VA 23651 // 757-788-4872 // Michael.mcgurk@us.army.mil
         Operations Research has long been a field associated with mathematics, numbers, charts and graphs. Rounds pegs that fit
into round holes. What happens when all the pegs are square and we have no data? We develop it to the best of our ability.
         LTC McGurk was assigned to Iraq in the summer of 2004, days after the end of CPA and the stand up of the Iraqi Interim
Government. One of his first tasks was to develop metrics on the progress being made in the Information War of Strategic
Communications. Strategic Communications in Iraq is the first time that Public Affairs, Information Operations and Psychological
Operations have worked side by side under an integrated structure. As a member of the Strategic Communications Directorate of the
Multi-National Force Iraq, LTC McGurk was a major contributor to the development of the Commanders Assessment and
Synchronization Board, used to assess the MNF-I Campaign plan for the war. His work to build assessment data lead to the
development of assessments from a complex collection of qualitative data sources. His work included efforts to assist in the
development of polling in a combat zone, PSYOP team tactical field reports, media monitoring (TV and Print), combat intelligence
reporting, and other available sources. He assisted in the development of information operations plans and assessment of Operation
Al Fajr, the Battle of Fallujah, and he wrote the After Action Review. Discussion will focus on the challenges of soft data, public
opinion polling, and media measurements in an austere combat environment.

SSGN Weapons Mix for Enabling Joint Force Operations

Kimberly Mears                                 Gordon G. Latta                       P. Kevin Peppe
Raytheon Missile Systems                       Raytheon Missile Systems              Raytheon Missile Systems
Operations Research and System                 Operations Research and System        Precision Engagement Strategic
Performance Dept.                              Performance Dept.                     Business Activity
1151 E. Hermans Road                           1151 E. Hermans Road                  1151 E. Hermans Road
Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                          Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                 Tucson, AZ 85734-1337
520-794-1612//FAX 520-794-8625                 520-794-1306//FAX 520-794-8625        520-794-5919//FAX 520-794-1209
kameares@raytheon.com                          gglatta@raytheon.com                  kevinpeppe@raytheon.com
         The proliferation of threat systems that can deny immediate response by U.S and allied forces is a major problem facing the
Component Commander today. The defeat of anti-access targets, which include double-digit Surface-to-Air Missiles, Tactical Ballistic
Missiles (TBM), and Cruise Missiles, is essential to enable early entry of joint follow-on forces. The stealthy SSGN with large
weapon capacity is potentially an ideal platform available to STRATCOM for this mission. Tomahawk Block IV (TacTom) is the
Program of Record and brings revolutionary capabilities such as loiter and in-flight retargeting that can provide responsive attack
against the access denial, time sensitive target set. However, depending on Predictive Battlespace Awareness, Tomahawk Block IVs
may not always be in a loiter position which may dictate the need for a Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile
(SLIRBM). Furthermore, failure to acquire or to kill TBM launchers prior to launch may require a Submarine Launched Anti-Ballistic
Missile (SLABM) to prevent damage and casualties to friendly forces. This study employed two approaches to develop the preferred
mix of Tomahawk Block IV, SLIRBM, and SLABM. The first approach flowed down the mix based on examination of the worldwide
target distribution and alternative weapon allocation strategies based on tactical objectives and ranges to targets given strategic
placement of SSGNs. The second approach used a campaign level analysis in a major theatre of war. Performance capabilities (range,
speed, lethality) of the SLIRBM and SLABM are driven by the size of the missile which influences loadout potential. The study
traded performance and loadout to derive the mix that yielded the best utility and combat effects for the war fighter in a major theater
of war context.

Using DynaRank for Effects Based Operations and Capabilities-Based Tradeoff Analysis

Dr. Drew Miller, Col USAFR
USSTRATCOM/J8, 1904 Barrington Pkwy, Papillion, NE 68046
402-952-5339//FAX 402-339-1319//drmiller@drewmiller.com

         One of the major handicaps DoD faces in moving to both capabilities-based resource management and more cost effective
management of the department is the lack of a standard, common “spreadsheet like” DSS. Business benefits greatly not just from a
“bottom line”, but a common format/scorecard for making decisions—the profit and loss statement. The DynaRank multi-attribute
scorecard, developed by RAND for QDR work, is an ideal tool for a wide range of high level analysis of alternatives—from choosing

                                                                                                                                   D-3
                                Strategic Operations                                                                  WG-1
between Effects Based Operations courses of action to selecting which system or alternative provides the most cost effective
capability. DynaRank can include quantitative and qualitative measures, using multiple decision criteria, with easily changeable
weights to see if there are robust alternatives that stand out as superior under a range of assumptions and scenarios. This presentation
will show how to use DynaRank for both comparing EBO courses of action and conducting capability-based tradeoff analysis for
more cost effective, capabilities based DoD resource management.

Establishing a Strategic Deterrence Assessment Lab at USSTRATCOM

LTC Stephen R. Riese, USA
US Strategic Command, Offutt AFB, NE
COM 402-294-7726 // FAX 402-294-6148
stephen.riese@us.army.mil
          The Strategic Deterrence Joint Operating Concept calls for the establishment of a Strategic Deterrence Assessment Lab
(SDAL) to better focus DoD deterrence activities and assess the effectiveness of our deterrent actions. The intent for the SDAL,
currently in prototype at USSTRATCOM, is to develop and assess diverse strategic deterrence options, including both kinetic and
non-kinetic actions. Key analytic imperatives include properly characterizing the uncertainty involved with deterrent actions and
determining main, 2nd and 3rd order effects. To achieve these goals, a small core team has the ability to dynamically team to form
larger multi-disciplinary groups for key assessment activities.
          This presentation will briefly cover the strategic deterrence concept upon which the SDAL is founded, the organizational and
operational construct for the lab, results from several assessments conducted during the prototype phase, and lessons learned in
establishing the SDAL. Following the prototype phase, the SDAL is expected to have interest beyond USSTRATCOM (e.g., other
COCOMs, DoD, USG agencies) as well as aid in the continued development of strategic deterrence joint operating concepts and
strategies.

Agent-Based Assignment Technique for Adaptive Planning

Gene J. Schroeder, Ph.D.                                                           William L. Cotsworth
Los Alamos National Laboratory                                                     AEM Services, Inc., 11456 E. Cimmarron Drive
Decision Applications Div, Systems Integration & Engineering Group                 Englewood, CO 80111
PO Box 1663, MS F607, Los Alamos, NM 87545                                         Phone: (303)-694-9722 // FAX: (303)-694-9728
Phone: (505) 665-3101 FAX: (505) 665-5283 // schroeder@lanl.gov                    cotsworth@aol.com

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Implications of Recent Changes in High Power Electromagnetic (HPEM) Threats
Donna Smoot                                   John O’Kuma                                    Robert Pfeffer
US Army Evaluation Center                     Developmental Test Command                     USA Nuclear and Chemical Agency
Commander, ATEC                               Commander, ATEC                                ATTN: ATNA-NU
ATTN: CSTE-AEC-SVE-S                          ATTN: CSTE-DTC-WS-DT-A                         Suite 101, 7150 Heller Loop
4120 Susquehanna Ave                          White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002            Springfield, VA 22150-3198
APG, MD 21005-3013                            505-679-6631// FAX 505-670-6670                703-806-7860//FAX 703-806-7900
410-306-0451//FAX 410-306-0467                john.okuma@wsmr.army.mil                       pfeffer@usanca-smtp.army.mil
donna.smoot@us.army.mil
          Terrorist have forced us to rethink the exploitation of high technology weapons as well as weapons of mass destruction.
Identification of the threat capabilities of terrorist forces includes the financial ability to purchase high technology weapons, the types of high
technology weapons expected to be available, and the limitations of non-proliferation agreements. Military, commercial, and industrial
organizations of the United States need to understand the implications of threat changes in the last two years in terms of protecting their
information and equipment. Hardening schemes that address all HPEM threats in a unified way (rather than individually) will prevent
counterproductive hardening and minimize the cost of hardening and sustainment.
          HPEM threats include ultra-wideband, wideband, high power microwave technology as well as electromagnetic pulse from nuclear
weapons. After presenting the overall picture, this presentation focuses primarily on developments in non-nuclear HPEM threats within the
last two years, potentially susceptible technologies, and system responses of military and civilian hardware (including information from the
2004 Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Commission Report). Lessons learned in test and survivability evaluation of Army systems against
HPEM threats will also be presented.




D-4
                               Strategic Operations                                                                WG-1
Building thinkLets to Improve Productivity in Course of Action Development for Crisis-
Response Situations

Lucas D Steinhauser                                                 Gert-Jan De Vreede
USSTRATCOM\J82,                                                     University of Nebraska at Omaha
901 SAC Blvd STE 2E13                                               Dept of Information Science and Quantitative Analysis
Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6000                                           College of Information Science and Technology, PKI 177-B
402-294-1654//FAX 402-294-6148                                      Omaha, NE 68182-0392//402-554-2026//FAX 402-554-3400
steinhal@stratcom.mil                                               gdevreede@mail.unomaha.edu
          Technological, political, and economical changes have generated a need for flexibility and the capability to build effective courses
of action in response to crisis situations. The problems we must face have become more complex, and can often only be handled by groups
of individuals [Mintzberg 1983]. The U.S. military is in the midst of a transformation and is moving towards a net-centric, service-oriented
architecture that promotes information sharing among all users [Net-Centric Checklist, 2004]. Instead of a strict hierarchy where decisions
are pushed down, networked warfighters will cooperatively pursue the strategic goals of the Commander in a much more decentralized
fashion [Adkins and Kruse 2002].
          This paper argues that thinkLets used with group support systems increases productivity in course of action development for crisis
response situations. A thinkLet is the smallest unit of intellectual capital required to create one repeatable, predictable pattern of thinking
among people working toward a goal [Briggs and de Vreede 2001]. In a crisis, there is limited time for a group to share information,
communicate ideas, and deliberate upon multiple potential solutions. This paper builds a framework for using thinkLets to optimize the
intellectual capital input from multiple subject matter experts who develop courses of action in time-sensitive and stressful environments.

Army Force Generation Model

Steven A. Stoddard                                                  Mark W. Brantley
Center for Army Analysis                                            Center for Army Analysis
6001 Goethals Road, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060                    6001 Goethals Road, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060
703-806-5681//FAX 703-806-5750                                      703-806-5611//FAX 703-806-5726
Steven.stoddard@caa.army.mil                                        mark.brantley@caa.army.mil
          The Army continually examines its force structure and its ability to meet strategic requirements. Demand for forces is driven by
national strategy, a force planning construct (e.g., "1-4-2-1"), and on-going operations. Supply of forces is constrained by unit lifecycles
(training, readiness, deployments, and recovery), transformation, AC and RC force levels, and rotations. The purpose of the Army Force
Generation Model (AFGM) is to resolve this supply and demand problem and determine the appropriate size of the force.
          AFGM includes development of a simulation model called MARATHON. MARATHON allows us to simulate the flow of active
and reserve component units through their respective lifecycles. Each lifecycle begins with a non-available period (when AC units are reset
and RC units are not available for Title 10 operations), followed by periods when units train until they are ready and available, deploy,
recover, and transform (as necessary). MARATHON allows us to examine a variety of force structure options by illustrating gaps or
redundancies in capabilities, as well as associated deployment tempos. These factors drive the Army’s force structure decisions. The Army
has adopted AFGM to analyze its force structure for the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review and other analytical efforts.


The Global Strike Capabilities-Based Assessment

Dr. Kirk A. Yost
MITRE Corporation, 7515 Colshire Avenue, McLean, VA 22102-7508
703-883-3133//FAX 703-883-6767//kyost@mitre.org
          The new Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) has introduced the notion of capabilities-based
assessments (CBAs) for mission areas. This presentation will describe the third CBA commissioned under JCIDS, Global Strike. In
particular, the presentation will cover how the study was structured using existing strategic guidance and the Global Strike Joint Integrating
Concept; how the study was organized; how the three components of a CBA (functional area analysis, functional needs analysis, and
functional solutions analysis) were done; the emerging conclusions; and how the recommendations will be passed to the appropriate
communities. This presentation will also discuss the approaches to doing CBAs have evolved within JCS/J-8.




                                                                                                                                          D-5
                                NBC Defense                                                                     WG-2
CHAIR: Dr. Bruce Bowman, SAIC
CO-CHAIRS: James Gerding, Defense Threat Reduction Agency
Thomas Rothwell, Center for Army Analysis
ADVISOR: Dave Evans, ANSER

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.

Methodology for the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense (CBRND)
Functional Area Analysis (FAA) Focused on Passive Defense

John Boyd
Joint Requirements Office CBRND Defense
8000 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, DC 20318-8000
703-946-0527
boydj@battelle.org

         The Joint Requirements Office – Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense (JRO CBRND)
performed a Functional Area Analysis (FAA) focusing on the Passive Defense mission area (within Counter-Proliferation).
The previous requirements process was threat-based and supporting analysis documents mirrored that methodology. The
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process is a capability driven, top-down approach and
requires a different type of analysis document for support. The first step in the JCIDS analysis process, the FAA identifies
the operational tasks, conditions, and standards needed to achieve military objectives. The analysis is organized primarily by
the four major functional areas (Sense, Shape, Shield, and Sustain) and by a secondary level of organization across the
Strategic National, Strategic Theater, Operational, and Tactical levels of warfare. The analysis uses the national strategies,
Joint Operating Concepts, Joint Functional Concepts, Joint Integrated Concepts, integrated architectures, the Universal Joint
Task List (UJTL), and the anticipated range of broad capabilities that an adversary might employ.


Comparison of CB Sensor Array Configurations
Dr. George Gunn                                Keith Gardner                                   Jim Gerding
Northrop Grumman IT                            Northrop Grumman IT                             DTRA/TDOA
6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                  6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                   8725 John J Kingman Rd. MSC
Alexandria, VA 22310                           Alexandria, VA 22310                            6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
703-971-3108                                   703-325-6521                                    703-325-1138
george.gunn@ngc.com                            kgardner@cnttr.dtra.mil                         jgerding@cnttr.dtra.mil

Dr. Jae Han                                    James Hurd                                      Eugene Visco, FS
Northrop Grumman IT                            Northrop Grumman IT                             OR Consultant
6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                  6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                   DTRA/TDOA
Alexandria, VA 22310                           Alexandria, VA 22310                            gvisco@bellatlantic.net
703-971-6520                                   703-325-3108
jhan@cnttr.dtra.mil                            james.hurd@ngc.com

         A Monte Carlo simulation has been used to investigate a number of standard arrangements of Chemical-Biological
(CB) sensors to develop an understanding of the relative detection performance of each. The current study is part of an initial
exercising of the model to understand the limits of its use and usefulness and to develop a conceptual understanding of sensor
array variations, significant factors in scenario definition, and identification of major factors that drive results. Emphasis was
on examining the systematics and differences among various sensor arrays. Examined CB sensor configurations are defined
by using standard configurations (uniform rows and columns, “dice 5” pattern, perimeter, circle, ellipse, and random
placement). Variations in size of defended array, number of sensors available, and plume geometries were made.




D-6
                               NBC Defense                                                                    WG-2
Investigation into Performance Scoring for Arrays of CB Sensors

George Gunn, Ph. D.                                        Keith Gardner
Northrop Grumman IT                                        Northrop Grumman IT
6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                              5695 King Centre Dr., suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22310                                       Alexandria, VA 22315
703-971-3108                                               703-325-6521
FAX 703-325-6591                                           FAX 703-325-6591
george.gunn@ngc.com                                        kgardner@cnttr.dtra.mil

Jim Gerding                                                Jae Han
Defense Threat Reduction Agency TDOA                       Northrop Grumman IT
8725 John J Kingman Road, MSC 6201                         5695 King Centre Dr., suite 310
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                                     Alexandria, VA 22315
703-325-1138                                               703-325-6520
FAX 703-325-7054                                           FAX 703-325-6591
jgerding@cnttr.dtra.mil                                    jhan@cnttr.dtra.mil

Eugene Visco, FS                                           Trey DeLaPena
OR Consultant, DTRA/DTOA                                   DTRA/TDOA
DTRA/DTOA                                                  5695 King Centre Dr., suite 310
gvisco@bellatlantic.net                                    Alexandria, VA 22315
                                                           703-325-6503

         Numerous studies have been conducted that address the issues associated with fixed site chemical-biological (CB)
agent protection via the use of a collection of point detection equipment, and, thereby, offer quantitative assessments of the
effectiveness of various sensor layout strategies. Additionally, software tools and products are under development, which
seek to “optimize” placement of CB sensors for defending generic or specific facilities. However, both of these analyses
depend upon the metric used to gauge aggregate performance. Quantization of hypothetical sensor placement geometries
requires the use of a performance scoring algorithm that reflects the expected operational viability of an actual alert. The
metrics used as performance scores has not examined in such a context.
         As part of a broader sensor performance study, the issues of identifying useful performance scoring metrics have
been examined and a comparison of an assortment of metrics has been made. Using a simplified, high-level Monte Carlo
simulation, several performance scoring metrics were tested against a number of ‘standard’ sensor array geometries. Both
analytic forms and weight-based scoring algorithms were examined. The meaningfulness of three operational situations was
considered in developing and interpreting scoring metrics: zero sensor hits, single sensor hit, and multiple hits.


Joint Requirements Office - Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense
(JRO CBRND) Baseline Capabilities Assessment (BCA) for Consequence Management
Methodology

Dave Osborne
JCS-J-8/JRO CBRND
8000 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, DC 20318-8000
703-602-0880
david.osborne@js.pentagon.mil

         The Joint Requirements Office – Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense (JRO CBRND)
performed a Baseline Capabilities Assessment (BCA) for Department of Defense Chemical, Biological, Radiological,
Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives (CBRNE) Consequence Management. The objectives included: 1) Provide clear and
valid identification of prioritized capability shortfalls in the area of CBRNE consequence management; 2) Identify relevant
funding options for alleviation of shortfalls; 3) Utilize the Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel,
and Facilities (DOTMLPF) framework for characterization of shortfalls; 4) Develop the foundation for singular or multiple
Initial Capabilities Document[s] relevant to consequence management. The assessment broke out each of the four major

                                                                                                                           D-7
                               NBC Defense                                                                    WG-2
operational elements (Sense, Shape, Shield, and Sustain) into core capabilities. Each core capability was described using a
series of attributes. The JRO CBRND developed the metrics and rating scales for each attribute in coordination with Service
representatives, and concomitantly developed the analysis approaches for integration, conceptualization, and presentation of
all results.
          The assessment identifies partial or minimum capabilities and quantifies the magnitude of the capability shortfall, or
gap, with respect to the ideal complete capability and fielded quantity. The results of the BCA provide reference and data
points for analysis including capability identification, research and development, and procurement. The BCA guides budget
and programming recommendations in future year Program Objective Memoranda (POM) cycles as part of the JRO
CBRND’s chartered responsibilities to lead the CBRN Defense Program POM development. The presentation focuses on the
methodology used to perform the assessment.
          The BCA provides a basis for prioritization of Science and Technology (S&T) and Research Development Test and
Evaluation (RDT&E) efforts. Since the JRO CBRND leads the POM for CBRN defense across DOD, this assessment will
guide resourcing efforts across analyses, S&T, and RDT&E.


Contagious Disease modeling in a Theater Environment
MAJ Tom Rothwell                           Timothy Germann                             Debbie Lott
Center for Army Analysis                   X-7 (Materials Science)                     Center for Army Analysis
6001 Goethals Rd                           Los Alamos National Laboratory              6001 Goethals Rd
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                     Los Alamos, NM 87545                        Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
703-806-5173                               505-665-977210+                             703-806-5405
FAX 703 806-5725                           tcg@lanl.gov                                FAX 703 806-5725
thomas.rothwell@caa.army.mil                                                           Deborah.lott@caa.army.mil

         The modeling of contagious diseases and the spread of secondary infections through military forces is an emerging
area of study. There is a proliferation of models and techniques provide to tackle the problem, however there are few
comparable studies available. This study examines the effects that vaccination programs and quarantine intervention have on
the populations affected and the casualties generated by a smallpox attack on US Forces in a foreign theater. It was
conducted with a multi-patch theater level model using individual interactions hosted on a government-sponsored
supercomputer. The results bring a number of issues to the forefront including the need to determine if interaction rates
among civilian populations approximate those of military forces. The questions will be the focus of future work.


Chemical Warfare Agent Toxicity Estimates for the General Population

Douglas R. Sommerville                     John J. Bray                                Ronald B. Crosier
US Army Edgewood CB Center                 Optimetrics, Inc.                           US Army Edgewood CB Center
5183 Blackhawk Road                        2107 Laurel Bush Road                       5183 Blackhawk Road
ATTN: AMSRD-ECB-RT-IM                      Bel Air, MD 21015                           ATTN: AMSRD-ECB-RT-DD
APG, MD 21010-5424                         phone: (410) 569-6081, ext 113              APG, MD 21010-5424
(410) 436-4253; FAX: (410) 436-2742        FAX: (410) 569-6083                         phone: (410) 436-6702
douglas.sommerville@us.army.mil            jbray@optimetrics.org                       ronald.crosier@us.army.mil
Sharon A. Reutter                          Erin E. Shockley
US Army Edgewood CB Center                 US Army Edgewood CB Center
5183 Blackhawk Road                        5183 Blackhawk Road
ATTN: AMSRD-ECB-RT-TT                      ATTN: AMSRD-ECB-RT-IM
APG, MD 21010-5424                         APG, MD 21010-5424
phone: (410) 436-2682                      phone: (410) 436-1937
FAX: (410) 436-7129                        FAX: (410) 436-2742
sharon.reutter@us.army.mil                 erin.shockley@us.army.mil

         Current acute chemical warfare agent toxicity estimates for the general public are limited to estimates of the lower
end of the dose-response curve for a particular effect. However, many applications require a description of the whole curve.
Two methods were used to calculate estimates for the general population from previously defined military curves. The
maximum ratio method produces the largest differences between the median effective dosages of military personnel and

D-8
                               NBC Defense                                                                   WG-2
those for the general population. These conservative estimates are useful for setting more protective levels. The centroid
method produces estimates without intentional conservatism; these estimates may be suitable for casualty estimation and
resource-planning purposes. Median effective dosages and probit slopes for mild, severe and lethal effects, from inhalation or
percutaneous vapor exposure to GA (tabun), GB (sarin), GD (soman), GF (cyclosarin), VX, and H (sulfur mustard) are given.
The toxic load model is used to extend the two-minute exposure estimates to estimates for exposures of 10 through 360
minutes. Median effective dosages and probit slopes are given for severe and lethal effects from percutaneous exposure to
liquid agent. For hydrogen cyanide (AC), a probit slope and median effective dosages for inhalation lethality for exposures of
2 to 30 minutes are provided.


APPROVED ABSTRACTS UNAVAILABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING:

    1. An Event Based Parametric Model for the Evaluation of Fit Factors in Full Face
       Respirator Masks, Charles Bedard

    2. Restoration of Operations ACTD, William Ginley

    3. Mobile Forces Methodologies Development using Simulation, Training, and
       Analysis for Fixed Sites (STAFFS) Model, William Greer, Paul Kirk

    4. A Monte Carlo Simulation for Analyzing the Performance of CB Sensor Arrays, Dr.
       George Gunn, Jim Gerding, James Hurd

    5. Characterizing Chemical Release Source Terms, Frank Handler, Glen Nakafuji,
       Theo Theofanous

    6. Computer Simulation of Decontamination Operations, Capt Ian McCullouh

    7. Environmental Hazard Prediction Modeling Program at the CBDP Joint Science
       and Technology Office, John Pace

    8. Continuing Evaluations of Urban HPAC Using MUST and Joint Urban 2003 Field
       Trials, Nathan Platt, James Heagy

    9. Review and Statistical Analysis of Mammalian (non-Anesthetized) Nerve Agent
       Intravenous Lethality Data, Doug Sommerville

    10. Biological Defense: Evaluating Sensor Array Quantity and Quality versus
        Detection Capability, Brock Webb




                                                                                                                         D-9
    Arms Control and Proliferation                                                                               WG-3
CHAIR: Joanna Ingram, DTRA
ADVISOR: Robert Batcher, State Department

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


A Comparison of Cold War and the Indian/Pakistani Rivalry

Dr. Robert T. Batcher
State Department, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520
202-736-7396 // BatcherRo@state.gov

    APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING



Panel Discussion: Operational Impacts of Weapons of Mass Disruption

Dr. Robert T. Batcher
State Department, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520
202-736-7396 // BatcherRo@state.gov

    APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING



The Stability of the Military Balance and War among Great Power Rivals

Dr. Daniel S. Geller
Professor and Chair
Department of Political Science, Wayne State University
2043 Faculty/Administration Building, Detroit, MI 48202
(313) 577-6328 (direct) (313) 577-2630 (main)
Fax: (313) 993-3435 dgeller@wayne.edu

         The relationship between power distributions and war is a recurring theme in the literature on international relations.
For example, the distribution of power and shifts in these distributions lie at the core of the explanations of interstate conflict
found in balance-of-power, long-cycle, power transition, hegemonic decline, and world economy theories. All of these
formulations assume a basic relationship between relative capabilities and the occurrence of warfare among the principal
states in the international system. This study examines the question from the perspectives of both the initiation and
occurrence of war for a set of great power dyads that have formed long-term rivalries. The major power rivals identified here
on the basis of time/density dispute criteria are conflict-prone. These dyads engage in a disproportionately large number of
both militarized disputes and wars over extended periods of time. The results of the analysis indicate that for great power
dyads with these characteristics, war occurrence is influenced by an unstable military balance.




D-10
    Arms Control and Proliferation                               WG-3
Developing Analytical Approaches to Weapons of Mass Disruption

Dr. Joanna Ingraham
Advanced Systems and Concepts Office
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6201
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201
703-767-4453 // Joanna.Ingraham@DTRA.mil

        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Next Generation WMD

Dr. Joanna Ingraham
Advanced Systems and Concepts Office
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6201
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201
703-767-4453 // Joanna.Ingraham@DTRA.mil

        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Panel Discussion: Next Generation WMD

Dr. Joanna Ingraham
Advanced Systems and Concepts Office
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6201
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201
703-767-4453 // Joanna.Ingraham@DTRA.mil

        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

South Asia WMD

Dr. Thomas McIlvain
Office of Regional and Strategic Security
Bureau of Arms Control, State Department
2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520
(202) 647-6793 // McIlvainTR@state.gov

        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Panel Discussion: South Asia WMD
Dr. Thomas McIlvain
Office of Regional and Strategic Security
Bureau of Arms Control, State Department
2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520
 (202) 647-6793 // McIlvainTR@state.gov


        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

                                                                   D-11
    Arms Control and Proliferation                                                                            WG-3
An Analytic Approach For Monitoring, Shaping, and Evaluating Responses to State
Fragility

Dr. Sean P. O'Brien
Center for Army Analysis
6001 Goethals Road, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060
703-806-5361 (PH); 703-806-5750 (FAX)
sean.p.obrien@us.army.mil

         Over the past 5 years, the Center for Army Analysis (CAA) has developed several analytical models to forecast
country instability. CAA’s ACTOR (Analyzing Complex Threats for Operations and Readiness) model generates long-term
forecasts of the likelihood that any given country in the world will experience a certain level of intensity of instability over
each of the next 20 years. These “first cut” vulnerability assessments are derived from forecast trends in each state’s macro-
structural conditions (e.g., social, political, economic, and demographic).
         CAA’s NEAR-TERM FORECITE (Near-term Forecasts of Crisis and Instability using Text-Based Events) is a
system for monitoring, assessing and forecasting (in near-real time) the character and intensity of interactions between
individuals and organizations operating within each country of interest. Whereas the ACTOR model provides an assessment
of the environmental conditions that enable and constrain people, FORECITE provides an assessment of who is doing what
to whom, when where and how in each country.
In this paper, we apply both models to two countries of interest to the DoD and show how each can be used, both together
and independently, to develop shaping strategies, as well as monitor the effectiveness of interventions designed to stabilize
targeted countries.


Stochastic Network Interdiction Model for Nuclear Smuggling (LA-UR-04-1637)

Feng Pan                                   Kevin Saeger                                David Morton
Los Alamos National Laboratory             Los Alamos National Laboratory              The University of Texas at Austin
PO Box 1663, MS F604                       PO Box 1663, MS F604                        1 University Station, C2200
Los Alamos, NM 87545                       Los Alamos, NM 87545                        Austin, TX 78712-0292
505 664-0212                               505 664-0212                                morton@mail.utexas.edu
FAX: 505 665-5125                          FAX: 505 665-5125
saeger@lanl.gov                            saeger@lanl.gov

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING




D-12
                           Air & Missile Defense                                                      WG-4
CHAIR: Robert (Bob) Koury, Lockheed-Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors
CO-CHAIRS: Kelly Culpepper, Raytheon Missile Systems
Thomas E Denesia, HQ NORAD - USSPACECOM
Martin Goodman, US Army Space and Missile Defense Command
Dr. Richard C. Goodwin, Global Missile Defense Analyst
Launa Jennings, MCCDC, Studies and Analysis Division
Christopher Jones, The MITRE Corporation
Jim Schlichting, US Army Space Command
Dr. Nigel S Siva, SPARTA Inc.
ADVISOR: Bob Strider, US Army Space and Missile Defense Command


The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.

MEDUSA BMD Modeling of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System Performance

Hany Aly                                                 Kara Quinnan
Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors               Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors
199 Borton Landing Road                                  199 Borton Landing Road
MS 13000-1A, Moorestown, NJ 08057                        MS 13000-1A, Moorestown, NJ 08057
(856) 638-7085//FAX (856) 638-4304                       (856) 638-7072//FAX (856) 638-4304
Hany.Aly@lmco.com                                        kara.m.quinnan@lmco.com

Kevin Johns                                              Steve Newell
Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors               Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors
199 Borton Landing Road                                  199 Borton Landing Road
MS 13000-1A, Moorestown, NJ 08057                        MS 13000-1A, Moorestown, NJ 08057
(856) 7022//FAX (856) 638-4304                           (856) 638-7030//FAX (856) 638-4304
kevin.m.johns@lmco.com                                   r.s.newell@lmco.com

Kim Schaal                                               Soumendra Banerjee
Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors               Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors
199 Borton Landing Road                                  199 Borton Landing Road
MS 13000-1A, Moorestown, NJ 08057                        MS 13000-1A, Moorestown, NJ 08057
(856) 638-7104//FAX (856) 638-4304                       (856) 638-7411//FAX (856) 638-4304
kimberly.s.schaal@lmco.com                               soumendra.banerjee@lmco.com


        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Analysis of Defensive Positions against Aggressive Threats in Support of Homeland
Defense

 Edwin A. Barber, Jr.                                       James M. Braswell
Space and Missile Defense Command                           Computer Sciences Corporation
Future Warfare Center, Studies & Analysis                   Huntsville, AL
Redstone Arsenal, AL                                        (256) 885-7048
(256) 955-2258/FAX (256) 955-2250                           jbraswe3@csc.com
edwin.barber@smdc.army.mil




                                                                                                        D-13
                             Air & Missile Defense                                                              WG-4
Martin S. Goodman                                                 Steve F. Pierce, Chief
Space and Missile Defense Command                                 Space and Missile Defense Command
Future Warfare Center, Studies & Analysis                         Future Warfare Center, Studies & Analysis
Redstone Arsenal, AL                                              Redstone Arsenal, AL
(256) 955-1937/FAX (256) 955-2250                                 (256) 955-3571/FAX (256) 955-2250
martin.goodman@smdc.army.mil                                      steve.pierce@smdc.army.mil

          This analysis was used to support 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command’s planning and execution of their
critical Home Land Defense mission. The analysis focused on examining different threat avenues of approach and the
effectiveness of different defensive system positions and types to counter the varying threat. The study team utilized
Extended Air Defense Simulation (EADSIM) to conduct force-on-force analysis in conjunction with other applications used
to automatically generate input files, execute the batch run process, conduct post process analyses, and assist in developing
the presentation of the results. This combination of tools enabled the examination of multiple scenarios and the reduction of
volumes of data very quickly and efficiently, which enabled the 32nd AAMDC to make informed operational and logistical
decisions concerning a very crucial mission in a rapidly changing environment.

Defense of the US Homeland against an Asymmetric Cruise Missile Threat

Woodrow Bevill                                                   Wolfram Blattner
Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control –Dallas                  Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control –Dallas
PO Box 650003, Mail Stop: WT-52                                  PO Box 650003, Mail Stop: WT-52
Dallas, TX 75265-0003                                            Dallas, TX 75265-0003
972-603-3426//FAX 972-603-0137                                   972-603-9332//FAX 972-603-0137
woodrow.bevill@lmco.com                                          wolfram.blattner@lmco.com

          The presentation will present final results of a cruise missile (CM) defense analysis designed to protect specific US
coastal cities. The analysis presents one piece of a complex study for homeland defense options. The overarching study
objective was to determine the feasibility of creating architecture to defeat an asymmetric threat consisting of CMs or
Ballistic Missile (BMs) launches from maritime platforms against the United States and / or its allies. The idea that a rogue
state or terrorist organization could launch a missile from the sea is not that unlikely. Preliminary analysis conducted by
Lockheed Martin in 2003 and 2004 focused on the East Coast of the United States, specifically the Washington D.C. to
Boston corridor. The study team set up two vignettes, one for CMs and another for BThis analysis was conducted around
active air defense defeating a sea-based asymmetric CM threat. It incorporated land, sea, and air-based defensive assets. As a
single component of an overall architecture concept, this analysis was centered around three major processes: CM
Surveillance analysis, CM JBMC2 analysis and Engagement Timeline analysis. The presentation will furnish results and
insights from one or two sub-tasks under each of these three major process areas. Summary conclusions reflecting all CM
results will be provided. This presentation is illustrative of possible active defense options against a particular threat, and is
not necessarily endorsed by the DoD, US Army, or JFCOM.

An Analysis of Debris Field Effects for Operation Noble Eagle and a Ballistic Calculator
Model

Dr Van Fong                                  Luther Briggs                                   Glen Roussos
NORAD/NORTHCOM ANALYSIS                      NORAD/NORTHCOM ANALYSIS                         NORAD/NORTHCOM ANALYSIS
250 South Peterson Boulevard, Suite 116      250 South Peterson Boulevard, Suite 116         250 South Peterson Blvd, Suite 116
Peterson AFB, CO 80914-3180                  Peterson AFB, CO 80914-3180                     Peterson AFB, CO 80914-3180
719-554-3718                                 719-554-5102                                    719-554-9767
Van.Fong@northcom.mil                        Luther.Briggs@northcom.mil                      Glen.Roussos@northcom.mil

         This briefing provides information on NORAD-NORTHCOM Analysis Directorate’s study conducted in 2004,
which assessed the Debris Field effects consequent to an Operation Noble Eagle shoot-down if one had to occur. This
analysis was in response to concerns within NORAD Headquarters to produce a model/tool for estimating the ground effects.
The major factors that dictate where the pieces fall are aircraft speed, altitude of the engaged aircraft and wind speed. All of
this information is available in real time to the Command through FAA radars and the Air Weather website model. The
briefing covers debris field sizes based on these factors. The National Transportation Safety Board provided NORAD their
Debris Model, which generated the initial ballistic data for a range of object size and the corresponding footprint areas. To

D-14
                             Air & Missile Defense                                                            WG-4
simplify the process, a Ballistic Calculator was produced using a MS Excel spreadsheet with macros. The results from the
calculator are a graphical depiction of the debris field, its location (to include longitude and latitude) as well as the debris
field size. This operational model runs in less than a minute and is being incorporated into training and operational decisions.

Including Earth Rotation in Missile Defense Analysis
 Dale Bugbee                                                     Bryan Harris
 Raytheon Missile Systems                                        Raytheon Missile Systems
 Operations Research and                                         Operations Research and
 System Performance Department                                   System Performance Department
 1151 E. Hermans Road                                            1151 E. Hermans Road
 Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                                           Tucson, AZ 85734-1337
 (520) 794-1806                                                  (520) 794-1806
 FAX: (520) 794-8984                                             FAX: (520) 794-8984
 Dale_R_Bugbee@raytheon.com                                      Bryan_R_Harris@raytheon.com


         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Effectiveness Analysis of Multi-Mission MANPADS in the Future Operational
Environment

Kelly Culpepper                                                  David G. Derrick
Raytheon Missile Systems                                         Raytheon Missile Systems
Operations Research and                                          Operations Research and
System Performance Department                                    System Performance Department
PO Box 11337, Bldg 848, M/S 11                                   1151 E. Hermans Road
Tucson, AZ 85734                                                 Tucson, AZ 85734-1337
(520) 794-3595//FAX: (520) 794-3378                              (520) 794-1790//FAX: (520) 794-0328
klculpepper@raytheon.com                                         David_G_Derrick@raytheon.com

         The future battlefield covers a wide spectrum of conflict and a complex operational environment. Operations on the
future battlefield require forces to be smaller, lighter and faster for increased strategic responsiveness. Maneuver warfare and
expeditionary operations will require freedom of maneuver and self protection from conventional and asymmetric air and
ground threats. Joint Forces are expected to perform multiple missions with common equipment, maximizing effectiveness
and interoperability. With respect to low-altitude air defense Multi-Mission MANPADS will support the Warfighter on the
future battlefield. The system provides detection, engagement, and lethality inherent to the Avenger-based system in a
shoulder-launched weapon system. Beyond existing Avenger and MANPADS capabilities, Multi-Mission MANPADS will
bring increased force and high-value asset protection, networked and autonomous 360 degree and 3D protection, enhanced
gunner survivability, and a laser designation capability to the Warfighter. Through simulation and analysis we have defined
the requirements for defense against air and ground threats and optimized the weapon system capabilities to meet those
requirements. Using the Enhanced Air Defense Simulation (EADSIM) and the Joint Combined Tactical Simulation (JCATS)
we examined the systems performance in both area defense and urban environments.


Modeling and Simulation Techniques for Gaining Insights on How to Fight the Ballistic
Missile Defense System in the Next Decade

 Robert B. Danberg
 Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization
 1851 South Bell St., CM3, Suite 511, Arlington, VA 22202
 (703) 602-5285 //robert.danberg@js.pentagon.mil

         This presentation is a description of the war games designed and executed for the examination of interceptor shot
doctrines and battle management for the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in the next decade. The war games were
designed to examine “how to fight” the BMDS including methods to battle manage the boost, mid-course and terminal phase
                                                                                                                         D-15
                            Air & Missile Defense                                                            WG-4
elements in a cohesive, integrated defense. The Study used Operator In The Loop (OITL) wargames to examine how
operators could best defend assigned assets and areas against ballistic missile attacks with these systems under various
weapons to target assignment methods. The wargames examined the operators’ tactics, techniques and procedures and joint
integrated exchange requirements. This presentation will present the wargame summary of the wargame designs and analysis
techniques used to gain insights on “How to Fight” the BMDS in the next decade.

NORAD Air Surveillance Technology Trade-off Study: Methodology and Phase I Results

Isabelle Julien                             Cherie D. Gott                               Dr. Van Fong
HQ NORAD Analysis                           HQ NORAD Analysis                            HQ NORAD Analysis
250 S. Peterson Blvd, Suite 420             250 S. Peterson Blvd, Suite 420              250 S. Peterson Blvd, Suite 420
Peterson AFB, CO 80914                      Peterson AFB, CO 80914                       Peterson AFB, CO 80914
719 554-3781                                719 554-3945                                 719 554-3718
Isabelle.Julien@norad.mil                   Cherie.Gott@northcom.mil                     Van.Fong@northcom.mil



          Since 1958, Canadians and Americans have been partners in protecting the airspace of Alaska, Canada and the
contiguous 48 United States. Until the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD's focus was almost exclusively fixed on threats
coming toward the Canadian and American borders, not terrorism in our domestic airspace. Because of that day, NORAD's
focus has expanded to include domestic airspace. Today, NORAD assets include a suite of sensor systems coupled together
with fighter aircraft, command structures and intelligence capabilities to enforce control of the skies over the United States
and Canada.
          The air surveillance piece of this mission must provide cooperative and non-cooperative coverage within the
traditional NORAD focus area - the North American perimeter – as well as within the entire North American interior from
surface to 100,000 ft MSL.
The current NORAD surveillance resources include a collection of ground-based short and long-range radars (of which
individual systems are owned by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Department of Defense (DoD), or jointly),
and a system of tethered aerostats along the US – Mexican border.
          The aim of the Air Surveillance Technology Trade-off Study is to aid the leadership in determining the value-added
of various air surveillance technology options – both current and future systems – as part of a family of systems to meet the
NORAD mission. Our methodology focuses on a broad-brush capability study rather than a technical evaluation of the
engineering details of each sensor option. For the purpose of this study, inputs were restricted to the basic limitations and
capabilities of various sensor types. From those inputs, metrics were developed to measure the contribution of each type
within varying configurations of a family of systems employment. The goal of this study is to provide the NORAD
Commander with a top-level comparison tool to quickly evaluate the merits of each sensor type and to provide a process to
rank the various configurations of families of systems based on surveillance coverage and detection capabilities.

Radar and Lidar Data Analysis Techniques for Missile Intercept Debris and Aerosol
Cloud Characterization

Michael J. Guthrie                                            Martin B. Richardson
BAE SYSTEMS Analytical & Ordnance Solutions                   BAE SYSTEMS Analytical & Ordnance Solutions
308 Voyager Way                                               308 Voyager Way
 Huntsville AL 35806                                           Huntsville AL 35806
256-890-8133                                                  256-890-8012
FAX 256-890-0000                                              FAX 256-890-0000
Michael.guthrie@baesystems.com                                Martin.B.Richardson@baesystems.com

Jay C. Willis                                                 K. Shea Smith
BAE SYSTEMS Analytical & Ordnance Solutions                   BAE SYSTEMS Analytical & Ordnance Solutions
308 Voyager Way                                               308 Voyager Way
 Huntsville AL 35806                                           Huntsville AL 35806
256-890-8047                                                  256-890-8165
FAX 256-890-0000                                              FAX 256-890-0000
Jay.Willis@baesystems.com                                     Shea.Smith@baesystems.com

D-16
                             Air & Missile Defense                                                            WG-4
          Multiple-sensor and multiple-wavelength tracking and backscatter data can provide significant characterization of
the debris and aerosol clouds resulting from a missile intercept. This paper presents analysis techniques which utilize
ballistic coefficients, radar cross sections, and Mie backscattering cross sections at multiple wavelengths to determine
estimates of debris mass and aerosol cloud particle size distributions. The results allow for direct comparisons with transport
and dispersion models and provide a means of conducting in situ flight test measurements of parameters useful to model
developers. Analysis from the Arrow program USFT-1 and PAC-3 DT/OT-12 flight tests are presented. The results are a
“best-fit” to the debris mass, particle number density, mean diameter, and standard deviation of the Particle Size Distribution
Function (PSDF). The approach allows a means of computing estimates of the debris and aerosol cloud mass as well as
ground deposition estimates.

Hedging Strategy for Midcourse Interceptor Commitments against Uncertain Threats

J. Ramsay Key                              Owen Deutsch                                Alex Kahn
Draper Laboratory, 555 Technology Sq.      Draper Laboratory, 555 Technology Sq.       Draper Laboratory, 555 Technology Sq.
Cambridge, MA 02139                        Cambridge, MA 02139                         Cambridge, MA 02139
617-258-1016//FAX 617-258-1799             617-258-2223//FAX 617-258-1799              617-258-1035//FAX 617-258-1799
rkey@draper.com                            odeutsch@draper.com                         akahn@draper.com

         In any military engagement, the use of resources in the immediate response needs to be hedged against the demands
for these resources in future attacks. In the context of battle management for midcourse interceptors, this gives rise to the
question of how many interceptors to allocate to the threats in the air given that there is uncertainty in the size of future
attacks.
         The problem is formulated as a Markov Decision Problem (MDP). To maintain computational tractability, the
solution architecture is decomposed into two components: an inventory manager and a fire control manager. The fire control
manager optimizes launch decisions for a single attack, given an allocation of interceptors from the inventory manager. In
essence, the fire control manager solves the Weapons Target Assignment (WTA) problem. The inventory manager
determines the interceptor allocation by solving the MDP using a database of the fire control manager’s performance and a
model of uncertainty in future attacks. The database is built offline by simulating hypothesized attacks.
         Results of the algorithm show improvement in the probability of no leakage over a series of attacks when compared
to two different fire control managers operating without inventory management.

Applications of Satellite Tool Kit to Solve your Missile Defense Problems
Shannon Lynch
Analytical Graphics, Inc.
220 Valley Creek Blvd., Exton, PA 19341
610-981-8227 // slynch@agi.com

          In a world that changes daily and with technologies developing at a rate faster than anyone could ever have
imagined, defense of our country is becoming a number one priority. No matter where you are from, in this day and age, the
possibility of terrorist plots and attacks becomes more and more practical. The government, as well as companies across the
nation, is completely devoted to making sure our systems are equipped with the latest technologies and are fully capable of
handling any type of threat from ballistic missiles to cruise missiles. As a result, simulations, models, scenarios and analyses
are developed and studied to determine current capabilities, improve existing vulnerabilities, and examine future, advanced
capabilities. These studies may include in depth evaluations of sensor range and coverage, missile system effectiveness,
defense of missiles at various ranges, launch area denied, defended area, and more.
          The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate real world applications of STK software and how it is well suited for
engineering tasks throughout all phases of a complex missile defense program-from concept and design, through testing,
deployment, and operations. The STK product suite addresses test and evaluation requirements by supporting mission
planning, real-time operations, post-flight analysis, training, and customer communications. The versatility and flexibility of
STK allows users to quickly and easily integrate it with existing systems of engineering software to realize significant
efficiency gains. STK provides validated and technically accurate software that has proven successful with thousands of users
through extensive application in numerous aerospace and defense prograReal applications of STK in the missile defense
world will be highlighted. These will include STK use in missile interceptor simulation, ballistic missile defense testing,


                                                                                                                         D-17
                              Air & Missile Defense                                                                WG-4
launch range testing, launch area denied and defended area capabilities, sensor performance against various missile threats,
and more.

Statistical Inferences on HITL Hit Point Prediction
Joseph Robenson
Electronics Engineer, Guided Weapons Evaluations Facility
211 W. Eglin Blvd, Suite 128, 46th Test Wing, Eglin AFB Florida
859-882-9939 / 9929 //joseph.robenson@eglin.af.mil

          Design of experiment (DOE) methods are used to infer aircraft vulnerability to Man Portable Air Defense Systems
(MANPADS) threats based on simulated missile engagements. An expert simulation team from Guided Weapons Evaluation
Facility (GWEF) conducted several thousand Hardware-In-The-Loop (HITL) missile engagement simulations to collect
aircraft hit point data for specific threats. These are hi-fidelity simulations with strong correlation to test data and intelligence
from real-world attacks. Proper statistical analysis is the key to understanding the effects of the independent engagement
variables. The methodology used to collect and document all data involved in this effort will be demonstrated as part of the
presentation.



A New Boost–Phase Tracker

 Dr. Nigel S. Siva, Principal Engineer                               John L. Dyer, Chief Technical Officer
 SPARTA, Inc., 1911 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite: 1100,              SPARTA, Inc., 1911 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite: 1100,
 Arlington, VA 22209                                                 Arlington, VA 22209
 Phone: 703–797–3103                                                 Phone: 703–797–3001
 FAX: 703–558–0045                                                   FAX: 703–558–0045
 E–mail: Nigel.Siva@sparta.com                                       E–mail: John.Dyer@.sparta.com

 Roy B. Cotta, Principal Engineer                                    James A. Mosora, Director
 SPARTA, Inc., 23382 Mill Creek Drive,                               Systems Analysis Systems Engineering
 Suite: 100, Laguna Hills, CA 92653                                  & Integration Deputate
 Phone: 949–829–9732                                                 Missile Defense Agency, 7100 Defense Pentagon,
 FAX: 949–206–9841                                                   Washington, D.C. 20301–7100
 E–mail: Roy.Cotta@sparta.com                                        Phone: 703–614–5282// FAX: 703–695–8153
                                                                     E–mail: James.Mosora@mda.osd.mil

         We describe a new formulation for an algorithm to track a thrusting ballistic missile using angle–only measurements
by overhead passive IR sensors observing the plume. We provide a method to extract the sensor–to–booster range
information (i.e., range and its error covariance) from multiple non–simultaneous LOS observations from multiple sensors
and operate on those pseudo–measurements with a multiple–pass 9 state extended Kalman filter. The sample applications
address tracking multiple staged missiles with measurements taken at different rates and relative phases and with both bias
and random components. The filter results are compared to results obtained with conventional angle–only formulations of 9
and 12 state extended Kalman filters. The implications for the possible improvements in the performance of the basic missile
defense functions of alert, sensor cuing, target position prediction and engagement support are discussed.


Architecture Analysis Methodology of Asymmetric Cruise and Ballistic Missile Defense
David Szostowski                                                    Andre Pettet
Lockheed Martin                                                     Lockheed Martin
Integrated Systems & Solutions                                      Integrated Systems & Solutions
Valley Forge, PA                                                    Valley Forge, PA
610-354-3902                                                        610-354-1441
david.j.szostowski@lmco.com                                         andre.pettet@lmco.com



D-18
                            Air & Missile Defense                                                            WG-4
         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING


Korean Theater Missile Defense Study

Thomas J. Timmerman                                              Gary Stipe
US Forces Korea, Ops Analysis Branch                             Northup-Grumman Information Technology
Unit #15237                                                      J-8/Warfighting Analysis Division
APO AP 96205-0010
+822 7913 7673
t2.timmerman@korea.army.mil

          The US-Republic of Korea Combined Forces Command (CFC) is responsible for preparing a defense against
potential North Korean aggression against South Korea, to include North Korea’s substantial force of theater ballistic
missiles (TBMs). CFC’s Operations Analysis Branch (OAB) was tasked by the Commander, CFC, to analyze the fight
against North Korea’s TBMs in July 2003. In the resulting study, OAB collaborated with the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency and the USAF’s Nuclear Weapons and Counterproliferation Agency, who provided their expertise in modeling
airbase sortie generation under TBM and chemical attack. We examined the interactions of: North Korean ballistic missile
threat, to include potential targeting choices against targets in South Korea; CFC missile warning capabilities and procedures;
CFC active defenses; CFC attack operations; and the abilities of CFC airbases to generate aircraft sorties under TBM attack.
The resulting insights changed CFC and air component plans and are guiding current efforts to improve theater missile
warning capabilities.


Extended Air Defense Simulation (EADSIM) Current and Planned Capabilities for Air and
Missile Defense
James T. Watkins II                                             Mark McAnally
Space and Missile Defense Command                               Teledyne Brown Engineering
Future Warfare Center, Modeling & Simulation                    Huntsville, AL
Redstone Arsenal, AL                                            (256) 726-1614
(256) 955-1681/FAX (256) 955-1685                               mark.mcanally@tbe.com
jim.watkins@smdc.army.mil



         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING


Collateral Damage Estimation for Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar Systems

Martin Wayne                                                    Jeffrey Corley
US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity                      US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
AMSRD-AMS-SC                                                    AMSRD-AMS-CA
392 Hopkins Road                                                392 Hopkins Road
APG, MD 21005-5071                                              APG, MD 21005-5071
Phone: COMM: (410) 278 6963                                     Phone: COMM: (410) 278 2090
FAX: (410) 278 6632                                             FAX: (410) 278 2043
Email: martin.wayne@us.army.mil                                 Email: jeffrey.r.corley@us.army.mil



         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING




                                                                                                                        D-19
    Operational Contributions of Space Systems                                                            WG-5
CHAIR: Greg Keethler, HQ AF Space Command (AFSPC) Space Analysis Division (XPY)
CO-CHAIRS: Rick Bloser, General Dynamics
Kerry Kelley, United States Strategic Command
Lee Lehmkuhl, MITRE Corporation
Lt. Col. Harry Newton, USAF, National Reconnaisance Office
Paul Page, Army Space and Missile Defense Command
ADVISOR: Mark Reid, MITRE Corporation

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.

Civil Position, Navigation, and Timing Analysis of Alternatives

Rick Bloser                                                   Jeff Dubois
General Dynamics                                              General Dynamics
1330 Inverness Dr, Suite 415                                  5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200
Colorado Springs, CO 80910                                    Dayton, OH 45431
(719) 622-2857                                                (937) 476-2566
rick.bloser@gd-aid.com                                        jeff.dubois@gd-aid.com

        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING


Future Combat Model
Dr. Gregg M. Burgess
SAIC Matrix Analytics
13921 Park Center Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
703-796-3214
gregg.m.burgess@saic.com

        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Space-Based Radar (SBR) Interface for the Advanced Warfighting Simulation (AWARS)

Robert E Horton II
Model Management and Development Directorate
TRADOC Analysis Center
ATTN: ATRC-FM
255 Sedgwick Avenue, Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345
Phone: (913) 684-5750 // robert.hortonii@us.army.mil

         The Advanced Warfighting Simulation (AWARS) Space-Based Radar (SBR) effort provides an interface through
which AWARS entities are represented in an SBR federate model and by which SBR reports detections of those entities for
use in the AWARS fusion methodology. AWARS is a Unit of Employment (UE) level, deterministic, multi-sided, event-
driven simulation representing system on system effects in an aggregate context. AWARS transfers platform details to SBR
which then, as coverage requests bubble-up, reports back platform locations and strengths. The AWARS/SBR linkage
interface uses the Application Inter-Process Communications Module (AIM) which leverages the High Level Architecture
(HLA) Run-Time Interface (RTI). Entity messages are sent to SBR as objects while request and response messages are sent
as interactions. The interface also provides a means of synchronizing multiple federates via an interaction status message.
SBR provides AWARS with a theater-level sensor capable of performing Synthetic-Aperture Radar (SAR) and Ground
Moving-Target Indicator (GMTI) detections.


D-20
    Operational Contributions of Space Systems                                                              WG-5
Military Space Plane: Ground Operations Model
Thomas H. Jacobs                       Dr. George M. Huntley                   Michael W. Garrambone
Air Vehicles Directorate, Air Force    Systems Engineering Department          General Dynamics
Research Laboratory                    US Army Logistics Management            5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200
2180 Eighth Street, B-145, R-202       College                                 Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255
Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433-        2401 Quarters Road                      Com: 937-476-2516
7505                                   Fort Lee, Virginia 23801-1705           FAX: 937-476-2900
Com: 937-904-6520                      Com: 804-765-4265                       mike.garrambone@gd-ais.com
FAX: 937-255-9746                      FAX: 804-765-4648
thomas.jacobs@wpafb.af.mil             george.huntley@us.army.mil

Elan T. Smith                          Frank C. Betts
General Dynamics                       General Dynamics
5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200       5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200
Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255                Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255
Com: 937-255-8648                      Com: 937-476-2534
FAX: 937-656-4547                      FAX: 937-476-2900
elan.smith@wpafb.af.mil                frank.betts@gd-ais.com

          Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS) calls for reliable, maintainable, robust systems to produce envisioned
space mission sortie generation rates. Systems must be able to launch within hours of call-up, conduct military on-orbit
operations, return to station, and meet swift ground turnaround times in a fashion similar to today’s modern bombers. There
are expendable and reusable space systems that can get us to the target, but their ground recovery, payload processing, and
launch preparation times have typically been measured in months instead of desired “hours.” To those who design for the
future, the idea of a high-speed experimental spaceplane like NASA’s X-37 has many of the attractive shuttle and proof-of-
principle SpaceShipOne characteristics. Circumstances such as maintenance of thermal protection and other various vehicle
systems, and the processing of multiple types of payloads still need to be addressed, so you ask, “what are the ground
operations and throughput requirements that are needed to make the desired sortie rates for these new systems?” A robust
ground operations model is needed to address these questions.
          This presentation addresses ground operations which are of interest to a variety of agencies from NASA and the
Services to commercial firms who expect to create everything from space engines to spaceports. We will discuss viewpoints
on what constitutes ground operations, what activities are being done, and show estimates on how long it should take to
perform those operations. This work, to shed light on spaceplane ground operations was done by researchers and scientists at
the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) Air Vehicles and Space Vehicles Directorates who collaborated with NASA in
order to create a first order model for the experimental X-37 system. Being experimental, the ground operations processes
are hybrid to a number of existing air and space systems, but the model built fits the Operation Research credo of “give them
something useful now, so they can work out the details later.” We will discuss the graphical model of ground ops developed
from space expert opinion. In the unresolved world of space vehicle modeling, we chose and will defend our use of a simple
and powerful stochastic computer simulation model; VERT, Venture Evaluation and Review Technique. VERT’s proponent,
the Army Logistics Management College (ALMC) supported the modeling and simulation effort and will discuss the
computer model, ground ops model design, and output analyses. If you have interest in space, space modelings, M&S,
and/or stochastic processes, then you are invited to come listen to this enjoyable and enlightening presentation.

A Common Foundation of Information and Analytical Capability for Air Force Space Command
Decision Making

Dr. Lee J. Lehmkuhl                                           Lt Col James Pryzbysz, USAF
Senior Operations Research Analyst                            Deputy Chief, Space Superiority Division
The MITRE Corporation                                         HQ AFSPC/DRC
1155 Academy Park Loop                                        150 Vandenberg St., Suite 1105
Colorado Springs, CO 80910-3704                               Peterson AFB, CO 80914
 719-572-8307                                                 719-554-5184
leel@mitre.org                                                james.pryzbysz@peterson.af.mil



                                                                                                                      D-21
    Operational Contributions of Space Systems                                                             WG-5
         The leadership of Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) is constantly faced with resource allocation decisions which
benefit from quantitatively derived insight. The Space and Missile System Center’s Space Superiority Materiel Wing
(SMC/SY) faces this challenge in the form of quick turn decisions on resource realignment within space acquisition progra
As a result, SMC/SY and the Space Superiority Division (HQ AFSPC/DRC) initiated the Architecture Baseline Review
(ABR), collaborating with other AFSPC organizations to define a consolidated, configuration controlled database to support
MAJCOM decision making at all levels and points of the system acquisition process. The AFSPC Analysis Division
(AFSPC/XPY) was heavily involved in this collaborative effort. The ABR proposes a common MAJCOM database
containing both data and tools to provide analytically rigorous decision support to senior leadership. It may be viewed as
AFSPC’s platform and engine for analysis. This paper presents a brief history of the ABR process and proceeds to a detailed
presentation of the components of the database, database administration, and concludes with an example of a cross-
organizational analysis effort that demonstrates the feasibility and value of the approach.


Evaluating a Notional Space Situational Awareness Concept for Utility

Lynda K. Liptak                           Jose Pires                                Edward Sams
Applied Research Associates               Applied Research Associates, Inc.         Applied Research Associates, Inc.
4300 San Mateo Blvd. NE                   4300 San Mateo Blvd, NE                   4300 San Mateo Blvd, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87110                     Albuquerque, NM 87110                     Albuquerque, NM 87110
505-816-6364                              505-816-6313                              505-816-6468
FAX 505-8172-0794                         FAX 505-8172-0794                         FAX 505-8172-0794
lliptak@ara.com                           jpires@ara.com                            esams@ara.com

          AFRL/VSES is evaluating concepts designed with new technologies for military utility. One of the concepts to be
evaluated is a notional space situational awareness satellite. The small satellite concept will include a number of AFRL/VS
technologies. To show military utility of the system, the concept will be evaluated using a combination of modeling and
simulation with value modeling to determine effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to relate the SSA concept capability
to military utility and to positively affect system and technology design for potential actual systems.


Investigation of Advanced ISR and Weapon Systems in Missions against TBM Targets
Employing Deceptive Tactics
W.E. Maillard
Modeling and Simulation Department, Systems Engineering Division
The Aerospace Corporation
2350 E. El Segundo Blvd., El Segundo, CA 90245-4691
(301) 336-5033 william.e.maillard@aero.org

        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING


SBR IC Utility Analysis

Joseph J. Manzo                                              Maj. Mike Fredley, USAF, Ph.D.
BAE SYSTEMS                                                  National Reconnaissance Office
11487 Sunset Hills Road                                      14675 Lee Road
Reston VA 20190-5234                                         Chantilly, VA. 21051
703-808-1324                                                 703-808-6507
Joseph.manzo@baesystems.com                                  fredleym@nro.mil

        The warfighting community has recently expressed a keen interest in developing a Space-Based Radar (SBR)
system. The military utility of a robust SBR constellation for tracking moving targets in support of combat operations was
axiomatic. However, the general utility of moving target indication (MTI) against intelligence problems such as weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) and terrorism was not well established. The SBR IC Utility Analysis provided senior IC decision

D-22
    Operational Contributions of Space Systems                                                             WG-5
makers a timely performance assessment of alternative SBR designs using a variety of intelligence problem exemplars.
         The paper will describe the analysis methodology and results that relied on Satellite Tool Kit (STK) to generate
target access and geometry data and exemplar-specific excel-based simulations to compute SBR architecture effectiveness.
The modeling approach leveraged specific program-generated probability of detection data for planned MTI minimum
detectable velocity (MDV) modes and target radar cross-sections (RCS). Readily available map graphics data was used to
model road networks relevant to each exemplar. The model allowed examination of new concepts, such as small-area trip
wires, LOC monitoring, nodal analysis, and large vehicle “tailing.”

Maritime Application for Space Based Radar

John McCarthy                            Dr. Paul Castleberg                       John Gambill
Toyon                                    Toyon                                     Toyon
75 Aero Camino, Suite A                  75 Aero Camino, Suite A                   75 Aero Camino, Suite A
Goleta, CA. 93117                        Goleta, CA. 93117                         Goleta, CA. 93117
805-968-6787                             805-968-6787                              805-968-6787
jmccarthy@toyon.com                      pcastleberg@toyon.com                     jgambill@toyon.com

Alison Hodges                            CAPT John Oberst, USN
National Reconnaissance Office           CNO (N-81)
14675 Lee Road                           2000 Navy Pentagon
Chantilly, VA. 21051                     Washington, DC 20350
703-808-0503                             john.oberst@navy.mil
hodgesal@nro.mil

          The maritime environment provides an ideal starting point for military Space Based Radar (SBR) operations due to
the low, relative to land, levels of moving and environmental clutter. This work examines the role of SBR working
synergistically with organic Navy assets in a Major Theater of War. The scenario pairs Navy manned and unmanned
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets with SBR to work against an aggressive Red maritime threat.
The primary ISR mission is to detect, identify, and track all surface Critical Connectors of Interest (CCOIs). CCOIs include
all military surface action ships and transport vessels. The ability to know where Red CCOIs are provides situation
awareness, indications and warning, and rapid targeting solutions. The ISR challenge is to effectively use a combination of
wide area sensor with identification sensors to build comprehensive situation awareness.
          The analysis is conducted using the SLAMEM simulation to represent the pre-hostilities phase of the conflict. The
simulation is able to represent the Red side behaviors, environment factors, and the Blue side ISR and tasking, processing,
exploitation, and dissemination (TPED) process. The analysis matrix includes three cases of ISR assets (Navy air alone, SBR
alone, and SBR working with air) and two cases of information sharing architectures (stove-pipe and horizontal integration).
Results show that the synergy of SBR working with air ISR and sharing information via horizontal integration can effectively
extend the operational range for detection, identification, and tracking of CCOIs.


NRO Integrated Technical Investment Process

Lt Col Harry Newton, Ph.D., USAF          Maj Steve Chambal, Ph.D., USAF               Buddy Wood
National Reconnaissance Office            National Reconnaissance Office               SAIC
14675 Lee Road                            14675 Lee Road                               13921 Park Center Rd
Chantilly, VA. 21051                      Chantilly, VA. 21051                         Herndon, VA 20171
703-808-1762                              703-808-6507                                 woodbu@saic.com
harry.n.newton@gmail.com                  Stephen.chambal@nro.mil

Capt Chris Cullenbine                     Mr Terry Bresnick                            Mr Roy Mattson
National Reconnaissance Office            Innovative Decisions Analysis                Northrop Grumman-TASC
14675 Lee Road                            PO Box 231660                                4801 Stonecroft Blvd
Chantilly, VA. 21051                      Centerville, VA 20120                        Chantilly, VA 20151
703-808-6480                              tabresnick@innovativedecisions.com           roy.mattson@ngc.com
Christopher.cullenbine@pentagon.af.mil


                                                                                                                     D-23
    Operational Contributions of Space Systems                                                                WG-5
          In 1999, the NRO initiated an effort to link its budget, space architecture vision, and acquisition plan. The goal was
to develop a rigorous and repeatable methodology that directly connected national priorities and information needs of the
Defense and Intelligence Communities to the NRO budget process. Thus was born the Integrated Technical Investment
Process (ITIP). The ITIP has matured over the last 5 years and continues to drive NRO investment decisions using Value
Focused Thinking (VFT) as its foundation. The core principles of VFT align perfectly with the NRO goal: identify what we
(the Nation) value in terms of space intelligence assets and then fund the best set of NRO progra The ITIP value hierarchy
begins with the nation’s intelligence topics (ITs) and priorities identified within the National Security Presidential Directive
(NSPD-26). The ITs are then linked to a set of Core Information Needs, which capture the elements of information required
to respond to each IT. The final step in the value hierarchy is to identify performance metrics, or Critical Capabilities, that
articulate platform-based capabilities. The overall value hierarchy connects ITs to satellite features by mapping from
Intelligence Topics to Core Information Needs, to Critical Capabilities.


Military Utility of Blue Force Tracking

Ioroslau Parowczenko                                             William M. Tomlinson
U.S. Army SMDC FWC                                               Science Applications International Corporation
Studies and Analysis Division                                    Senior Operations Research Analyst
Study Team Lead, P.O. Box 1500                                   4901-D Corporate Drive
Huntsville, AL 35807-3801                                        Huntsville, AL 35805
(256) 955-1278                                                   (256) 864-8355
Jerry.Parowczenko@smdc.army.mil                                  tomlinsonw@saic.com

         The United States Army Space and Missile Defense Command Future Warfare Center executed an analysis into the
benefits vital Space Architectures provide to Blue Force Tracking (BFT). The study focused on military utility from the
perspective of the maneuver warfighter at the Combined Arms Battalion (CAB) Future Force echelon. The BFT analysis was
conducted using warfighter-in-the-loop simulations including JANUS and Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS).
After executing a rigorous case matrix, outputs were examined to identify any deltas in military utility between cases with
persistent BFT and cases with a degraded BFT capability. Prior to conducting simulation runs, Essential Elements of
Analysis (EEAs) were developed and continually examined to ensure study issues were being explored. JANUS was used to
examine the military utility that space based BFT added to the Special Operations Force level while JCATS was used to
examine the additional utility added to an urban conflict by space based BFT and precision weapon delivery. Key findings
and insights from Phase I were used to “frame” the ongoing Phase II effort which continues to “drill-down” into key study
issues. This presentation will focus on key study insights and findings and will discuss on-going and future BFT analysis
efforts.

Implementation of Space-Based Radar (SBR) Functionality in the Advanced Warfighting
Simulation (AWARS)

Andy Phend                                                      Joseph D. Fann
Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.                                Dynetics, Inc.
300 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, Alabama 35806                   1000 Explorer Blvd., Huntsville, Alabama 35806
(256) 726-1791 // andy.phend@tbe.com                            (256) 964-4544 // joey.fann@dynetics.com

Steve Glasgow                                                   Jeff Franssen
US Army TRADOC Analysis Center                                  Army Space and Missile Defense Liaison
255 Sedgwick Avenue, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027             National Simulation Center, Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027
(913) 684-9271 // (steven.glasgow@us.army.mil                   (913) 684-8215 // Jeff.Franssen@us.army.mil

          Space support to current military operations impacts multiple battlefield operating systems (BOS). Through
representation of space capabilities within models and simulations, the military will have the ability to train and educate
officers and soldiers to fight from the high ground of space or to conduct analyses and determine the requirements or utility
of transformed forces empowered with advanced space-based capabilities. During the September 2001 Space Force
Management Analysis Review (FORMAL), the Army Vice Chief of Staff acknowledged deficiencies in representing
advanced space-based capabilities within the modeling and simulation (M&S) environment. In response to these findings a

D-24
    Operational Contributions of Space Systems                                                                  WG-5
Focus Area Collaborative Team (FACT), led by the U.S. Army Space & Missile Defense Command (SMDC), began the
process of identifying steps necessary to address the specific shortcomings for Joint Space M&S applications. A resulting
effort of the FACT was an Army Model Improvement Program with the objective to introduce Space-based sensor
functionality into the Advanced Warfighting Simulation (AWARS). The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed
description of the technical effort to integrate space-based radar functionality into the AWARS model.

Architectures for Decision Analysis

Mark Pleimann                                                     Phillip Kerchner
The MITRE Corporation                                             The MITRE Corporation
1155 Academy Park Loop                                            1155 Academy Park Loop
Colorado Springs, CO 80910-3704                                   Colorado Springs, CO 80910-3704
(719) 572-8244//FAX (719) 572-8345                                (719) 572-8358//FAX (719) 572-8345
mpleimann@mitre.org                                               pkerchner@mitre.org

Donald McCandless                                                 Robyn Kane
The MITRE Corporation                                             The MITRE Corporation
1155 Academy Park Loop                                            1155 Academy Park Loop
Colorado Springs, CO 80910-3704                                   Colorado Springs, CO 80910-3704
(719) 572-8485//FAX (719) 572-8345                                (719) 572-8409//FAX (719) 572-8345
mccandless@mitre.org                                              rkane@mitre.org


          Net-centric operations span the entire scope of an enterprise (i.e., business/corporate, warfighter operations, support,
and infostructure). Uncertain future environments, resource constraints, and political constraints facing our military demand
that all participants within an enterprise be aware of the impacts their decisions have on the warfighter’s ability to conduct
operations effectively. The key to this awareness is not only an established common semantic construct, but also the
willingness of professional engineering and analysis communities to integrate their vocabularies and methodologies. This
paper addresses three key methodologies (DOD Architecture Frameworks, Decision Analysis Framework, and Work
Breakdown Structures) from the system engineering, operations research, and cost analysis communities to show how these
methodologies can be integrated (via a common taxonomy) to facilitate more informed decision making.


Assessing The Future: Assuring Position, Navigation and Timing (PNT)

Kenneth S. Simonsen                                               Patti Schnick
SPAWAR Systems Center                                             SPAWAR Systems Center
53560 Hull Street                                                 53560 Hull Street
San Diego, Ca 92152-5001                                          San Diego, Ca 92152-5001
(619) 553-1251                                                    (619) 553-6565
FAX: (619) 553-0044                                               FAX: (619) 553-0044
kenneth.simonsen@navy.mil                                         patti.schnick@navy.mil

          The Global Positioning System (GPS) is today in an ever expanding number of civil and military applications. For
the military, precise absolute worldwide navigation has become essential for military operations, whether on land, at sea or in
the air. Weapons employing precision navigation have dramatically increased our military effectiveness, reducing the number
of missions required to accomplish objectives and reducing unintended collateral damage, essential to preserve national will
and international coalitions.
          In this paper we describe an OPNAV N6/N7 approved simulation study on the impact of GPS jamming on the Joint
battle space in light of the shift to a net-centric war-fighting paradigm. Models used in the simulation include the GPS
Interference and Navigation Tool (GIANT) providing platform/weapon performance to the Naval Systems Simulation (NSS)
for campaign analysis. The analysis derived from this study is expected to influence investment decisions being made by
senior Navy leadership in countering this threat.



                                                                                                                           D-25
    Operational Contributions of Space Systems                                                               WG-5
A Critical Model Review of the System Effectiveness and Analysis Simulation (SEAS)

Major Christopher Solo                                          Mark D. Reid
HQ AFSPC/XPY (AFSPC Analysis Division)                          The MITRE Corporation
1150 Academy Park Loop, Suite 212                               1155 Academy Park Loop
Colorado Springs, CO 80910                                      Colorado Springs, CO 80910
(719) 556-3754                                                  (719) 572-8255
christopher.solo@peterson.af.mil                                mark.reid@peterson.af.mil

Dr. Joseph B. Raquepas                                          Lorien Saenz
HQ AFSPC/XPY (AFSPC Analysis Division)                          The MITRE Corporation
1150 Academy Park Loop, Suite 212                               1155 Academy Park Loop
Colorado Springs, CO 80910                                      Colorado Springs, CO 80910
(719) 556-0943                                                  (719) 572-8207
joseph.raquepas@afspc.af.mil                                    lsaenz@mitre.org

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING


Military Utility Analysis of Near-Space Capabilities

 Major Christopher Solo, USAF              Christopher S. Dalton                     Mike Terry
 HQ AFSPC/XPY                              The MITRE Corporation                     HQ AFSPC/XPY
 (AFSPC Analysis Division)                 1155 Academy Park Loop                    (AFSPC Analysis Division)
 1150 Academy Park Loop, Suite 212         Colorado Springs, CO 80910                1150 Academy Park Loop, Suite 212
 Colorado Springs, CO 80910                (719) 572-8394                            Colorado Springs, CO 80910
 (719) 556-3754                            cdalton@mitre.org                         (719) 556-0933
 christopher.solo@peterson.af.mil                                                    michael.terry@peterson.af.mil

          Near-space, the region between 65,000 and 325,000 feet, is relatively unexploited by U.S. military forces. This
study considers the military utility and vulnerability/survivability issues associated with a subset of near-space options. The
study team evaluated near-space options consisting of combinations of carriers, payloads, command and control
architectures, and operating concepts. Carrier options included free-floating weather balloons, high altitude unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAV), and high altitude airships; payloads included communications and intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) packages. The results of this study will provide Air Force Space Command with a subset of realistic,
feasible, and affordable near-space options for possible follow-on demonstrations and acquisition.


Measuring Persistent Multi-INT

Joseph A. Tatman, Ph.D.                                         Lt Col Erica Robertson, USAF
Innovative Decisions, Inc.                                      National Reconnaissance Office
PO Box 231660                                                   14675 Lee Road
Centreville, VA 20120-1660                                      Chantilly, VA. 21051
703-808-3542 // jatatman@innovativedecisions.com                703-808-3885 // erica.robertson@nro.mil

Maj Steve Chambal, Ph.D., USAF                                  Robert J. Powers, Ph.D
National Reconnaissance Office                                  SAIC’s Mission Integration Business Unit
14675 Lee Road                                                  1525 Wilson Blvd, Ste 800
Chantilly, VA. 21051                                            Arlington, VA 22209
703-808-6507 // Stephen.chambal@nro.mil                         540-270-1242 // Robert.J.Powers@saic.com




D-26
    Operational Contributions of Space Systems                                                                 WG-5
         A modeling approach is presented that provides a quantitative measure for the degree to which an information
collection architecture satisfies a set of information needs. The approach brings a special focus to the impact of the
persistence properties of the architecture on information need satisfaction. It fully accounts for the contribution of the multi-
INT capabilities of the architecture by explicitly modeling information.
         Multi-attribute utility (MAU) is used to model information needs. Bayesian Belief Nets (BBNs) are used to model
information contributed from diverse sources. Satellite Took Kit (STK) is used to model the orbital properties of architecture.
         The approach has been applied to a set of diverse intelligence probleIt provides Intelligence Community decision
makers a timely performance assessment tool. For example, the value of increased dwell of space assets versus spectral
capability can be explored.


The Analytical Process Used to Develop Military Utility-Based Architectures for the Air
Force Space Command’s Integrated Planning Process

John R. Tindle                             Joyce Stivers                               Danny L. Mellott
Northrop Grumman IT – TASC                 Northrop Grumman IT – TASC                  Northrop Grumman IT – TASC
Lightning Solutions – West                 Space Operations and Systems Division       Space Operations and Systems Division
1795 Jet Wing Drive Suite 200              1795 Jet Wing Drive Suite 200               1795 Jet Wing Drive Suite 200
Colorado Springs, CO 80916                 Colorado Springs, CO 80916                  Colorado Springs, CO 80916
(719) 622-5205//FAX (719) 638-8296         (719) 622-5240//FAX (719) 638-8296          (719) 622-5191//FAX (719) 638-8296
john.tindle@ngc.com                        joyce.stivers@ngc.com                       danny.mellott@ngc.com

          Prior to the FY06 budget build, the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) relied solely on the Aerospace Integrated
Investment Software (ASIIS - formerly SCOUT) to generate integrated architectures (family-of-systems) during the
Integrated Investment Analysis (IIA) phase of their Integrated Planning Process (IPP). However, no true measure of military
utility was generated. AFSPC initiated an IPP Pathfinder effort to explore new analytical methods, starting with the
Counterspace mission area.
          To support the AFSPC pathfinder analysis, the analytical team created a new ground-breaking analytical process and
suite of tools to develop Military Utility-Based Architectures. This process resulted in the integration of several analytical
tools, including ASIIS, Quick Automated Tool for Optimization (QATO), Hierarchy Analysis Tool (HAT) and Lightning
Campaign Model. Model inputs were standardized and data iterated between the analytical tools to develop architectures that
were feasible, provided the greatest “bang-for-buck”, and maximized military utility.


Development of the Quick Automated Tool for Optimization (QATO) tool suite to support
the Air Force Space Command’s Integrated Planning Process

John R. Tindle                                                   Danny L. Mellott
Northrop Grumman IT – TASC                                       Northrop Grumman IT – TASC
Lightning Solutions – West                                       Space Operations and Systems Division
1795 Jet Wing Drive #200                                         1795 Jet Wing Drive #200
Colorado Springs, CO 80916                                       Colorado Springs, CO 80916
(719) 622-5205                                                   (719) 622-5191
FAX (719) 638-8296                                               FAX (719) 638-8296
john.tindle@ngc.com                                              danny.mellott@ngc.com

         Originally designed as a quick turn-around planning tool to support the Air Force Space Command’s (AFSPC)
Integrated Planning Process (IPP) pathfinder analysis, the Quick Automated Tool for Optimization (QATO) has evolved into
an Excel-based suite of tools capable of performing POM support, Analysis of Alternatives (AoAs), cut drills, and
operational impact analyses. QATO allows the analyst to visually depict, modify, and conduct comparison of roadmaps by
task effectiveness and cost. QATO provides a quick comparison of roadmaps by task effectiveness by year, total roadmap
cost by fiscal year to budget authority, and roadmap cost for different budgets by fiscal year. QATO provides the ability to
modify a given roadmap by turning systems on or off, changing start/IOC/FOC/stop dates or by changing the budget
authority. QATO allows the decision maker to quickly and efficiently assess the impacts of system and budgetary changes.



                                                                                                                          D-27
    Operational Contributions of Space Systems                                                                WG-5
Effects of a GPS Spot Beam in a Jammed Environment

Aaron Wasserman                                                 Jeff Dubois
General Dynamics                                                General Dynamics
5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200, Dayton, OH 45431              5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200, Dayton, OH 45431
(937) 476-2562 // Aaron.Wasserman@gd-aid.com                    (937) 476-2566 // Jeff.Dubois@gd-aid.com

         GPS has become the primary means of navigation for a majority of today’s military. As seen during Operation:
Iraqi Freedom, opposing forces have begun to take advantage of vulnerabilities in GPS through the use of jamming devices.
In order to prevent opposing forces from preventing the use of GPS for navigation, the US military is developing the next
generation of global positioning, GPSIII.
         One of the many benefits of the proposed GPSIII system is increased Signal-in-Space (SIS) power in the form of a
higher based transmit power level, or a steer-able Spot Beam. This analysis was performed in order to determine the
potential benefits to the success of an Air Campaign through the use in increase SIS power.
         Multiple threat variations were examined during this analysis varying the locations, types of, and power levels of
GPS jammers. Additionally, multiple aircraft and weapons were examined to discern any variations in performance due to
changes in equipment and CONOPS. Weapon types included direct-attack and stand-off variations, as well as cruise
missiles. A large array of targets is also placed in the scenario, comprised of many different target types.
         Simulation analysis is conducted using the GPS Interference And Navigation Tool (GIANT). Analysis of the
overall effectiveness of the enhanced GPS signal strength was determined by examining a few metrics. First, the EW
environment is displayed to visually determine the effectiveness of the increased SIS power on the jammed environment.
The spherical error probable (SEP) at weapon hand off and the circular error probable (CEP) at weapon impact are combined
with the lethality data to determine a probability of kill for each target as well as the number of additional weapons needed to
reach a desired probability of kill. A total number of targets killed is also calculated. These results are combined to not only
show the improved performance of the GPS system in a jammed environment, but overall effectiveness of the GPS System
on the entire weapon delivery process can also be realized.
         Results of this analysis will help define requirements for the next generation GPS architecture.




D-28
      Battle Management/Command and Control                                                               WG-6
                     (BMC2)
CHAIR: Michael J. Leite, SAIC
CO-CHAIRS: LTC David Doane, USA, Army Staff (DAMO-SB)
LTC Scott Schutzmeister, USA, Army Staff (DAMO-SB)
Conrad Dungca, SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego (SSC-SD 2822)
Peggy Gravitz, AEgis Technologies
Maj Paul McAree, USAF, OSD/PA&E
ADVISOR: John Furman, MITRE


The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.

Characteristics of Communications in Two Network Centric Command and Control
Organizational Structures
Elliot E. Entin                          Bonnie S. Baker                           Keith Baker
Aptima®, Inc.                            Aptima®, Inc.                             Aptima®, Inc.
12 Gill St., #1400, Woburn, MA 01801     12 Gill St., #1400, Woburn, MA 01801      12 Gill St., #1400, Woburn, MA 01801
781.935.3966// entin@aptima.com          781.935.3966// bbaker@aptima.com          781.935.3966// kbaker@aptima.com

         Inter-team communication is critical to decision making, planning, and maintaining good situational awareness. An
experiment was performed that used the concept of network centric warfare to develop two command and control
organizational structures, one introducing an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance coordinator (ISR-C), a new
command position that would coordinate all theater sensors and maintain situational awareness for the organization and one
without an ISR-C. Inter-team communication patterns were examined within each organizational structure. Overall
communication rate was found to be significantly lower when an ISR-C was present, indicating the ISR-C reduced
communication and team overhead, as expected. Team communication was coded by an experienced observer into nine
categories. Several categories, e.g., action requests and coordination requests, were employed in different amounts when an
ISR-C was present compared to when the ISR-C was not present. The ISR-C apparently influences the pattern of
communication within a team. Analyses correlating team performance and communication categories showed that several
categories (e.g., action transfers, coordination transfers) were positively related to higher performance when an ISR-C was
present, but not when the ISR-C was absent. This may indicate that an ISR-C promotes more mission oriented
communication particularly within the areas of team coordination and decision making.


JWSD-l MARITIME ANALYSIS-SEA SURVEILLANCE
(Analysis of Small Satellites Capabilities Against Multiple Ship-borne WMD Threats in a Maritime
Homeland Defense Scenario)

2nd Lt Kelly Friesen, USAF             Gerald Glomski                            2nd Lt Matt Compton, USAF
Office of Aerospace Studies            Office of Aerospace Studies               Office of Aerospace Studies
AFMC/XRA, 3550 Aberdeen Dr. SE         AFMC/XRC, 3550 Aberdeen Dr. SE            AFMC/XRA, 3550 Aberdeen Dr. SE
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5776            Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5776               Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5776
(505) 846-7996//Fax:(505) 846-5558     (505) 853-1474//Fax: (505) 846-5558       (505) 853-1478//Fax: (505) 846-5558
Email: Kelly.friesen@kirtland.af.mil   Email: Gerald.glomski@kirtland.af.mil     Email: Matthew.compton@kirtland.af.mil

         This analysis, performed by the Office of Aerospace Studies (AFMC OAS) for the Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRLNSES), quantifies this value of a small constellation of launch on demand SBR satellites in a Maritime Ship Detection
Scenario. The analysis was performed using the SLAMEM (Simulation of the Locations & Attack of Mobile Enemy
Missiles) model. SLAMEM is a mission level model that focuses 90% of it's capabilities on information CONOPS.
SLAMEMalso models SMTI at the engineering level and can model multiple sensor platforms, multiple sensor capabilities,
and crosscueing between platforms (to include air-breathers). The value of an SBR is quantified in terms of its ability to
perform an initial ship detection task for a group of 120 ships approaching the US coast from mid-Atlantic Ocean. Success
for the experiment is 100% detection of these ships since anyone or more of the ships could be carrying WMDs. For this
Scenario, detection information is to be passed to the Coast Guard for further investigation.



                                                                                                                    D-29
       Battle Management/Command and Control                                                                  WG-6
                      (BMC2)
MARITIME SCENARIO ANALYSIS
(Analysis of Space Based Radar use in a Maritime Detect and Track Scenario)

2nd Lt Kelly Friesen, USAF               Gerald Glomski                             2nd Lt, Matt Compton, USAF
Office of Aerospace Studies              Office of Aerospace Studies                Office of Aerospace Studies
AFMC/XRA                                 AFMC/XRC                                   AFMC/XRA
3550 Aberdeen Dr. SE                     3550 Aberdeen Dr. SE                       3550 Aberdeen Dr. SE
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5776              Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5776                Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5776
Voice: (505) 846-7996                    Voice: (505) 853-1474                      Voice: (505) 853-1478
DSN 246-7996                             DSN 263-1474                                      DSN 263-1478
Fax: (505) 846-5558                      Fax: (505) 846-5558                        Fax: (505) 846-5558
Email: Kelly.friesen@kirtland.af.mil     Email: Gerald.glomski@kirtland.af.mil      Email: Matthew.compton@kirtland.af.mil

          A low earth orbit Space Based Radar (SBR) satellite could provide SAR and EO/IR imagery and function as a
Surface Moving Target Indicator (SMTI). The addition of an SBR constellation to the current inventory of airborne assets
would be expected to have positive military value. This analysis, performed by the Office of Aerospace Studies (AFMC
OAS) for the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRLNSES), quantifies this value in a Maritime
Detection/Identification/Track Scenario. The analysis was performed with the model SLAMEM (Simulation of the Locations
& Attack of Mobile Enemy Missiles). SLAMEM is a mission level model that focuses 90% of it's capabilities on information
CONOPS. It also models SMTI at the engineering level and can model multiple sensor platforms, multiple sensor
capabilities, and cross-cueing between platforms. The objective of the analysis was to evaluate the SBR's capability to
establish and maintain a continuous track of a single ship from port to delivery point crossing the Atlantic Ocean from South
America to off the coast of Ireland.


Decision Analysis, Distributed Forces and Complex Causality
Jeffrey R. Cares, President                                      Dave Garvey, Vice President
Alidade Incorporated                                             Government Programs
31 Bridge Street                                                 Alidade Incorporated
Newport, RI, 02840                                               31 Bridge Street, Newport, RI, 02840
(401) 367-0040, ext. 123 // www.alidade.net                      (401) 367-0040, ext. 123 // www.alidade.net

         Defense community innovators have proposed concepts that use cutting-edge technologies to solve long standing
military challenges, including destruction of time-critical targets, theater-wide surveillance and power projection and access
to contested littorals. Some of these concepts assume a quantum increase in the ability to make timely command decisions
derived from an unprecedented clarity in battlespace awareness. This presentation discusses the types of systems proposed
by some military futurists and shows how tracing cause and effect will be extremely difficult in these systems. Since they
will be characterized by poor predictability, susceptibility to unintended consequences, and uncertain control, the presentation
suggests that current optimism in existing future concepts is unwarranted. The presentation will propose design principles,
which, if adopted early in development, may mitigate the impact of complex causality in distributed forces



Web-based fire support information system provides near real-time reporting and
combat analysis during Operation Iraqi Freedom II
MAJ Garrett D. Heath, USA
Battalion Executive Officer, HHS / 1-33 FA, 1st Infantry Division,
Unit 27513, Box 618, APO AE 09392 garrett.heath@us.army.mil

        A challenge facing division and lower staffs is the efficient and effective use of information-age technologies
while performing the six basic functions of an operations center. The importance of performing these functions has not
changed over time; however, rapid advances in the conduct of modern warfare require change in the methods and systems
used.
        This presentation provides an overview and demonstration of the 1st Infantry Division Artillery Portal – a Web-

D-30
      Battle Management/Command and Control                                                                        WG-6
                     (BMC2)
based fire support information system. The Portal provides battlefield operating system staffs and units the ability to
submit and access near real-time fire support information and perform dynamic analysis. The Division Artillery Fire
Support Element used the Portal throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom II, and the follow-on units for Operation Iraqi
Freedom III transitioned to the Portal also.
          The 1st Infantry Division Artillery Portal received a 2004 Army Knowledge Award for Transformation Initiative in
Battlefield Applications.

Battle Control Center-Experimental: Analysis of Tactical C2 at the Joint Expeditionary
Force Experiment 2004

Lt. Col. Robin A. Hosch, USAF            Major Matthew R. Webb, USAF                 Major Kevin P. Smith, USAF
Commander, 133d Test Squadron            Ground Systems Branch                       PM, Battle Management Systems
1649 Nelson Ave                          ACC/DOYG                                    ESC/ACMG
Ft. Dodge, IA 50501                      205 Dodd Blvd, Suite 101                    11 Barksdale St, bldg 1614
Com: 515- 574-3246                       Langley AFB, VA 23665-2789                  Hanscom AFB, MA 01731
FAX: 515- 574-3228                       757-764-8380//FAX: 757-764-8460             781- 266-9217//FAX: 781- 271-3366
robin.hosch@iasiou.ang.af.mil            Matthew.webb@langley.af.mil                 Kevin.psmith@hanscom.af.mil

Lt. Danyawn M. Miles, USAF               SMSgt Robert A. Steffes, USAF               Michael W. Garrambone
PM for Battle Control Center             133d Test Squadron                          General Dynamics
ESC/ACMG,                                1649 Nelson Ave                             5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200
11 Barksdale St, bldg 1614               Ft. Dodge, IA 50501                         Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255
Hanscom AFB, MA 01731                    515- 574-3246 FAX: 515-574-3228             937-476-2516 FAX: 937-476-2900
781-266-9217 FAX: 781-271-3366           bob.steffes@iasiou.ang.af.mil               Mike.garrambone@gd-ais.com
Danyawn.Miles@hanscom.af.mil

Michael S. Goodman                       Carl J. “CJ” Jensen                         Jason S. Hamblen
General Dynamics                         Ground Sys Branch, ACC/DOYG                 ESC/ACMG
5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200         205 Dodd Blvd, Suite 101                    11 Barksdale St, bldg 1614
Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255                  Langley AFB, VA 23665-2789                  Hanscom AFB, MA 01731
Com: 937-476-2527                        Com: 757-764-8380, DSN 574                  Com: 781- 266-9083
FAX: 937-476-2900                        FAX: 757-764-8460                           FAX: 781- 266-9470
Mike.goodman@gd-ais.com                  Carl.jensen@langley.af.mil                  Jason.hamblen@hanscom.af.mil

          A major factor in the success of the 1940 Battle of Britain was Air Chief Marshal Dowding’s operations center’s ability to
see the unfolding of the air battle and to conserve limited warfighter resources-using timely information. His use of radar and OR
provided a new form of battle management to control airspace and airborne weapon systems. If you were able to attend the Joint
Expeditionary Force Experiment 2004 (JEFX 04) at Nellis AFB this past summer, you would have observed the full picture of this
endeavor by watching the 133d Test Squadron (formally the 133d Air Control Squadron) match up to a similar battle in live flight,
virtual, and constructive simulation. The 133d TS deployed to Nellis with the mission of serving the Combined Air and Space
Operations Center as the tactical ground element of the Theater Air Control System. The unit took with them three vital items to
make the experiment a unique experience. The first was an array of their own Aerospace Control and Warning System Technicians,
Air Battle Managers, and maintenance personnel along with operators from ten different active duty and guard sister units. The
second was an array of experimental equipment provided by the Battle Control System Program Managers at the Electronic Systems
Center. The third element of this mix was a small slice of assessors from the JEFX 04 Air Combat Command/Air Force
Experimentation Office Assessment Team. Based on the 133d’s mission to support and test new equipment, the unit had been
designated the host unit and the principal developers of the Battle Control Center-Experimental (BCC-X). They came to Nellis (and
Black Mountain) to perform tactical command and control and to shake out their prototype systems while devising new tactics,
techniques and procedures during this “Air War.” While actively engaged every day in combat support, offensive and defensive
missions, these warfighters subjected themselves and their equipment to endless periodic assessments, operator on-position
interviews, over-the shoulder data collection, technical equipment tests, operational evaluations, mission debriefings, and “down-in-
the-dirt” after-action reviews. The experience was exhilarating for the military ops researchers and operations analysts of the
assessment team, but moreover, the information garnered from 21 days of tactical command and control in Nevada was priceless. If
you are interested in Theater Air Defense, battle management and command and control, Theater Missile Defense, Combat
Identification, Air Battle Execution, or Data Link Management, then you want to hear this Ops talk. If you are analytically bent and
enjoy operational discussions, then you too will definitely enjoy this interesting and informative tactical and technical presentation
Network Representation in Army Force-on-Force Models – Reducing the Risk of
                                                                                                                               D-31
       Battle Management/Command and Control                                                                   WG-6
                      (BMC2)
Irrelevance

LTC Jeffery K. Joles, USA               Ms. Pam Blechinger                       LTC Bruce Gorski, USA
Wargaming and Support Directorate       TRADOC Analysis Center                   TRADOC Analysis Center
TRADOC Analysis Center                  Attn: ATRC-F                             ATTN: ATRC-F
Attn: ATRC-FW                           255 Sedgwick Avenue                      255 Sedgwick Avenue
255 Sedgwick Avenue                     Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345           Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345
Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345           913-684-9120/FAX (913) 684-9288         (913) 684-9203
 913-684-9298 FAX 913-684-9288          Pam.blechinger@us.army.mil
Jeff-Joles@us.army.mil

          One of the key elements of the Army transformation is the empowerment of the force through network-centric
operations. The network, as envisioned, will provide the full spectrum of connectivity – from the deployed Soldier to Home
Station operations Centers, National/Strategic Intel Centers and Logistic Support & Sustainment locations – encompassing
Joint, Interagency, and Multi-National (& Coalition) capabilities, and enable the commander to leverage information in the
prosecution of combat operations. Traditionally, the Army has employed force-on-force simulations to help assess the value
of future systems and concepts. Until recently, however, those simulations did little to represent communications processes
and networks. This is changing, but there are still significant obstacles to overcome before we can thoroughly analyze
network effects and how they impact military operations.
          This briefing will review the state of the art with respect to network representation in specific force-on-force combat
models, examine the sensitivity of the models to changes in network data, explore the network data development process, and
discuss potential changes to these processes that will better allow the Army to analyze network related effects in operational
level models.


Information order effects: Invoking Recency in a Long Series of Evidence
LTC Ilean K. Keltz, USA
George Mason University, School of Information Technology
4400 University Drive MS 4A6, Fairfax, Virginia 22030
703-993-3684//FAX 703-993-1521
email: ikeltz@gmu.edu // ako: ilean.keltz@us.army.mil

         Our presentation discusses theories of belief revision and its applicability to military decision-making. Specifically,
generalizations that a long series of evidence will invoke a primacy effect because decision makers become anchored in their
hypothesis and do not heavily weight more recent information. We discuss how information order, coherence, and cognitive
effort impact belief revision when evaluating a long simple series of sequential evidence. By manipulating both evidence
order and coherence in a small experiment using Reserve Officer Training Cadets at George Mason University, we tested this
generalization through order manipulations. Based on the results of our experiment, we concluded that there was not a
decrease in sensitivity towards evidence presented later in series demonstrated by a strong recency effect. Our results
suggest that belief revision models should account for cognitive effort. Our presentation concludes that further study is
warranted to investigate the manipulation of order, length of series, cognitive effort, and coherence.


Convoy Planning Tool for ECM Placement
Matthew Koehler                            Mr. Jonathan Schwartz                      Mr. Lawton Clites
The MITRE Corporation                      The MITRE Corporation                      The MITRE Corporation
W903, Mailstop: H305                       W903, Mailstop: H305                       W903, Mailstop: H305
7515 Colshire Dr., McLean, VA 22102        7515 Colshire Dr., McLean, VA 22102        7515 Colshire Dr., McLean, VA 22102
(703) 883-1214 (voice)                     (703) 883-1214 (voice)                     (703) 883-1214 (voice)
(703) 883-1379 (fax)                       (703) 883-1379 (fax)                       (703) 883-1379 (fax)
mkoehler@mitre.org



D-32
      Battle Management/Command and Control                                                                  WG-6
                     (BMC2)
Major Bruce Paterson, USMC
Major Joseph Monaghan, USMC
MCCDC, 3300 Russell Road, Quantico, VA 22134
703-784-3387 // monaghanjf@mccdc.usmc.mil

          As the Improvised Explosive Device (IED) threat proliferates in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Defense
has increased efforts to field multiple electronic countermeasures (ECM) to help neutralize this problem. Recognizing the
complexity of the problem of employing new technology in a very dynamic environment, the Marine Corps Improvised
Explosive Device Working Group created an easy to use software program to assist planning staffs and convoy commanders
in placing ECMs within a convoy. An initial release of the software is being prepared for deployment to Iraq. The software
allows the user to: visually lay out a convoy, add ECMs of various types, create a “threat environment” from a list of
potential threats found in theater, see a protection assessment for the convoy as a whole and for individual vehicles, make
global changes to convoy such as adjust spacing or cluster trucks around ECMs, add or remove trucks or ECMs, and print out
a report for use in briefings. Feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Development will continue through the Joint IED
Task Force, Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division, and the Marine Corps IED Working Group.


Air Forces Warfighting Headquarters (WFHQs) & Combat Analyst Update
Captain David Koewler, USAF
Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency
1570 Air Force Pentagon, Washington DC, 20330-1570
Phone: (703)-931-1177 // FAX: (703) 696-8738
David.Koewler@pentagon.af.mil

         The Air Force (AF) Warfighting Headquarters (WFHQ) Concept defines how the AF provides command and control
of its forces to support the JFC. Included within the WFHQ is an A-9 to provided Analyses, Assessments, & Lessons
Learned capability to support the Commander of Air Force Forces (COMAFFOR). Analysis positions are also included
within the Air Operations Center (AOC) to conduct Operations Assessment. At the time of this writing, AF Europe has an
A-9, and Pacific AF is likely to have one soon, with other MAJCOMs to follow. This presentation will include an overview
of the WFHQ & the A-9.
         The second portion of the presentation will be about the current deployment opportunities for AF Analysts. Over
the past year we have been filling approximate 6 deployment positions with AF scientific analysts, each 120-day AEF cycle.
These analysts are deploying to Baghdad, Iraq, and the AOC in Al Udeid to provide analysis and assessments of current
operations to find trends and indicators to provide to decision makers to determine and mold future operations. There is also
a position at the AOC at Tyndall AFB, FL, to provide support for homeland defense.


Draft Operations Assessment Construct
Captain David Koewler, USAF
Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency
1570 Air Force Pentagon, Washington DC, 20330-1570
Phone: (703)-931-1177 // FAX: (703) 696-8738
David.Koewler@pentagon.af.mil

         The AF Assessment Task Force (AFATF) was created to answer lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom that
indicated that the current assessment processes did not consistently provide commanders with timely, accurate assessments or
recommendations for future actions. The task force addresses problems with, and solutions to, battle damage assessment,
combat assessment, and operational assessment. The task force’s long-term vision is to instill effects-based approaches
throughout the operational cycle of planning, executing, and assessing force employment.
         The main focus of the presentation is a draft operations assessment construct. The main focus of the construct is the
levels that the Air Force is typically tasked with, the Operational and Tactical levels of assessment. The construct provides
an overview of what types of information should be considered at the operational and tactical levels, as well as possible
sources. .

                                                                                                                       D-33
       Battle Management/Command and Control                                                                  WG-6
                      (BMC2)
APL Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS): Considering                                         Resource Conflict
Resolution in Multi-Warfare Analyses
Joseph G. Kovalchik, Ph.D.
Johns Hopkins University/APL
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD 20723
240-228-6264 // FAX 240-228-5910
Joseph.Kovalchik@jhuapl.edu

         This paper presents the details of the APL Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS) which addresses the
growing interest in the Defense community in the ability to perform multi-warfare analysis – analysis that crosses the
domains of multiple mission areas. Because of the complexity involved, previous efforts to conduct multi-warfare analyses
were conducted on carefully constructed scenarios which artificially lead to stove piped, single mission area analysis These
studies avoided both the effects of competing resources across multi-warfare areas and the dependencies of one warfare area
on another.
         Advances in the speed of computer hardware and in the development of interoperability standards for simulations
have now made it possible to consider performing multi-warfare analysis by federating "best-of-breed" mission-level
simulations into a single interoperable simulation operating across several networked computers. The Johns Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) has developed such a multi-warfare simulation federation, using the High
Level Architecture (HLA) standard developed by the Department of Defense. The federation combines the Extended Air
Defense Simulation (EADSIM), the Naval Simulation System (NSS), (ORBIS), and the APL-developed simulations Surface
AAW Multi-Ship Simulation (SAMS) and the Battle Force Engagement Model (BFEM) into a single federation, the APL
Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS). AIM is being used to simulate a tactical situation associated with multi-
warfare combat in the littorals. A Commander Federate, utilizing an expert system, sets warfare priorities either by time or
event, provides inter-warfare area conflict resolution for asset allocation, motion plans, and weapon and sensor allocation
among warfare area commanders. Using AIMS, analysts will not only have the “best of breed” simulations for analysis of
individual mission areas, but will also be able to examine the effects of one warfare area on another.


Military Utility of Synchronized Persistence of C4, ISR, and Weapons

Gordon G. Latta                            P. Kevin Peppe                              Tom Horrigan
Raytheon Missile Systems                   Raytheon Missile Systems                    Raytheon Missile Systems
Operations Research and                    Precision Engagement Strategic              Operations Research and
System Performance Department              Business Activity                           System Performance Department
1151 E. Hermans Road                       1151 E. Hermans Road                        1151 E. Hermans Road
Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                      Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                       Tucson, AZ 85734-1337
(520) 794-1349//FAX: (520) 794-8625        (520) 794-5919//FAX: (520) 794-1209         (520) 794-2962//FAX: (520) 794-8625
gglatta@raytheon.com                       kevinpeppe@raytheon.com                     tjhorrigan@raytheon.com

         Persistent C4, ISR, and weapons are cornerstones to realization of the future visions of net-centric operations
embodied in the military initiatives of FORCENet (Navy), C2 Constellation (Air Force), and LandWarNet (Army).
Synchronization of these new visionary capabilities is key to successfully maximizing effects on the battlefield. This study
quantifies the war fighter benefits of synchronizing persistence across the effects chain and investigates sensitivities to the
performance levels of the effects chain components. Performance sensitivities examined include C4 responsiveness, ISR
coverage rate and continuous track, and loiter and retargeting for weapons. Trade analyses across these driving performance
parameters refine the CONOPS and define balanced requirements, while identifying priorities for investment that yield the
greatest military utility. The study is conducted in the context of a scenario driven campaign analysis examining metrics such
as targets destroyed, battle time, threats denied, and cost to kill. It focuses on the defeat of short dwell anti-access targets
early in a war fighting campaign to facilitate safe entry of follow-on forces. The analysis approach and results demonstrates
how persistence is the enabler to holds these time sensitive targets at risk.




D-34
      Battle Management/Command and Control                                                                    WG-6
                     (BMC2)
Modeling and Simulation Applications on the Global Information Grid
Michael Leite
SAIC, 1901 N. Beauregard St. (Suite 500), Alexandria, VA 22311-1705
703-824-3416 / 703-998-0667 / michael.leite.ctr@dmso.mil

         The Global Information Grid (GIG) represents the extension of military information technology into the internet
environment. It leverages commercial technology to increase the ability of military organizations to communicate, and
operate in a networked configuration. This paper examines the military requirements and the current technology that will
support the application of modeling and simulation (M&S) in the proposed GIG environment


Army Tactical Communications Network Analysis Using High-Resolution Combat
Models

MAJ Todd Minners, USA
US Army TRADOC Analysis Center, TRAC-WSMR, ATTN: ATRC-WB
Building 1400, Martin Luther King Drive, White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
Phone: COMM: (505) 678-5913 // DSN: 258-5913 // FAX (505) 678-8074 // minnersht@trac.wsmr.army.mil

          TRAC in partnership with other agencies has significantly improved high-resolution communications network
modeling and analysis for the Army’s LANDWARNET and Future Combat Systems (FCS). Prior to the Army’s
transformation toward network-enabled operations, most high-resolution modeling was in the areas of acquisition and effects;
however since then the emphasis has been expanded to include detailed representation of the tactical communications
network and the combat effects of various network configurations and tactical information flows. As a minimum, we must
be able to examine the transport of tactical information in a variety of conditions, terrain, environments, engineering
capabilities and network configurations; account for the effects of messages not being processed or disseminated; assess how
messages influence decisions; and attack various aspects of the network. The result of the increased focus on modeling
tactical communications has been a 5-fold increase in scenario integration requirements, 18-fold increase in run times, 53-
fold increase in output file size, and 22-fold increase in virtual memory required. Progress has been made, but considerable
work remains to properly balance model fidelity and resource requirements. The Combat-XXI Model is designed to
overcome many of the modeling challenges and streamline the future network analysis process, however significant
challenges remain. Army leaders must commit to meet these challenges and commit to building out and achieving a
sustainable network analysis program.


AH-64D Apache Longbow Network Centric Operations in a Coalition Environment
Dr. Samuel H. Parry
The Boeing Company, 5000 E. McDowell (M531-C240), Mesa, AZ 85215-9727
Phone: 480-891-8926 // Fax: 480-891-8383
Email: samuel.parry@boeing.com

          Coalition force operations will continue to be the rule rather than the exception. The AH-64D Apache Longbow
helicopter will conduct attack and reconnaissance operations in support of coalition forces. In the future, coalition task forces
will depend on networked communications to enable synergy of the combat power brought to the force from various coalition
partners. Mission effectiveness analyses were conducted using the Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS) model in
both the constructive and interactive modes. These analyses showed that network enabled coalition forces, supported by the
AH-64D, were more effective than non-network enabled coalition forces. Network enabled forces and the AH-64D were
able to share a Common Operational Picture (COP), allowing the coalition force commander to synchronize the actions of his
forces and take action well inside his opponent’s decision cycle. The commander developed the situation using coalition
sensors and engaged enemy forces with organic and AH-64D precision fires while remaining out of contact. The resulting
effect was to decrease the intensity of the ground fight and increase friendly force survivability. The entire force must share
actionable combat information, to include a shared view of the battlespace, with shared understanding of the situation and
tasks appropriate to the role of their system.

                                                                                                                          D-35
       Battle Management/Command and Control                                                                    WG-6
                      (BMC2)
Dynamic Battle Management
Randy Peterson
Lockheed Martin, 9970 Federal Dr.
MS22A, Colorado Springs, CO 80921
Phone: 719-277-5877
randall.c.peterson@lmco.com

          Lockheed Martin has developed a Dynamic Battle Management System to provide the operational decision maker
with the tools, information and situational awareness to enable interactive command and control from operational to tactical
levels of conflict. This revolutionary new battle management system enables commanders at all levels to react and respond
in real time to the constantly changing battlefield. The Total Integrated Warfare (TIW) initiative combines today’s deployed,
proven systems with experimental technologies to deliver unprecedented capabilities for real-time battle management to the
warfighter. This system has used both real and simulated combat platforms and command centers, and has demonstrated
advanced capabilities for real-time situational awareness, automated mission planning, deconfliction, and dynamic re-tasking
of air, land and maritime platforms, sensors and weapons.
          Built under a Lockheed Martin-funded research and development effort, TIW accelerates the decision cycle by
horizontally integrating today’s battle management systems and adding new, Transformational capabilities. The system
maximizes machine-to-machine interfaces, eliminating gaps, delays and manual hand-offs whenever possible. Through TIW,
operators receive real-time feedback on the status of missions, targets and friendly units, keeping the commander informed of
battlefield events as they occur. The system then optimizes mission planning and execution, instantly mapping out potential
courses of action based on a given situation. Finally, it allows for dynamic re-tasking, enabling the commander to re-assign
tasks and objectives to joint resources based on their status, capabilities and the potential effects that they can generate – all
with a single keystroke.
          Central to TIW are newly-developed systems that enhance the capabilities of currently-deployed. The Mission Battle
Management System (MBMS) and Operational Battle Management System (OBMS) -- new capabilities developed by
Lockheed Martin that automate mission planning and dynamic re-tasking between the Joint Force Commander and the
tactical mission commander. The MBMS system resides on the platform and enables a tactical mission commander to
receive new tasks and objectives, dynamically re-plan his resources to respond to the new tasking, and then disseminate the
new plan to all the members of his package or squad as well as sending that same plan back to commanders at the operational
level. Commanders at the operational level use the OBMS system to generate and manage courses of action across the
multiple tactical groups to keep the battlespace synchronized in real time.
          To prove the validity and mission readiness of TIW, Lockheed Martin conducted live, virtual and constructive tests
of the MBMS and OBMS system, using ground units, maritime systems and live F-16 Falcons as functioning units in several
scenarios. During the highly successful live tests, pilots aboard the aircraft demonstrated automated re-tasking and re-
planning through advanced communications links that connected them with deployed and experimental systems at ground
stations across the country.


Measuring the Effect of Information Warfare on Combat: Methodology and Results

Walter H. Richert
CACI Inc – Federal
1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1300
Arlington, VA 22209
Voice: (703) 558-0280
Fax: (703) 875-2904 // wrichert@caci.com

          Combat communications reliability and efficiency are two critical aspects in the conduct of successful warfare, yet
the most difficult to quantify in any constructive warfare simulation. This study presents the methodology and results of a
communications architecture tradeoff analysis in a campaign level scenario that is stressed by a hostile information warfare
environment. The presented study utilizes the Joint Warfare System (JWARS) model, which will be discussed in the context
of the modeling constructs and techniques that represent communications fidelity and practical battlefield information
warfare tactics. With the introduction of communications systems and techniques that reflect network-centric operations, this
type of analysis is critical to the evaluation and selection of architectures that optimize adaptability, survivability and
battlefield effectiveness.

D-36
      Battle Management/Command and Control                                                                            WG-6
                     (BMC2)
Analysis of UNC/CFC Counterfire Operations

LTC Thomas Slafkosky                                                         Mr. Mark Varney
CFC/USFK CJ35 Plans Operations                                               Group W, Inc.
Analysis Branch (OAB), PSC 303 Box 27, APO AP 96204-0027                     PSC 303 Box 38
Phone: 011-822-7913-8371 // Fax: 011-822-7913-8244                           APO AP 96204-3038 // Phone: 011-822-7913-8371
Email: slafkoskyt@korea.army.mil

          An important aspect of the defense of the Republic of Korea (ROK) is to rapidly defeat North Korea’s Long Range
Artillery operations. Combined Forces Command (CFC), the standing US-ROK combined theater headquarters, conducts joint and
combined strike operations to neutralize this asymmetric capability. The CFC Commander tasked the CJ35 Operations Analysis
Branch (OAB) to conduct an analysis of this highly specialized fight to identify the capabilities and critical vulnerabilities in the
North Korean LRA operations, evaluate CFC’s effectiveness in the counterfire fight. OAB built a customized simulation using
Arena® to study the counterfire fight at the engagement level. The model incorporates North Korean and CFC tactics, techniques
and procedures (TTPs) and provides detailed data on performance factors of interst to the analyst/warfighter.

Implications of Recent Changes in High Power Electromagnetic (HPEM) Threats

Donna Smoot                                               John O’Kuma                          Robert Pfeffer
US Army Test and Evaluation Command, Army                 US Army Test and Evaluation          US Army Nuclear and Chemical
Evaluation Center, 4120 Susquehanna Ave                   Command, Developmental               Agency
APG, MD 21005-3013 // Phone 410-306-0451                  Test Command
Email donna.smoot@us.army.mil

          Terrorist have forced us to rethink the exploitation of high technology weapons as well as weapons of mass destruction.
Identification of the threat capabilities of terrorist forces includes the financial ability to purchase high technology weapons, the
types of high technology weapons expected to be available, and the limitations of non-proliferation agreements. Military,
commercial, and industrial organizations of the United States need to understand the implications of threat changes in the last two
years in terms of protecting their information and equipment. Hardening schemes that address all HPEM threats in a unified way
(rather than individually) will prevent counterproductive hardening and minimize the cost of hardening and sustainment.
        HPEM threats include ultra-wideband, wideband, high power microwave technology as well as electromagnetic pulse from
nuclear weapons. After presenting the overall picture, this presentation focuses primarily on developments in non-nuclear HPEM
threats within the last two years, potentially susceptible technologies, and system responses of military and civilian hardware
(including information from the 2004 Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Commission Report). Lessons learned in test and survivability
evaluation of Army systems against HPEM threats will also be presented.

Cross-Domain C4I Tools, Products, and Processes
Paul W. Works, Jr.
TRADOC Analysis Center, 255 Sedgwick Ave., Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027
(913) 684-9198, FAX (913) 684-9191// paul.works@trac.army.mil

           The US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC); the US Army Test and Evaluation Center (ATEC); the Program
Executive Office for Simulation, Training, & Instrumentation (PEO STRI); and the Program Executive Office for Command, Control, and
Communications Tactical (PEO C3T) are coordinating the implementation of a common set of command, control, communications,
computers, and intelligence (C4I) tools, products, and processes to support the three Army functional domains: Research, Development,
and Acquisition (RDA); Advanced Concepts and Requirements (ACR); and Training, Exercises, and Military Operations (TEMO).
           The pressure of continuing military operations increases the need to streamline existing Army resources. This includes C4I
modeling & simulation (M&S), stimulation, test, and training tools and processes. In many cases, several very similar capabilities exist;
common tool development and use and a streamlining of existing, common processes have the potential to significantly enhance Army
acquisition.
           This briefing describes the numerous, associated efforts that are underway to effect this commonality. It describes the ongoing
efforts to link operational architectures, information exchange requirements (IERs), system architectures, and test and training
mission/message threads from the Army Vision documents to what boxes and messages are required and executed (respectively) within
operational units to accomplish their various missions. It also describes a number of associated scenario generation, simulation, and
stimulation tools that are being coordinated to ensure commonality. Finally, it will describe a number of existing and proposed processes
that seek to enable this sharing of common tools and products.


                                                                                                                                   D-37
     ISR and Intelligence Analysis                                                                        WG-7
CHAIR: Mr. Donald H. Timian, Army Test and Evaluation Command
CO-CHAIRS: LTC Kyle Rogers, Center for Army Analysis
Mr. Clark Capshaw, Army Evaluation Command
ADVISOR: Mr. Pete Shugart, TRADOC Analysis Center

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.

Techniques for Intelligence Analysis of Networks

Mr. David Jarvis                                            Mr. Dave Garvey
Alidade Incorporated                                        Alidade Incorporated
31 Bridge Street                                            31 Bridge Street
Newport, RI 02840                                           Newport, RI 02840
(401) 367-0040                                              (401) 367-0040, ext. 123
Fax: (401) 633-6420                                         Fax: (401) 633-6420
david.jarvis@alidade.net                                    dave.garvey@alidade.net

          Since September 11th, a great deal of effort has been expended on intelligence analysis of terrorist networks. In
general, most of this analysis has been conducted with the standard tools of the intelligence analyst -- reports from
intelligence operations are collected, analyzed and interpreted. This presentation discusses an additional set of tools, the
techniques for network mapping developed by Social Network research. Particular attention is provided to a special class of
social networks, “covert networks,” the type found in secret societies, criminal organizations and underground groups. The
presentation discusses how the mathematical techniques from Social Network research can be applied to the same data
available to traditional analysts yet lay bare important structures that are not easily discerned by traditional methods. The
presentation concludes with practical recommendations for competing against such networks.



Intelligence Fusion Process for the Advanced Warfighting Simulation (AWARS)

Mr. Steven R. Glasgow                                       Mr. Timothy J. Bailey
TRADOC Analysis Center                                      TRADOC Analysis Center
ATTN: ATRC-FM                                               ATTN: ATRC-FM
255 Sedgwick Avenue                                         255 Sedgwick Avenue
Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345                              Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345
(913) 684-9271                                              (913) 684-9225
Fax: (913) 684-9232                                         Fax: (913) 684-9232
steven.glasgow@us.army.mil                                  tim.bailey@us.army.mil

         The AWARS fusion methodology represents a series of processes performed to transform observational data into
more detailed and refined information, knowledge, and understanding. AWARS addresses many portions of the accepted
fusion levels including Level 0 (source processing), Level 1 (entity refinement), Level 2 (situation refinement), Level 4
(process refinement), and Level 5 (user refinement). The focus of this paper is on how AWARS implements portions of
fusion levels 0-2 and 5. AWARS represents a wide range of fusion capabilities. It contains multiple opportunities within a
modeled force structure to examine, fuse, and pass information. This paper describes each of these fusion points including
the algorithm options at each. The following fusion algorithms are described in detail. 1) Source Preprocessing is
implemented at the sensors as an initial processing capability. It performs level 0 fusion and limited level 1 fusion for a
single sensor type within a unit. 2) Multiple Intelligence Fusion is implemented in the unit Common Operating Pictures as
well as the Intelligence processors. It performs level 1 and level 2 fusion across a set of disciplines. By controlling the
disciplines manipulated by a fusion process, a number of processor types are modeled: single intelligence processors,
multiple intelligence processors, and all-source intelligence processors. The AWARS methodology allows for the
incorporation of additional algorithms as developed.




D-38
      ISR and Intelligence Analysis                                                                          WG-7
Modeling the Attributes and Assessing the implications of Ground Moving Target
Indicator (GMTI) radar for future U.S. Army Forces.

Dr. Dan Gonzales                           Dr. Louis Moore                            Mr. Chris Horn
RAND Corporation                           RAND Corporation                           RAND Corporation
1200 South Hayes Street                    1700 Main Street, PO Box 2138              1200 South Hayes Street
Arlington, VA 22202-5050                   Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138                Arlington, VA 22202-5050
703-413-1100 ext. 5281                     310-393-0411 ext. 7578                     703-413-1100 ext. 5193
Fax: 703-413-8111                          Fax: 310-393-6942                          Fax: 703-413-8111
daniel_gonzales@rand.org                   louis_moore@rand.org

         GMTI radar potentially offers new capabilities to Army ground force commanders and for enhancing Army
commander’s understanding of the battlespace in dynamic combat conditions. The performance of GMTI radar depends upon
the capabilities of the radar itself, on the environment in which moving target vehicles operate (terrain conditions, road
networks, and on level of background vehicle traffic), and on the characteristics of the platform that carries the GMTI radar.
In this analysis we examine the quality of information provided by GMTI radar in different battlespace environmental
conditions and in cases where the radar is carried by aircraft or by satellite. New techniques are devised to model GMTI
radar and to measure the quality of the battlespace information produced by such a radar in conjunction with other radar
imaging sensors. The quality of battlespace information is shown to depend upon a number of factors including the ability of
Army commanders to responsively re-task and cross-cue such GMTI radars (that may be carried by multiple joint ISR
collection platforms). If GMTI radars carried by joint ISR assets can be dynamically re-tasked so that high priority targets
can tracked continuously over time then such targets can be successfully engaged by joint deep fires assets.

Operation Iraqi Freedom 04-06: Opportunities to Apply Quantitative Methods to
Intelligence Analysis

MAJ Eric C. Hansen (USA)
Center for Army Analysis, 6001 Goethals Road, Fort Belvoir, VA
(703) 806-5613 // Fax: (703) 806-5725 // eric.hansen@caa.army.mil

          While serving as an Operations Research Analyst with Multi-National Corps – Iraq (MNC-I), the author had the
opportunity to apply quantitative methods and techniques in support of intelligence analysis efforts on multiple occasions.
An ORSA with ten plus years of experience in the Army’s Military Intelligence Corps, MAJ Hansen was able to leverage this
combination of skills to provide a unique capability not found elsewhere within the MNC-I intelligence community. This
paper presents examples of this work including; trends analysis, correlation and causality efforts, and the uses and limitations
of geospatial analysis. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, this paper advocates the formalized development of a
quantitative analytical capability organic to the intelligence analysis elements at the UEx and UEy. Currently the ability to
apply quantitative methods to complex analytical problems and large data sets has not been incorporated into the design of
the intelligence capabilities of these organizations. Individuals with training and/or experience in quantitative analysis who
find themselves in intelligence analysis cells, arrived there due to happenstance rather than by design. In this paper the author
applies his experiences in support of MNC-I, MNF-I, and 1st Calvary Division to provide a way ahead, showing that the
development of such a capability would be greatly beneficial to the Army’s warfighting capability.

Web-based fire support information system provides near real-time reporting and
combat analysis during Operation Iraqi Freedom II

MAJ Garrett D. Heath (USA)
HHS / 1-33 FA, 1st Infantry Division, Unit 27513, Box 618, APO AE 09392
011.49.951.302.9188 (Germany) // Fax: 011.49.951.302.9188 // garrett.heath@us.army.mil

         A challenge facing division and lower staffs is the efficient and effective use of information-age technologies while
performing the six basic functions of an operations center; i.e. receive information, distribute information, analyze
information, recommend, integrate resources, and synchronize resources. The importance of performing these functions has


                                                                                                                          D-39
     ISR and Intelligence Analysis                                                                        WG-7
not changed over time; however, rapid advances in the conduct of modern warfare require change in the methods and systems
used.
          This presentation provides an overview and demonstration of the 1st Infantry Division Artillery Portal – a Web-
based fire support information system. The Portal provides battlefield operating system staffs and units the ability to submit
and access near real-time fire support information and perform dynamic analysis. The Division Artillery Fire Support
Element used the Portal throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom II, and the follow-on units for Operation Iraqi Freedom III
transitioned to the Portal also. The 1st Infantry Division Artillery Portal received a 2004 Army Knowledge Award
for Transformation Initiative in Battlefield Applications.

Synthetic Jammer in Seamless and Interactive Environments: A Study and a
Demonstration

Mr. Paul D. Kelley                        Mr. Richard Jodoin                         Mr. Emanuel M. Tornquist
US Army Test & Evaluation Command         Threat Systems Management Office           Northrop Grumman IT - TASC
Test and Technology Directorate           ATTN: SFAE-STRI-PMITTS-S/Jodoin            600 Boulevard South, Suite 201
4501 Ford Avenue, Suite 790               Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-7461            Huntsville, AL 35802
Alexandria, VA 22302                      (256) 876-8614                             (256) 213-5461
(703) 681-4887//Fax: (703) 681-6914       Fax: (256) 876-0314                        Fax: (256) 883-0212
paul.d.kelley@atec.army.mil               richard.jodoin@us.army.mil                 emanuel.tornquist@ngc.com

         One of the most pressing needs facing the testing of Battle Command (BC), Networks, and Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems in a realistic Electronic Attack (EA) environment. Currently, the Army Test
and Evaluation Command (ATEC) cannot provide and adequate evaluation of the Effectiveness, Suitability, and Survivability
(ESS) of these systems because of:
             •    Range Limitations – Many Department of Defense (DoD) test ranges are adjacent to urban areas that
                  preclude open air RF jamming due to interference or the perception of interference with the civilian
                  community because threat jammers are notorious for emitting “dirty” RF modulation.
             • Federal Restrictions (i.e., safety issues with regards to Global Positioning System (GPS) jamming).
             • Inadequate threat representative EA resources (both in terms of capabilities and numbers).
         Early this calendar year, ATEC and the Threat Systems Management Office (TSMO) began a 6-month study to
integrate ATEC’s existing Open Air and Injection Jammers together with the Modeling and Simulation (M&S) work – both
networks and jamming – done to date by the Army’s Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) Research and
Development Center (RDEC). This paper will briefly describe this effort as well as the Battle Threat Command Center that
TSMO is in the process of creating.

Optimization with Imperfect State Information

MAJ Richard Keith McClung (USA)
USMA, Department of Mathematics
West Point, NY 10996
845-938-3526
keith.mcclung@usma.edu

          One challenge of conducting investigations and supporting decision makers with information is the determination of
the use of analyst time and skills to produce the highest quality response in time to impact the decision. We model this
problem as a resource allocation problem with imperfect state information and apply both old and new operations research
techniques to model the problem. First we propose a functional model of the research process. We focus on responses to
requirements and formulate a linear program to maximize the quality of the responses. To allow for decentralization in
decision-making and an absence of complete visibility of resource constraints, we decompose the formulation using Dantzig-
Wolfe decomposition. To account for uncertainty in the value added by each action and uncertainty in the quality of the
response, we relax the sub-problems of the Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition. We solve the relaxed sub-problems using a
dynamic program with imperfect state information, specifically a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP).
The resulting formulation and algorithm accounts for both decentralized decision making and uncertainty in actions and
outcomes. We test varying organization structures and levels of detail, constraints, and objectives to confirm feasibility,
tractability, and flexibility of the model.

D-40
      ISR and Intelligence Analysis                                                                          WG-7
Adversary Logistics and Transportation Study

Mr. Michael L. McCurdy                                           Ms. Patricia D. Campbell
HQ USPACOM Analysis and Assessment Div.                          Northrop Grumman Corporation
Box 64028                                                        USPACOM JASP Site, Box 64028
Camp H. M. Smith, HI 96861-4028                                  Camp H. M. Smith, HI 96861-4028
(808) 477-6390 ext. 2601                                         (808) 477-6390 ext. 2614
Fax: (808) 477-0245                                              Fax: (808) 477-0245
mike.mccurdy@pacom.mil                                           pcampbell@vic-info.org

Mr. Thomas Hilliard                                              MAJ Noel Pratap, USA
Northrop Grumman Corporation                                     USTRANSCOM/TCJ5-AS
USTRANSCOM JASP Site                                             508 Scott Drive
508 Scott Drive, Scott AFB, IL 62225                             Scott AFB, IL 62225
(618) 229-4109                                                   (618) 229-1491
Fax: (618) 256-6877                                              Fax: (618) 256-6877
thomas.hilliard@hq.transcom.mil                                  noel.pratap@hq.transcom.mil

          This briefing presents emerging results from a USPACOM/USTRANSCOM study to estimate adversary logistics
and transportation capabilities to invade a friendly country. Logistics and transportation requirements were estimated based
on the forces, tactics, and timelines of a postulated invasion scenario, including requirements for combat support/combat
service support forces and sustainment to support combat forces. Infrastructure and transportation assets available to support
these requirements were identified, including those required for garrison-to-port movement. Finally, standard U.S. TPFDD
planning tools were used to develop a “red TPFDD” and simulate its execution. The briefing presents emerging results from
the study as well as lessons learned in application of “blue-centric” logistics and transportation analysis tools to an adversary
logistics and transportation problem.


Contribution of Swarming Architectures to Ground Force Operations

Mr. Paul Alexander Page                                       Mr. Chris Rickard
U.S. Army SMDC Future Warfare Center                          Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
Studies and Analysis Division                                 4901-D Corporate Drive Huntsville, AL 35805-6201
Team Lead, Tactical Analysis                                  (256) 864-8355
P.O. Box 1500, Huntsville, AL 35807-3801                      Fax: (256) 864-8288
(256) 955-1618 // Fax: (256) 955-2250                         rickardc@us-huntsville.mail.saic.com
paul.page@smdc.army.mil

          The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) C4ISR Decision Support Center (DSC) sponsored the execution of a
Swarming Entities Study to examine the potential military utility that unmanned swarming architectures afford the Combined
Task Force and its subordinate units. Swarming is defined as “the useful self-organization of multiple entities through local
interactions”. For this joint study, Swarming applied to multiple entities, domains (air, ground, water, underwater), and
concentrated on Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) missions as well as other functional areas such as
communications and target detection. The study was executed using four Operational Situations (OPSITS), to examine a
broad spectrum of conflict ranging from Urban Operations to large scale Theater Operations. The evaluation of multiple
scenarios made it possible to assess military utility across numerous mission areas to include target tracking / trailing,
surveillance, Battle Damage Assessment, Attack Operations, Suppression of Enemy Air Defense, timeliness, mine detection,
etc. The resultant analysis demonstrated a significant increase in military utility when unmanned swarming operational
architectures were compared to a base case without swarming. The presentation will concentrate on how Swarming Concepts
were instantiated into constructive simulations, findings / insights gleaned from constructive analysis, and an analytical path
forward.




                                                                                                                          D-41
      ISR and Intelligence Analysis                                                                         WG-7
Application of a Model Integration Strategy (MIS) to a Large Intelligence Transformation
program
 Mr. Larry Pulcher                              Mr. Bob Leibfried, Jr.                          Ms. Kristy J. Ryan
 SAIC                                           SAIC                                            SAIC
 7080 Columbia Gateway Drive                    7080 Columbia Gateway Drive                     7080 Columbia Gateway Drive
 Columbia, MD 21046                             Columbia, MD 21046                              Columbia, MD 21046
 (410) 312-2229                                 (410) 312.2047                                  (410) 312-2247
 Fax: (410) 872-1355                            Fax: (410) 872-1355                             Fax: (410) 872-1355
 larry.j.pulcher@saic.com                       robert.l.leibfried@saic.com                     kristy.j.ryan@saic.com
         The Decision Support and Analysis Center (DSAC) was asked to support a billion dollar program intended to
transform capabilities in one element of the intelligence community. Because of the complexity and technological basis of the
program, a series of quantitative models were being developed to support the decision process as the program matured from
early development to full operational capability. The DSAC was asked to provide a Model Integration Strategy (MIS) that
would harmonize model developments and synchronize their predictive capabilities with the scheduled deliverables of the
program. The MIS consisted of over twenty initiatives, to include
         •   A mapping between the models and the decisions they are intended to support
         •   A data taxonomy to classify all required data elements, and the linkage between the inputs and outputs of all
             models
         •   A plan for establishing a common repository of validated data
         •   Issues to be addressed for the design to accurately depict real world operations
         •   A mapping between the developmental phases of the program and which design characteristics will be built into
             each architectural snapshot
         •   A series of process definition statements that identify how key portions of the system are envisioned to work
             and how they will be modeled


Templating the Mortar Threat in OIF

LTC Stephen R. Riese (USA)
U.S. Strategic Command / J82
901 SAC Blvd., Offutt AFB, NE 68113
(402) 294-1658 // DSN: 271
Fax: 402-294-6148 // stephen.riese@us.army.mil

         Mortar attacks from anti-coalition forces (ACF) are a persistent, almost daily, reality in Iraq. In May 2004,
following measurable successes in addressing the IED problem, the U.S. Army called for solutions to the mortar problem.
This work offers a non-materiel approach – an information-centric, systems approach. We use powerful empirical data
methods to uncover previously undetectable patterns in these attacks and in turn use those patterns to provide probability
estimates for the locations of future mortar attacks. The probability estimates provided by the model help coalition forces
direct sensors to more probable attack locations, select patrol routes and sniper positions, and identify potential low-threat
areas for basing considerations. In this way, the solution provided with this information-centric approach seeks to defeat the
ACF attacks before the mortar rounds are launched.
         Information collected by coalition forces in Iraq, detailed geographic databases and both geographic information
system (GIS) and statistical analysis software are used. Drawing on the empirical analysis methodology, and using spatial
measurements collected with the GIS software, we build a forecasting model and test the accuracy and power of that model
with several forecast verification techniques. The output of the modeling process for a given region and period of time is a
probability map that indicates from where and how likely future attacks might originate. Because the problem is not static,
part of the solution is continued data collection in theater and periodic calibrating and updating of the forecasting model.
Specifically, feedback from the field, both on the effectiveness of the forecasts and on better understanding adaptations in the
ACF mortar techniques, is an essential part of this system.




D-42
      ISR and Intelligence Analysis                                                                          WG-7
Forecasting Conflict Escalation with Hidden Markov Models

MAJ Robert Shearer (USA)
Center for Army Analysis
6001 Goethals Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22015
(703) 806-5361 / DSN 656-//Fax: (703) 806/5750
robert.shearer@us.army.mil

         This paper presents proposes research into the escalation of conflict in an enduring rival dyad, utilizing Hidden
Markov models to represent the s through modeling thedyad’s relationship as Bayesian Hidden Markov Models. Hidden
Markov models have an extensive history in a wide variety of pattern classification applications. In these models, an
unobserved finite state Markov chain generates observed symbols whose distribution is conditioned on the current state of the
chain. Training algorithms estimate model parameters based upon known patterns of symbols. Assignment rules classify
unknown patterns according to the posterior probabilities of known models generating the observed symbols. The research
presented here utilized much of the Hidden Markov model methodology, but not for pattern classification, rather to identify
the underlying finite state Markov chain for a symbol realization. Machine coded newswire story leads provided event data
that served as the symbol realization for the Hidden Markov model. Fundamental matrices derived from the Markov chain
led to forecasts that provide insight into the dynamic behavior of the dyad and describe potential futures of the dyad in
probabilistic terms, to include the likelihood of conflict, the path to conflict, the time to conflict, and the time in conflict.



Opportunities and Challenges of Military Police Use of Remote Tactical Sensors and
Advanced Sensor Systems

Mr. William R. Stephens
HQ USARPAC, DCS, G2, Ft. Shafter, HI
(808) 438-0995//Fax: (808) 438-2566//stephenswr@hawaii.army.mil

          Recent conflicts in Somalia, the Balkans, and Southwest and South-central Asia have emphasized the value of
Military Police (MP) assets who are capable of acting decisively, in combination with other forces, upon tactical intelligence.
The use of a number of types of remote sensors providing multi-disciplined intelligence products may present a significant
opportunity to extend and clarify the situational awareness of forces involved in security and force protection operations.
However, the expanded use of remote sensors by MP units also implies a number of challenges to training, staff organization,
planning, information management, Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) system procurement and design, and
battlefield visualization. This presentation will discuss the potential use of each of a number of existing and future remote
sensor types and intelligence disciplines. These sensors include unattended ground sensors (UGS), unmanned ground and
aerial vehicles (UGV and UAV), aerial surveillance and reconnaissance systems, acoustic sensors, and Overwatch sensor and
targeting systems. This presentation is also intended to provoke consideration of the nature of future MP autonomous and
collaborative intelligence operations, training and organization, operational planning, and battlefield visualization.


It’s the People, Stupid: The Role of Personality and Situational Variables in Predicting
Decisionmaker Behavior

Dr. Paul J. Sticha                         Dr. Dennis M. Buede                         Dr. Richard L. Rees
HumRRO                                     Innovative Decisions, Inc.                  260 Springvale Road
66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 400           2139 Golf Course Drive                      Great Falls, VA 22066
Alexandria, VA 22314-1591                  Reston, VA 20191                            (703) 874-3880
(703) 706-5635//Fax: (703) 549-7854        (703) 861-3678//Fax: (703) 860-8639         rlrees@aol.com
psticha@humrro.org                         dbuede@innovativedecisions.com

          This presentation describes an effort to combine personality and situational variables to predict a decisionmaker’s
actions. Bayesian networks combine and graphically array these variables as determinants of various outcomes, and show
explicit levels of (un)certainty of the predictions. Relevant personality variables were identified from sources in the political

                                                                                                                          D-43
      ISR and Intelligence Analysis                                                                            WG-7
and psychological research literature. The probabilistic relationships between these variables were estimated using expert
judgment supported by empirical research results. These relationships were incorporated into the Bayesian network, as were
relationships between the variables and their measures. The network allowed us to represent the validity of a measure, as
well as the correlations between different variables. A set of linking variables was developed to relate personality to
characteristics of behaviors.
         We illustrate the modeling methodology using a model taken from real world events. The model illustrates the
different effects that situational and personality information may have on a prediction as it is updated with new evidence—
the network can accommodate most kinds of data including expert judgment. Personality information may be most useful
when information about the situation is limited. We briefly describe our current research examining the relationship among
personality variables, and the relationship between personality and actions.


Net-Centric Campaign Analysis: A Case Study Using JWARS

Dr. Mark A. Youngren                                          Maj Maureen Borgia (USAF)
The MITRE Corporation                                         JWARS Program Office
7515 Colshire Drive                                           1555 Wilson Blvd., Suite 601
McLean, VA 22102-7508                                         Arlington, VA
Phone: (703) 319-9052 // Fax: (703) 696-9563                  Phone: (703) 697-9490 // Fax: (703) 696-9563
youngren@mitre.org                                            maureen.borgia@osd.mil

Mr. Harvey Graf                                               Ms. Susan Hanson
The MITRE Corporation                                         The MITRE Corporation
7515 Colshire Drive                                           7515 Colshire Drive
McLean, VA 22102-7508                                         McLean, VA 22102-7508
Phone: (703) 697-9490 // Fax: (703) 696-9563                  Phone: (703) 697-9490 // Fax: (703) 696-9563
graf@mitre.org                                                shanson@mitre.org

          At present, "Net-Centric Operations" at the Campaign and Strategic levels is still a concept that will require
significant analysis, development, and testing to produce mature systems, doctrine, and unit TTPs. Although some analysis
has been completed to date using low-resolution models, gaming, and other techniques that combine military experience and
judgment with simple assessment tools, detailed analysis of systems and doctrine that would enable net- centric operations is
still needed. Analysis of effects at the campaign level from the combination of systems, information grids, reach back
operations, and other concepts will require different tools and a different analytic approach than the more traditional studies
accomplished previously. This paper will discuss how analysts might effectively address these issues using a tool that is just
now becoming available for analytic support: the Joint Warfare System, JWARS.
          The Joint Warfare System (JWARS) model is the next generation campaign-level model for joint analysis, under
development by the JWARS program office. The model is C4ISR-centric by design, and has required original research to
develop suitable algorithms for representing correlation, association, and fusion at the aggregated level of representation
appropriate for a campaign-level model.
          In its current configuration, JWARS has greater resolution and flexibility in its C4ISR design than other campaign
models, which will enable it to represent alternative net-centric concepts at a higher fidelity. It is not limited, however, to its
current capabilities - additional capabilities to support specific customers and specific analyses are being designed or are
under consideration for inclusion. DoD has retained central funding for model development through FY05 and then the
model will shift to user-supported development for continued use. The concepts discussed in this paper can he accomplished
using the current JWARS configuration, or might require changes that range from a few man-weeks up to 1 - 2 man-years of
additional work.
          The research supporting these concepts will be implemented in JWARS, and this presentation will discuss the
implementation in JWARS. However, the basic research may be usefully applied to all models with an explicit representation
of an operational perception.




D-44
   Information Operations / Information Warfare                                                                WG-8
CHAIR: Linda L. Weber, MITRE
CO-CHAIRS: Dr. Patrick D. Allen, General Dynamics
Mary A. Horejs, Office of Information Operations
Angela K. Morrell, US Special Operations Command
Richard M. Toney, US Special Operations Command
ADVISOR: Maj Jonathan “Todd” Hamill, AFIT/ENS

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.

Planning Military Deception and Operations Security in IWPC

Dr. Patrick Allen
General Dynamics AIS
12950 Worldgate Drive, Suite 800
Herndon, VA 20170
703-707-2637
pat.allen@gd-ais.com

         Although Military Deception and Operations Security (OPSEC) are two of the five core capabilities or responsibilities of
information operations (IO), little has been done to date in these two areas. According to STRATCOM, only limited military
deception planning or centrally managed OPSEC are actually performed. This presentation describes an extension of the Information
Warfare Planning Capability (IWPC) to support military deception planning and OPSEC planning at the same level (strategic and
operational) as the attack, defense, and influence operations currently being planned in IWPC. This has the advantage of keeping all
IO planners on a common platform using common and compatible data structures. Planning security considerations will also be
discussed.

Analysis of Power Grids

Ms. Geraldine Boudreault                                          Mr. Jerome Raffel
Office of Information Operations                                  Booz Allen Hamilton
Department of Defense                                             134 National Business Parkway
9800 Savage Road Suite 6432                                       Annapolis Junction, MD 20701
Ft Meade, MD 20755-6432                                           (301) 543-4604
(301) 688-2475                                                    (301) 543-4411
FAX (301) 688-2803                                                raffle_jerry@bah.com


         Electric power systems, or grids, are usually extremely large, complex, self-healing, adaptive and critically important
components of a country’s critical infrastructure. As such, it is necessary for both the operation as well as the defense of these systems
to know the states of the variables such as voltages, current flows, power generation and consumption over time, throughout the power
grid. The main problems experienced in a power grid are the same as the ones usually found in an analysis of real-life problems.
Those problems include determining the questions and the level of fidelity necessary to provide useful answers and then getting
sufficient data to support this analysis. This paper addresses lessons learned from the modeling and analysis of real-world power grids
in “uncooperative” areas where the problem of getting sufficient data is exacerbated, as well as a sensitivity analysis of the model’s
results using engineering judgments to fill in the blanks where data was not available from the systems themselves. This paper will
conclude with a brief survey of Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) electric power modeling tools followed by a description of three
geographic areas that have been modeled and a vulnerability analysis performed.




                                                                                                                                   D-45
   Information Operations / Information Warfare                                                                 WG-8
Agile Target Effects Data Management Tool—ATE DMT

John Brand                                                      Kenneth Yagrich
Army Research Lab                                               ARDEC
AMSRL-CI-CT                                                     AMSTA-AR-QAC-S
Bldg 321                                                        Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005                               Voice: DSN 880-2109
Voice: DSN 298-4454                                             email yagrich@pica.army.mil
email jbrand@arl.army.mil


Nasir Jafrey                                                    John Domen
ARDEC                                                           ARDEC
AMSTA-AR-QAC-S                                                  AMSTA-AR-QAC-S
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806                                     Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806
Voice: DSN 880-2273                                             Voice: DSN 880-4782
email jafrey@pica.army.mil                                      email domen@pica.army.mil



          A relational database has been developed that links target effects data for several directed energy technologies against
weapon platform and subsystems in a format usable by materiel developers and by tactical intelligence officers. This database, the
Agile Target Effects Data Management Tool—ATE DMT—includes specific performance data from a variety of sources, focused on
directed energy target effects and phenomena. These include materiel vulnerability to an ensemble of directed energy sources and
optical and other signature data. The data are keyed to platform and the target acquisition and fire control equipment that may be
present on the platform. Data on equipment holdings and platform configuration are also included for many countries. In this way
analysts and materiel developers may estimate target effects from new or notional directed energy systems, using applicable test data,
if available, or test data from similar or related systems. The equipment holdings information for specific countries also allows an
analyst to estimate the importance of either a weapon effect or the gravity of a data void.
          This tool is also useful for intelligence preparation of the battlefield and to allow battle staff to react to unforeseen
circumstances. The organization of the data in terms of nation, type and number of platforms, and subsystem susceptibility will allow
planning on the fly in the event that technologically sophisticated systems, such as the openly marketed Red Chinese ZM-87 laser
blinder, are encountered. “How to fight tips” keyed by platform, target acquisition and fire control systems, and directed energy
technology are included concerning response to environmental conditions and directed energy phenomena. This framework will allow
the intelligence officer of an expeditionary force to make an initial estimate of a force’s capabilities and to react to field reports with
advice for small unit and platform commanders on how to cope with the unexpected appearance of technologically advanced
opponents.
          This tool is embodied in SQL.

SUN-TZU: Proposal for an agent based battle staff planning tool for deception operations

John Brand                                                         Richard Kaste
Army Research Lab                                                  Army Research Lab
AMSRL-CI-CT                                                        AMSRL-CI-CT
Bldg 321                                                           Bldg 321
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005                                  Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005
Voice: DSN 298-4454                                                Voice: DSN 298-7781
email jbrand@arl.army.mil                                          email rck@arl.army.mil


         Deception is based on a deception story which is fed to an enemy. The deception story is as detailed as assets and time
permit, but at some level of detail it must depart from ground truth. This paper outlines a methodology and architecture for a tool that
would aid the battle staff in planning for or detecting deception operations. The tool is an agent based fuzzy logic inference engine.
Agents resident at different levels of command parse the situational awareness picture searching for inconsistencies. Inconsistencies
are detected by evaluating them against a set of templates. The templates are developed based on planners and leaders use of learned
patterns (doctrine) to make decisions. The use of templates to describe patterns of decisions is supported by research in decision
making. Inconsistencies are evaluated through determination of a consistency metric. The agents resident at the various echelons then
D-46
   Information Operations / Information Warfare                                                                 WG-8
communicate to attempt to resolve the inconsistencies. If the inconsistencies persist after the agents “confer” the “senior” agent will
then alert the battle staff and suggest additional measures to clarify the situational awareness picture and resolve the inconsistencies.
The use of patterns is highly reminiscent of the work of the great military theorist Sun-Tzu, whose seminal work on war lends itself to
a rule-based approach.
         SUN-TZU is designed to find inconsistencies in the situational awareness database, but the inconsistencies may be due to
misidentification of entities, false identifications of non-existent entities, as well as the naturally incomplete picture represented by a
deception story in a deception operation. It may thus have many uses besides as a deception analysis and detection tool. It may also
serve as a deception planning tool to allow friendly planners to plan and implement the US deception story by looking at the estimated
enemy situation awareness picture and tailoring the deception story for consistency. A simplified version of a consistency metric
inference engine could be built now.

Modeling and Analysis of Clandestine Networks

Capt Clinton R. Clark                          Dr. Richard F. Deckro                     Maj Jeffery Weir
(Formerly: AFIT/ENS)                           Air Force Institute of Technology         AFIT/ENS
Langley, AFB                                   Department of Operational Sciences        Air Force Institute of Technology
(937) 684-2330                                 AFIT/ENS, Building 641                    Department of Operational Sciences
clinton.clark@langley.af.mil                   2950 Hobson Way                           AFIT/ENS, Building 641
                                               Wright Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765        2950 Hobson Way
                                               richard.deckro@afit.edu                   Wright Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765
                                                                                         jeffery.weir@afit.edu

         Since Sept. 11, 2001, there has been great interest in the military and intelligence community in using Social Network
Analysis (SNA) to support the disruption and destruction of global terrorist networks. SNA results, however, are limited due to the
lack of advantageous properties of the relationship measures applied to the arcs in a social network. Further SNA techniques
generally focus on a single network context while real relationships are based in multiple contexts. This study develops a new proxy
measure of pair-wise potential influence between members of a network, a Social Influence Network (SIN). The SIN considers the
topology of the multiple formal and informal networks to which group members belong as well as non-network characteristics such as
age and education level that may indicate potential influence. The SIN, once constructed results in a matrix of pair-wise potential
influence between group members. The SIN is appropriate for SNA, Operations Research Network Flow models, and a number of
other analysis techniques. In addition to the overall measure of influence, this technique produces of a variety of useful intermediate
outputs.

Gains, Losses, and Thresholds of Influence Within a Social Network: A Modeling Approach

Maj Jonathan “Todd” Hamill                              Dr. Richard F. Deckro
Air Force Institute of Technology                       Air Force Institute of Technology
Department of Operational Sciences                      Department of Operational Sciences, AFIT/ENS
AFIT/ENS, Building 641, 2950 Hobson Way,                Building 641, 2950 Hobson Way,
Wright Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765                      Wright Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765
Jonathan.Hamill@afit.edu                                richard.deckro@afit.edu


Maj Robert S. Renfro, II, PhD                           Maj Victor Wiley, PhD
(currently in transit, contact info not available)      Air Force Institute of Technology, Department of Operational Sci.
                                                        AFIT/ENS, Building 641, 2950 Hobson Way,
                                                        Wright Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765
                                                        Victor.wiley@afit.edu


          Some individuals in a social network can be more or less influential than others. A brief summary of social sciences
literature is provided, elaborating upon the mapping of the social network modeling theory to operations research network modeling
theory. The primary focus of this paper is in developing an understanding of entity-specific influence within such networks. In
particular, the phenomena of influence gains, losses and thresholds are explored. Demonstration of each of these effects is shown
throughout the course of this article, culminating in a notional case study and future recommendations.


                                                                                                                                    D-47
   Information Operations / Information Warfare                                                                WG-8
Defensive Information Operations Risk Assessment Modeling and Analysis (DIORAMA)

Ms. Mary Aurelia Horejs                      Dr. Christopher E. Degni                   Mr. Michael S. King
Office of Information Operations             SAIC                                       SAIC
Department of Defense                        7100 Columbia Gateway Drive                7100 Columbia Gateway Drive
9800 Savage Road Suite 6432                  Columbia, MD 21046                         Columbia, MD 21046
Ft Meade, MD 20755-6432                      (301) 688-2479                             (301) 688-2479
(240) 373-1785//FAX (240) 373-1788           FAX (301) 688-2803                         FAX (301) 688-2803
mahorej@nsa.gov                              decgnic@saic.com                           kingmicha@saic.com


           The range of threats facing the information systems of the United States is large and growing rapidly. We are faced with
massive amounts of data that must be analyzed to produce an overall representation of the threats facing the country (or a given
facility, technology, etc.) at any given time. The purpose of this presentation is to share one possibility for an overall risk assessment
framework, called Defensive Information Operations Risk Assessment and Modeling (DIORAMA), and to solicit suggestions for
improvements or additions to this framework. The top level of the framework involves matching threats and vulnerabilities, and only
considers those threat-vulnerability pairings that produce a significant impact. Standard modeling techniques such as attack trees,
Bayes nets, causal link analysis, and trend analysis can be used to determine and quantify threats, vulnerabilities and impact,
producing an overall risk assessment. In addition, the results of the risk assessment can be used in a cost benefit analysis to determine
the optimal method of mitigating risk when faced with limited resources.

The Requirements Prioritization System (REPS): A Decision Support Application Used to
Prioritize Computer Network Operations (CNO) Requirements

Ms. Mary Aurelia Horejs                      Mr. Chad S. Quill                          Dr. Christopher E. Degni
Office of Information Operations             SAIC                                       SAIC
Department of Defense                        7100 Columbia Gateway Drive                7100 Columbia Gateway Drive
9800 Savage Road Suite 6432                  Columbia, MD 21046                         Columbia, MD 21046
Ft Meade, MD 20755-6432                      (301) 688-2479                             (301) 688-2479
(240) 373-1785//FAX (240) 373-1788           FAX (301) 688-2803                         FAX (301) 688-2803
mahorej@nsa.gov                              quillc@saic.com                            decgnic@saic.com

         The National Security Agency’s Office of Information Operations supporting United States Strategic Command’s
(USSTRATCOM’s) Computer Network Operations (CNO) requirements planning process through the development and
implementation of the Requirements Prioritization System – Extended Tool (REPS-ET). REPS-ET is a web-enabled, platform
independent decision support application utilizing multi-criteria decision analysis techniques to develop a quantitative, tractable
method of prioritizing requirements. REPS-ET allows USSTRATCOM to manage the processes associated with CNO requirements
capture, validation, revision, prioritization, resource allocation, and historical tracking.
         The presentation will consist of the following three components: 1) discussion of the decision analysis techniques and
mathematical algorithms used in REPS 2.3 (the predecessor to REPS-ET which also supported the development of the 2004
USSTRATCOM CNO Requirements Integrated Priority List), 2) live demonstration of an unclassified version of the REPS 2.3
application, and 3) discussion of enhancements included in the REP-ET application currently in development.

Effects Matrix for Computer Network Operations (CNO) Planning

Mr. Edward Kraska                            Mr. Michael S. King                        Mr. Chad S. Quill
Office of Information Operations             SAIC                                       SAIC
Department of Defense                        7100 Columbia Gateway Drive                7100 Columbia Gateway Drive
9800 Savage Road Suite 6432                  Columbia, MD 21046                         Columbia, MD 21046
Ft Meade, MD 20755-6432                      (301) 688-2479//FAX (301) 688-2803         (301) 688-2479//FAX (301) 688-2803
(301) 688-2475//FAX (301) 688-2803           kingmicha@saic.com                         quillc@saic.com


        The Effects Matrix provides a framework to view the seven significant elements that comprise the Computer Network
Operations (CNO) environment: Objectives, Effects, Capabilities, Tools, Accesses, Vulnerabilities, and Platform/Technology. For
example, telecommunications technology will exhibit vulnerabilities that we want to access by building tools that have capabilities
D-48
   Information Operations / Information Warfare                                                               WG-8
that produce certain effects to satisfy the Combatant Commander’s (CC’s) objectives. From the decision maker’s perspective (i.e. in
effects-based planning) the same seven elements are relevant to the decision, but in the reverse order. In other words, “to satisfy
specific CC objectives, we must produce certain effects on the system. To produce these effects, we need various capabilities which
are derived from the tools we apply through accesses that exploit vulnerabilities and technology.” This framework of chained
dependencies allows us to view the CNO environment from the perspective of both the physical world and the decision maker’s point
of view. We will present the Effects Matrix methodology and describe sample applications.

New Applications for the Damage Expectancy (DE) Framework

Mr. Edward Kraska                           Mr. Michael S. King                         Dr. Christopher E. Degni
Office of Information Operations            SAIC                                        SAIC
Department of Defense                       7100 Columbia Gateway Drive                 7100 Columbia Gateway Drive
9800 Savage Road Suite 6432                 Columbia, MD 21046                          Columbia, MD 21046
Ft Meade, MD 20755-6432                     (301) 688-2479                              (301) 688-2479
(301) 688-2475                              FAX (301) 688-2803                          FAX (301) 688-2803
FAX (301) 688-2803                          kingmicha@saic.com                          decgnic@saic.com


         The defense community uses the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manual (JMEM) to evaluate effects by kinetic means. The
Information Operations (IO) community had adopted the Damage Expectancy (DE) methodology as a non-kinetic JMEM-like
framework for evaluating effects. In their 2004 MORS presentation titled “Probability Distribution Function for Damage Expectancy,”
Dr. Mark Gallager (United States Strategic Command, USSTRATCOM) and Mr. Philip Whiteman (Booz Allen Hamilton) define DE
as “the probability of damaging a target to a specified criterion.” The purpose of this presentation is to describe several potential
additions to the DE framework, allowing it to be used in a wider range of non-kinetic scenarios. Specifically, we propose the
following additions:
     1. Employ fault trees to evaluate the DE for a network of target entities as opposed to a single target entity.
     2. Incorporate statistical blocks into the Measures and Reliability Evaluator (MAR-E) for predicting the degradation of the
         target network entities.
     3. Use multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) in conjunction with a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) to estimate the DE for
         systems for which we have limited knowledge.
     We will discuss the methodologies used to provide these three capabilities as well as demonstrate sample scenarios where these
methodologies would be applicable.

An Analysis of Degraded Communications in The Army’s Future Force

CPT Joseph M. Lindquist
USMA
Department of Mathematics
West Point, NY 10996
845-938-4252
aj0558@usma.edu


          The US Department of Defense (DoD) is currently pursuing the most comprehensive transformation of its forces since the
early years of WWII. This transformation is a holistic approach to update both the equipment that the forces will fight its conflicts
with and the way in which they will fight. This transformation relies heavily on fully networked air, ground and space based
platforms. While many experts agree that in the course of the next 10 years communications equipment will emerge to support the
networking of these systems, there remains much uncertainty on how operations will be effected if the technology does not mature
enough to meet expectations. This research shows that even a 25 percent degradation in communications range could pose significant
challenges for this Future Force. Additionally, even small delays (latencies greater than one minute) and constraints on network
throughput can increase the Future Force casualties and the duration of battle.
          While the end result in all analysis shows that the FCS is a superior force with the same battle end state—victory, the cost of
that victory depends, at least in part, on effective communications.




                                                                                                                                  D-49
   Information Operations / Information Warfare                                                             WG-8
Modeling, Simulation, and Vulnerability Analysis of Electric Power Systems

Ms. Mary D. Marshall                                          Dr. Kevin D. Wedeward
Office of Information Operations                              Institute for Complex Additive Systems Analysis
Department of Defense                                         New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
9800 Savage Road Suite 6329                                   801 Leroy Place
Ft Meade, MD 20755-6329                                       Socorro, NM 87801
(240) 373-1768                                                (505) 835-5708
FAX (240) 373-1788                                            FAX (505) 835-5332
schanken@nsa.gov                                              wedeward@nmt.edu

Steven Ball                                                   Darryl Ackley
Science Applications International Corporation                Institute for Complex Additive Systems Analysis
7125 Columbia Gateway Drive                                   New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Columbia, MD 21046                                            801 Leroy Place
(505) 835-5980                                                Socorro, NM 87801
FAX (505) 835-5980                                            (505) 835-5916
Steven.C.Ball@saic.com                                        FAX (505) 835-5980
                                                              dackley@icasa.nmt.edu

          Electric power systems of interest to national security are large-scale, nonlinear, interdependent dynamic systems comprised
of heterogeneous components. This brief will describe new developments in the Complex Additive Systems Analysis (CASA)
approach to modeling, simulation and vulnerability analysis of these electric power systems. CASA’s unique approach to modeling
these systems captures their fundamental dynamic and decision-making processes while maintaining modest data requirements for
realistic collection expectations, scalability for application to real-world systems, and tractability for efficient simulation and
mathematical analysis. This analysis includes identification of system interdependencies using control and system theoretic
approaches that provide a means to perform vulnerability assessments, construct exploitation/mitigation approaches, and predict time-
series responses. Results provide the decision-maker with quantitative vulnerability conclusions and a simulation to visualize key
information.

Visualization Techniques for Dynamic Simulations of Electric Power Systems

Ms. Mary D. Marshall                                          Dr. Kevin D. Wedeward
Office of Information Operations                              Institute for Complex Additive Systems Analysis
Department of Defense                                         New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
9800 Savage Road Suite 6329                                   801 Leroy Place
Ft Meade, MD 20755-6329                                       Socorro, NM 87801
(240) 373-1768//FAX (240) 373-1788                            (505) 835-5708//FAX (505) 835-5332
schanken@nsa.gov                                              wedeward@nmt.edu

Steven Ball                                                   Darryl Ackley
Science Applications International Corporation                Institute for Complex Additive Systems Analysis
7125 Columbia Gateway Drive                                   New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Columbia, MD 21046                                            801 Leroy Place
(505) 835-5980//FAX (505) 835-5980                            Socorro, NM 87801
Steven.C.Ball@saic.com                                        (505) 835-5916//FAX (505) 835-5980
                                                              dackley@icasa.nmt.edu


         This brief will introduce visualization techniques for dynamic simulations of electric power systems in support of
Information Operations/Information Warfare. Computer simulation of large-scale power systems generates a significant amount of
time-series data that includes continuous signals (e.g., voltages, powers, and internal generator and load states) as well as discrete
events (e.g., breakers, load sheds, and generator saturation). The purpose of the visualization methods presented is to convey key
information from this large amount of data to a decision maker in an intuitive manner. Attributes of the visualization approaches
include geospatial representation of power system topology and components and innovative methods of viewing the state of the grid to
include dynamic presentation of simulation model results.

D-50
   Information Operations / Information Warfare                                                                 WG-8
Measuring the Effect of Information Warfare on Combat: Methodology and Results

Mr. Walter H. Richert
CACI Inc – Federal
1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1300
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 558-0280
Fax: (703) 875-2904
wrichert@caci.com

          Combat communications reliability and efficiency are two critical aspects in the conduct of successful warfare, yet the most
difficult to quantify in any constructive warfare simulation. This study presents the methodology and results of a communications
architecture tradeoff analysis in a campaign level scenario that is stressed by a hostile information warfare environment. The
presented study utilizes the Joint Warfare System (JWARS) model, which will be discussed in the context of the modeling constructs
and techniques that represent communications fidelity and practical battlefield information warfare tactics. With the introduction of
communications systems and techniques that reflect network-centric operations, this type of analysis is critical to the evaluation and
selection of architectures that optimize adaptability, survivability and battlefield effectiveness.



Critical Considerations in IO Vulnerability Assessment and Metrics Development

Dr. Michael Senglaub, PhD
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800 MS 0785
Albuquerque, NM 87185
505-844-9244
FAX: 505-284-5104
mesengl@sandia.gov

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING


Implications of Recent Changes in High Power Electromagnetic (HPEM) Threats

Ms. Donna Smoot                              John O’Kuma                                 Robert Pfeffer
US Army Evaluation Center                    US Army Test & Evaluation Command           US Army Nuclear & Chemical Agency
4120 Susquehanna Ave.                        Developmental Test Command
APG, MD 21005-3013
410-306-0451
donna.smoot@us.army.mil


         Terrorist have forced us to rethink the exploitation of high technology weapons as well as weapons of mass destruction.
Identification of the threat capabilities of terrorist forces includes the financial ability to purchase high technology weapons, the types
of high technology weapons expected to be available, and the limitations of non-proliferation agreements. Military, commercial, and
industrial organizations of the United States need to understand the implications of threat changes in the last two years in terms of
protecting their information and equipment. Hardening schemes that address all HPEM threats in a unified way (rather than
individually) will prevent counterproductive hardening and minimize the cost of hardening and sustainment.
         HPEM threats include ultra-wideband, wideband, high power microwave technology as well as electromagnetic pulse from
nuclear weapons. After presenting the overall picture, this presentation focuses primarily on developments in non-nuclear HPEM
threats within the last two years, potentially susceptible technologies, and system responses of military and civilian hardware
(including information from the 2004 Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Commission Report). Lessons learned in test and survivability
evaluation of Army systems against HPEM threats will also be presented.



                                                                                                                                    D-51
   Information Operations / Information Warfare                                                             WG-8
A Risk Assessment Methodology for OPSEC Analysis

Dr. Philip S. (“Bud”) Whiteman
USSTRATCOM/J88(O)
901 SAC Blvd., Offutt AFB, NE 68113
402-294-6340//Fax: 402-232-6641
whitemab@stratcom.mil

         There has been much effort given to study and development of Operations Security (OPSEC) methods and practices to better
assure the integrity of sensitive but unclassified information. While some OPSEC “countermeasures” appear to have shown some
degree of success, rigorous measurement and analysis of such measures has not generally been conducted. As a result, it is not always
clear whether the OPSEC benefit of employed countermeasures are consistent with the degree of threat to the mission or whether the
benefits outweigh the loss of efficiency and effectiveness that may accompany their implementation. An OPSEC Working Group was
recently established as part of the Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME) Information
Operations (IO) initiative. This group is charged to establish quantitative measures to support rigorous analysis of OPSEC practices.
The Mission Risk Assessment Tool (MRAT) is a notional application that is intended to guide OPSEC planners and practitioners
through a quantitative analytical process. The general concept of MRAT is to employ standard risk assessment techniques to the
existing OPSEC planning process. The result would be a logical application of OPSEC countermeasures, consistent with, and targeted
toward assessed threat axis. Additionally, it would provide a structured consideration of the benefits in mission risk reduction versus
the potential costs in resources and mission schedule. This briefing will walk through the proposed risk assessment analysis
methodology and illustrate how an application like MRAT might be implemented.

A Tool for CNA COA Selection and Mission Analysis

Dr. Philip S. (“Bud”) Whiteman
USSTRATCOM/J88(O)
901 SAC Blvd., Offutt AFB, NE 68113
402-294-6340 // Fax: 402-232-6641
whitemab@stratcom.mil

         The Effects and Response Analysis Module (ERAM) is a prototype software application for determining the effectiveness of
a CNA mission. The effectiveness measure used by ERAM is the probability of achieving a predetermined effect with a specific CNA
means, in a known environment. This measure is roughly a counterpart to the traditional kinetic measure of Damage Expectancy (DE)
with an effects-based paradigm. This CND DE methodology has been vetted through the methodology subgroup of the CNA JMEM
Working Group sanctioned by the Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME). ERAM was
originally developed to prove the concept of employing the CNA DE methodology in a drag-and-drop user interface with integrated
database access. The initial ERAM interface was adequate for use by an analyst with a background in operations research, CNA
methods, and engineering operations. However, as a demonstration for an ACTD, it is desired to show how the application might be
used by a CNA planner. The CNA planner is presumed to have knowledge of CNA methods, but limited background in operations
research and engineering operations. The essential concept of ERAM Development Phase III (EDP3) is to build “front-end” user
queries to ascertain the essential nature of the CNA. This information will then be compared to standardized and historical case files
to construct and populate generalized RBDs and ESDs for the DE model. This provides a baseline assessment that can be used for
initial COA evaluation. Additionally, the EDP3 interface includes calculator and database query shortcuts to augment and refine the
DE assessment for final mission analysis.

ALTERNATE: Information Age Warfare: Issues and Challenges

Mr. David Garvey
Alidade Incorporated, Government Programs
31 Bridge Street, Newport, RI 02840
(401) 367-0040 ext 123// dave.garvey@alidade.net


    APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING


D-52
  Electronic Warfare and Countermeasures                                                                          WG-9
CHAIR: Daniel R. McGauley THAAD Project Office
CO-CHAIR: Ken Raab, CAA

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


A Game Theoretic Analysis Of Electronic Warfare Tactics with Applications to the World
War II Era
David M. Blum
Joint Warfare Analysis Center
540-653-5765
dblum@jwac.mil

          This paper analyzes historical examples of tactics used to conduct electronic warfare as game-theoretic "strategies"
employed by an "attacker" whose object is to create uncertainty for the "defender." I model the use of these tactics as
dynamic zero-sum signaling games with incomplete information, and argue that tactics which incorporate the judicious use of
bluffing serve to increase the defender's uncertainty. Two forms of bluffing are examined using case studies from World War
II: bluffing to create uncertainty as to the location of an attack (bluffing in space); and bluffing to create uncertainty regarding
the time of attack (bluffing in time). Working through the case studies yields Perfect Bayesian Nash Equilibria, which dictate
that the defender’s delay in cuing his interceptors is longer than it would be absent the electronic warfare tactics.
Furthermore, except where the cost of bluffing is prohibitive, the solutions show that the attacker always benefits from the
use of tactics that incorporate bluffing, and that bluffing in space is generally more effective than bluffing in time for a given
set of detection probabilities. I conclude by applying the results to modern examples of electronic and information warfare
tactics.


Testing of Roadside Bomb Jammers
John D. Currey
Us Army Yuma Proving Ground
CSTE-DTC-YP-YT-DS-D (John Curry, X6176)
301 C Street
Yuma Az 85365-9498
Office: 928-328-6176
Fax: 928-328-5858
John.D.Curry@Us.Army.Mil

          Roadside bombs are taking their toil on American soldiers. These bombs are often remotely detonated by the
insurgency using off-the-shelf consumer radio-frequency electronics. One defense against these remotely detonated roadside
bombs is for military convoy vehicles to possess specialized jamming equipment which interferes with the ability of the
bomb to receive the detonation signal and therefore allowing the vehicles to safely pass by the bomb. This presentation is
concerned with describing an operational test of different jammers in an environment that is designed to duplicate as nearly
as is reasonably possible that of the current area of operation. Actual jammer test results will not be presented though
contrived results will be shown to illustrate the measurements; the focus of the presentation is not to compare the
effectiveness of the different jammers but rather to detail the design methodology of the operational test itself and discuss
issues related to that design.




                                                                                                                             D-53
  Electronic Warfare and Countermeasures                                                                    WG-9
Air Force Standard Analysis Toolkit for EW and Countermeasures
Sharon Nichols                                                 Ed Crowder
AFSAA/SAAT                                                     AFSAA/SAAT Contractor
1570 Air Force Pentagon                                        1570 Air Force Pentagon
Washington D.C. 20330-1570                                     Washington D.C. 20330-1570
703-588-6950                                                   703-696-0135
FAX 703-588-8776                                               FAX 703-588-8776
Sharon.Nichols@pentagon.af.mil                                 George.Crowder.ctr@pentagon.af.mil

           The AF Standard Analysis Toolkit (AFSAT) is an Air Force-approved set of government-sponsored computer
models and simulations (M&S) that are used to support analysis ranging from capability requirements, concepts of operation,
and warfighting strategy to weapon system acquisition and test. This talk will explain what Engagement level M&S are
included in the AFSAT that relate very directly to system level survivability. Furthermore, it will discuss the relationship
between the AFSAT and the DOT&E sponsored Survivability/Vulnerability Information Analysis Center (SURVIAC) library
models. Lastly, it will show how the insights gained from the system-on-system modeling can flow into investigations of
tactics, techniques, and procedures at mission and theater levels.


A Test-Based Approach to EM Protection

Robert Pfeffer
7150 Heller Loop Ste 101
Springfield, VA 22150-3164
703-806-7862; DSN 656-7862 // 703-806-7900 fax
pfeffer@usanca-smtp.army.mil
robert.pfeffer@us.army.mil

         In this presentation, a unified protection methodology is applied to a typical mobile C4I platform subjected to
several human-generated and nature-generated EM environments and effects, including self-induced electromagnetic
interference (EMI), electrostatic discharge (ESD), near-strike lightning, and HEMP characteristics stated in both MIL-Std-
464 and several commercial standards. The EM protection requirements were estimated to be 770 dB shield integrity for
frequencies between 100 MHz, and 80 dB penetration protection on the phone line port for frequencies dependent upon the
length of the phone line used. This strategy to EM protection is both useful and cost effective, since validation testing and
maintenance/surveillance testing often reduce to simple, low-cost shield and penetration protection tests that can be
conducted anywhere, even with the system operating. The application of this protection approach in the original system
circuit design also reduces the number of breadboard and brassboard tests. In addition, such protection allows component
replacement within the shield, once the new component immunity level has been measured.


An Affordable Electronic Support Measures (ESM) System To Provide Crews With Real-
Time Threat Situation Awareness
Tuyen V. Tran                                                William G. Schalik, Jr.
Software Engineer                                            Program Manager, LR-100 Products
Northrop Grumman Corporation                                 Northrop Grumman Corporation
880 Elkridge Landing Rd.                                     Airport Plaza
Mail Stop S-411                                              Mail Stop 1618
Linthicum, MD 21090                                          Linthicum, MD 21090
(410) 993-2943                                               (410) 993-5767
tuyen.tran@ngc.com                                           bill.schalik@ngc.com


          APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

D-54
  Electronic Warfare and Countermeasures                                                                      WG-9
Testing Finite Populations
Lt Col Peter Vanden Bosch
Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency
1777 N Kent St
Rosslyn, VA 22209
(703)588-8666 (DSN 425)
(703)696-8738 (DSN 426)
peter.vandenbosch@pentagon.af.mil


         Analysts are frequently called on to make confidence interval and significance judgments about a finite population
on the basis of a sample. An example might involve selecting a small set of jammers from a wing, testing their effectiveness,
and making some statement about the expected overall effectiveness in the wing. When the population is large enough, one
can use normal or binomial approximations to the actual distribution, which is hypergeometric. This talk addresses when
those approximations are valid and how to proceed when they are not


Effects of a GPS Spot Beam in a Jammed Environment
Aaron Wasserman                                                Jeff Dubois
General Dynamics                                               General Dynamics
5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200                               5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200
Dayton, Ohio 45431                                             Dayton, OH 45431
937-476-2566                                                   (937) 476-2566
aaron.wasserman@gd-aid.com                                     Jeff.Dubois@gd-aid.com


         GPS has become the primary means of navigation for a majority of today’s military. As seen during Operation:
Iraqi Freedom, opposing forces have begun to take advantage of vulnerabilities in GPS through the use of jamming devices.
In order to prevent opposing forces from preventing the use of GPS for navigation, the US military is developing the next
generation of global positioning, GPSIII. One of the many benefits of the proposed GPSIII system is increased Signal-in-
Space (SIS) power in the form of a higher based transmit power level, or a steer-able Spot Beam. This analysis was
performed in order to determine the potential benefits to the success of an Air Campaign through the use in increase SIS
power. Multiple threat variations were examined during this analysis varying the locations, types of, and power levels of
GPS jammers. Additionally, multiple aircraft and weapons were examined to discern any variations in performance due to
changes in equipment and CONOPS. Weapon types included direct-attack and stand-off variations, as well as cruise
missiles. A large array of targets is also placed in the scenario, comprised of many different target types. Simulation analysis
is conducted using the GPS Interference And Navigation Tool (GIANT). Analysis of the overall effectiveness of the
enhanced GPS signal strength was determined by examining a few metrics. First, the EW environment is displayed to
visually determine the effectiveness of the increased SIS power on the jammed environment. The spherical error probable
(SEP) at weapon hand off and the circular error probable (CEP) at weapon impact are combined with the lethality data to
determine a probability of kill for each target as well as the number of additional weapons needed to reach a desired
probability of kill. A total number of targets killed is also calculated. These results are combined to not only show the
improved performance of the GPS system in a jammed environment, but overall effectiveness of the GPS System on the
entire weapon delivery process can also be realized. Results of this analysis will help define requirements for the next
generation GPS architecture.




                                                                                                                         D-55
    Military Environmental Factors                                                                        WG-10
CHAIR: Dr. Niki C. Goerger, US Army ERDC
CO-CHAIRS: Dr. Donna W. Blake, VisiTech, Ltd.
Mr. Danny Champion, US Army TRAC-WSMR
ADVISOR: Mr. John Elrick, HQ, Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


High Resolution Characterization of of Riverine and Coastal Currents
Dr. Cheryl Ann Blain                      T. Christopher Massey                      Brett D. Estrade
Naval Research Laboratory                 Naval Research Laboratory                  Naval Research Laboratory
Oceanography Division                     Oceanography Division                      Oceanography Division
Code 7322                                 Code 7322                                  Code 7322
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529            Stennis Space Center, MS 39529             Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
Voice: (228) 688-5450                     Voice: (228) 688-5449                      Voice: (228) 688-4151
FAX: (228) 688-4759                       FAX: (228) 688-4759                        FAX: (228) 688-4759
blain@nrlssc.navy.mil                     massey@nrlssc.navy.mil                     estrade@nrlssc.navy.mil

         Advanced numerical models of the coastal ocean applied at spatial scales of 10 to 100 m incorporate appropriate
dynamics, complex shorelines and bathymetry, and are able to predict the variability of coastal circulation throughout the
entire water column. High-resolution models can be exercised as a virtual laboratory for understanding the cause and effect
between forcing and circulation. In denied areas, satellite imagery may provide synoptic, real-time measurements but the
large spatial scales (250m – 1km) and infrequent temporal resolution are limiting. Numerical models fill the gap and can
provide critical environmental information for military operations.
         Currents at unprecedented, meter resolutions in the northern Persian Gulf are predicted by the coastal circulation
model, ADCIRC, which utilizes unstructured grids. Details of the forecast system and examples demonstrating the benefit of
modeling at high resolution are provided. The correlation of tidal currents to diver visibility derived from the MODIS
imagery clearly connects the circulation to military operations. Additional results from a recently developed model of the
Mississippi River and its outflow provide further evidence of the variability of coastal circulation and the need for an
advanced high resolution predictive system.


The “Complex” Military Environment: Sense Making in Information Age Combat
Operations
 Jeffrey R. Cares                       David A. Jarvis                       David R. Garvey
 President                              Vice President, Strategy              Vice President, Govt. Programs
 Alidade Incorporated                   Alidade Incorporated                  Alidade Incorporated
 31 Willow Street                       31 Willow Street                      31 Willow Street
 Newport, RI 02840                      Newport, RI 02840                     Newport, RI 02840
 (401) 367-0040                         (401) 367-0040                        (401) 367-0040
 Jeff.cares@alidade.net                 david.jarvis@alidade.net              dave.garvey@alidade.net
         Military innovators and warfare futurists have devised numerous proposals for advanced, Information Age combat
networks. These visions tend to focus on technology rather than process, concentrating on physical objects rather than on
informational or cognitive issues. These informational and cognitive issues, however, pose challenges that are
extraordinarily more difficult than those posed by the physical objects. These challenges continue to go unnoticed and poorly
addressed by the concept development community. This presentation discusses the notion of “sense-making” from the
perspective of Information Theory and Cognitive Sciences, discusses the “sense-making” issues and challenges implied in
future networked warfare and recommends actions to mitigate these challenges.




D-56
    Military Environmental Factors                                                                           WG-10
Representing Mathematical Models on the Web
Dr. Joseph B. Collins
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20375
(202) 404-7041

          Specifying at a technical level the semantic content of computational models and the services they may provide
requires mathematical descriptions. Computer source code, such as C, C++, or Java, provides, at an algorithmic level, a
relatively primitive form of unambiguous, mathematical specification. These computer languages are not as useful for
specifying requirements, exposing assumptions, validating that designs satisfy required global properties, or for verifying that
implementations conform to the design and requirements. The outward mathematical properties of software services may be
documented in natural language, but they are not generally documented in machine-readable form.
          Much work has been done during the last twenty years in a variety of concurrent efforts to bring about the ability to
write machine-readable, formal, representations of mathematical concepts. These may be used to represent various forms of
mathematical knowledge, including mathematical specifications of software objects. We discuss how these ideas may be so
applied.

New Measurement Techniques for Characterization of Optical Turbulence
Dr. Frank D. Eaton
Air Force Research Laboratory, Directed Energy Directorate, AFRL/DESA,
3550 Aberdeen Ave. SE, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5776
Voice: (505) 853-1091/ FAX: (505) 853-1698
frank.eaton@kirtland.af.mil
         With the advent of new laser systems being deployed in the battlespace, homeland defense, and for counter-
terrorism, a requirement has been established for increasing knowledge of optical turbulence along the propagation path.
                                                                                                                          2
This has stimulated the development of new methodologies to sense the refractive index structure parameter ( C n ) and
derived parameters such as the transverse coherence length ( r0 ), the isoplanatic angle ( θ 0 ), and the Rytov variance ( σ χ ).
                                                                                                                              2

A historical perspective of these methodologies and instrumentation is presented and both in situ and remote sensing
                                                                                                                               2
techniques are discussed. Of particular interest is the development of techniques to derive turbulence parameters such as C n ,
the eddy dissipation rate ( ε ), the inner scale ( l 0 ), and the outer scale ( L0 ). Observational results are shown using sodar
and radar of phenomena generating turbulence including gravity wave activity, jet streams, Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities,
convection, and frontal activity. Both frequency modulated-continuous wave (FMCW) and mesosphere-stratosphere-
troposphere (MST) radar are discussed. New techniques and results are shown examining if the turbulent atmosphere is truly
Kolmogorov (how often is the structure function represented by the r2/3 law), stationary, isotropic, and homogeneous.
Emerging techniques for sensing turbulence such as optical path profilers, new designs of r0 meters, a microwave
refractometer, a sensor package providing 3-D turbulence using a kite/tethered blimp platform, high-data-rate sensors using a
                                            2
balloon-ring platform, and lidar sensing C n are discussed.

Interoperable Common Maneuver Networks for M&S and C2
Burhman Q. Gates                                              Dr. Niki C. Goerger
US Army ERDC                                                  US Army ERDC
3909 Halls Ferry Road                                         3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199                                      Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Voice: (601) 634-3200//FAX: (601) 634-3068                    Voice: (845) 938-3180//FAX: (845) 938-5919
Burhman.Gates@erdc.usace.army.mil                             Niki.C.Goerger@erdc.usace.army.mil

Dr. Paul W. Richmond                                          Mike E. Pace
US Army ERDC, 3909 Halls Ferry Road                           US Army ERDC, 3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199                                      Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Voice: (601) 634.2689//FAX: (601) 634.3068                    Voice: (601) 634.2528//FAX: (601) 634.3848
Paul.W.Richmond@erdc.usace.army.mil                           Mike.E.Pace@erdc.usace.army.mil

                                                                                                                          D-57
    Military Environmental Factors                                                                            WG-10
Curtis L. Blais
The Modeling, Virtual Environments, and Simulation
(MOVES) Institute
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, CA 93943
Voice: (831) 656-3215
clblais@nps.navy.mil

          Current Battle Command (BC), Embedded Training (ET), and modeling and simulation (M&S) decision support
systems do not share a common representation of the environment or many analysis services, including those associated with
tactical maneuver data. The battlespace Common Operational Picture is therefore inconsistent across these systems,
potentially leading to severe consequences from incorrect decisions about maneuver potential during training, planning, and
execution of operations. Commonality is needed to enable the Army’s Future Force and Future Combat Systems, facilitating
seamless transition between BC/Command and Control (C2) and M&S which are at the core of ET and decision support.
          Through development and application of technologies for interchange of data, information, and knowledge between
systems, researchers are synchronizing ground vehicle mobility/maneuver network representations within the environment
and reconciling representations with associated behaviors. This involves researching Web standards to assist in achieving
future interoperability requirements across a broader set of systems, existing or future. The initial project focus is
interchange of networks with OneSAF Objective System (M&S) and Battlefield Terrain Reasoning and Awareness products
that feed C2 systems. This presentation will address the status of the continuing research effort. Concept, approach, progress
to date, and path forward will be discussed.

Exploring Higher-Order Effects of Vehicle Mobility Model Fidelity in M&S
LTC Simon R. Goerger, PhD (USA)                                Dr. Niki C. Goerger
Department of Systems Engineering                              US Army ERDC as USMA
United States Military Academy                                 3909 Halls Ferry Road
West Point, NY 10996                                           Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Voice: (845) 938-5535                                          Voice: (845) 938-3180
FAX: (845) 938-5919                                            FAX: (845) 938-5919
Simon.Goerger@usma.edu                                         Niki.Goerger@usma.edu

Dr. Paul West                                                  LTC Willie McFadden, PhD (USA)
Department of Systems Engineering                              Department of Systems Engineering
United States Military Academy                                 United States Military Academy
West Point, NY 10996                                           West Point, NY 10996
Voice: (845) 938-5871 /FAX: (845) 938-5919                     Voice: (845) 938-5941
Paul.West@usma.edu                                             FAX: (845) 938-5919
                                                               Willie.McFadden@usma.edu
          Ground vehicle movement is one of the basic battlefield functions and is represented at differing levels of fidelity
across modeling and simulation (M&S). Differences in model fidelity generally deal with incorporation of mobility limiters
and include, e.g., utilizing command-ordered speeds versus computed speeds, types of vehicle and terrain parameters
included in mobility calculations, use of surrogate or representative vehicles for specific vehicles in mobility representation,
and use of slope category versus calculated slope in mobility computations. Research conducted in FY03 investigated the
impact of mobility modeling at command-ordered versus NATO Reference Mobility Model (NRMM)-derived look-up-tables
as represented in the Standard Mobility (STNDMob) Application Programming Interface (API) level 1 and showed there is a
statistically significant difference in resultant speed and time to reach objectives for entity-level M&S. As a follow-on to the
initial investigation, this presentation of research explores higher-order effects that propagate through the simulation to assess
impacts of fidelity in mobility representation. Moreover, the focus is on assessing the impact on select metrics relevant to
Future Force design and experimentation. Candidate mobility models include those in STNDMob API and agent based
models. The research is being conducted in conjunction with the USMA Systems Engineering Lifecycle Acquisition
Management Institute.




D-58
    Military Environmental Factors                                                                          WG-10

Developing and Utilizing Dynamic and Composable Synthetic Natural Environments in
Support of Military Operations and Simulation-Based Acquisition
Dr. John R. Hummel                                            Dr. Donna W. Blake
Decision and Information Sciences Division                    VisiTech, Ltd.
Argonne National Laboratory                                   535A Braddock Road
9700 S. Cass Avenue/DIS-900, Argonne, IL 60439-4832           Alexandria, VA 22314-5884
Voice: (630) 252-7189/FAX: (630) 252-6073                     Voice: (703) 967-5214/FAX: (703) 264-5960
jhummel@anl.gov                                               blake@visitech.com

         The development of physically consistent synthetic natural environments is a critical requirement in analyzing the
impact of the environment on military operations. As the role of modeling and simulation takes on a greater role in the
development of military systems, it is also becoming critical to be able to develop and utilize synthetic natural environments
that can dynamically interact with the relevant simulation components and can be rapidly reconfigured in a physically
consistent and authoritative manner.
         In a previous MORS presentation, the concept of an Integrated Dynamic Environmental Architecture (IDEA) was
presented in which the natural environment was treated as an authoritative “black box” that simulation entities could interact
with. In this presentation we give an update on the status of that effort that will include the development of a library of
reusable environments objects and utilities.

Environmental Database Laboratory for Live, Virtual, Constructive (LVC) Training
Chan Huynh                                                    Dan Stevens
US Army Program Executive Office Simulation Training          US Army Program Executive Office Simulation Training
and Instrumentation Command (PEO-STRI)                        and Instrumentation Command (PEO-STRI)
12350 Research Parkway                                        12350 Research Parkway
Orlando, Florida 32826                                        Orlando, Florida 32826
Voice: 407-384-3930                                           Voice: 407-243-3499
Chan.Huynh@peostri.army.mil                                   Dan.Stevens@peostri.army.mil

          Recent conflicts have highlighted the need for Joint Transformation and the challenges are well documented. The
Department of Defense (DOD) is attempting to overcome decades of parochialism underscored by service specific solutions
to almost every military function. This duplication of effort multiplies DOD’s Total Ownership Cost (TOC) while
simultaneously impeding or even precluding interoperability. Improved interoperability is at the core of Joint Transformation
and Joint Interoperability is giving way to “Net Readiness” as the number one Key Performance Parameter (KPP) for the
Army’s Future Combat System (FCS).
          The environmental representation is one of the most fundamental and perhaps, the most visible component of
simulation systems. “Custom” environmental representations have been the norm within services, within the service domains
such as Battle Command, Mission Planning and Modeling and Simulation (M&S) and even within the M&S community. As
the Stimulation Training and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM) transitioned to a Program Executive Office (PEO) in
2002, the PEO STRI charter mandated a "family of systems integration approach" among the programs managed by the
newly formed PEO. The position of PM Future Forcer Simulations (FF(S)) was established to fulfill this role and to
administer the new Future Combat System (FCS) where Embedded Training (ET) is also identified as a KPP. The LVC
Integrating Architecture (LVC-IA) is the vehicle by which the horizontal integration requirement is being pursued across
PEO STRI. By agreement across PEO STRI, PMs are pursuing a Common Products and Component (CPC) approach to
facilitate the LVC-IA. The CPC methodology is to align with the Army Software Blocking (SWB) program. SWB is the
Army initiative to align fielding system in an operational capability manner. SWB facilitate modularity in the design so that it
is flexible enough for technology insertion and for system of systems integration. The Environmental Database (EDB) Lab is
being established by the CPC to access existing and emerging source data for meeting STRI environmental data
requirements. Furthermore, CPC encourages program to reach out to the tactical community, to include the assessment of
battle command format into the testbed either through Army SWB or the FCS training common component IPT. PEO STRI
environmental database will not only satisfy the STRI needs but also is able to interoperate with the battle command systems.
This approach eliminates the data conversion, which respectively reduces the amount of data transfer over the network at the


                                                                                                                         D-59
    Military Environmental Factors                                                                       WG-10
training site. This automatically solves the shortage of bandwidth at the lower TI and upper TI, when the training piece is
plugged into the battle command system.
         PEO STRI is coordinating closely with the Battle Command Simulation and Experimentation (BCSE) Directorate in
the formulation of the Army Geospatial Data Integration Master Plan (AGDIMP) and TRADOC Program Integration Office
for Terrain Data (TPIO-TD) and Army G3's Joint Geospatial Services (J-GES), JFCOM J7's Rapid Distributed Database
Development (RD3) and NGA's Commercial Joint Mapping Toolkit (C/JMTK). The EDB Lab is being aligned with these
and other programs as required to ensure that the Army's next generation of M&S systems is fully interoperable and can
migrate toward the Global Information Grid Enterprise Services (GIG) as it emerges.


Modeling the Impacts on National Security from Disruptions in CONUS Critical
Infrastructures
Dr. John R. Hummel                                          James F. Burke, Jr.
Decision and Information Sciences Division                  Decision and Information Sciences Division
Argonne National Laboratory                                 Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue/DIS-900                                 9700 S. Cass Avenue/DIS-900
Argonne, IL 60439-4832                                      Argonne, IL 60439-4832
Voice: (630) 252-7189                                       Voice: (630) 252-9009
FAX: (630) 252-6073                                         FAX: (630) 252-6073
jhummel@anl.gov                                             jburke@anl.gov

         The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has identified seventeen critical infrastructures in the Continental
United States (CONUS) that are considered vulnerable to terrorist attack with potentially significant impacts on the health,
economy, and National Security of the country. DHS has begun a program to create a Critical Infrastructure Protection
Decision Support System (CIP DSS) which is intended to provide DHS planners with a deliberate planning tool for studying
protection, mitigation, and recovery strategies following terrorist activities.
         One of the impacts that can result from a CONUS-directed terrorist attack is the ability to adequately respond to
National Security issues. In this presentation, we will discuss how CONUS infrastructure disruptions can result in National
Security impacts. We shall describe how infrastructure and other environmental factors are being represented in the CIP DSS
and how the infrastructure disruptions can be translated into quantifiable impacts on National Security missions.


Artillery Meteorological Messages Using a Hand-held Computational Device
Terry C. Jameson                                            Dave Sauter
Battlefield Environment Division                            Battlefield Environment Division
U.S. Army Research Laboratory                               U.S. Army Research Laboratory
White Sands Missile Range, NM                               White Sands Missile Range, NM
Voice: (505) 678-3924                                       Voice: (505) 678-2078
FAX (505) 678-1735                                          FAX (505) 678-1735
tjameson@arl.army.mil                                       dsauter@arl.mil

          In most situations, United States Marine Corps (USMC) artillery units are able to use their primary battlefield
meteorological (Met) system to obtain artillery Met messages. (The Met messages are required as input to the Marine’s
Tactical Fire Direction (TFD) computational device). Under some scenarios, however, the Marine troops must revert to a
back-up TFD software system hosted on a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA). The USMC has requested that the Army
Research Lab develop a Met message generation software system that will also reside on the PDA. This presentation
describes the research to develop the Back-Up Computer System METeorological program – PDA (BUCS MET-P). The
BUCS MET-P requires only a few basic surface Met readings, plus the azimuth/elevation angles from a theodolite-tracked
pilot balloon, to generate its Met messages. The operator utilizes a series of very user-friendly Graphical User Interface
(GUI) screens to enter the necessary data and request Met message computation. Met messages are then both displayed on
the PDA screen as well as stored in the unit for subsequent access by the TFD software. Sample GUI screens are shown, as
well as some of the datasets that were used to verify the accuracy of the BUCS MET-P system.




D-60
    Military Environmental Factors                                                                            WG-10
Geotypical Urban Terrain Characterization and Generation
Kathy A. Luft
US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
ATTN: AMSRD-AMS-SA
392 Hopkins Road
APG, MD 21005-5071
COMM: (410) 278-6626 / DSN: 298-6626
FAX: (410) 278-6632
kathy.luft@us.army.mil

          The US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) has been involved in characterizing and generating
geotypical urban terrain for MOUT modeling. In 2002 AMSAA produced a set of seven urban terrain templates. Originally
developed to support modeling of indirect fire effects in an urban area, these templates are now being used to support a wider
range of MOUT modeling.
          While these templates were being developed, the Defense Intelligence Agency was developing Urban Terrain Zone
datasets and the Army’s Topographic Engineering Center was developing Built-up Terrain Zones for work in their modeling.
Since these efforts were done independently of each other, employing different methodologies, disconnects exist between
these urban terrain products. In order to establish a consistent representation of urban terrain characteristics across the
Department of Defense, AMSAA initiated the formation of the Joint Urban Terrain Working Group (JUTWG) in Oct 04.
The JUTWG is establishing common terminology and a set of standard urban terrain characteristics which will reduce
variability between urban terrain products and more consistency to modeling and analyses using them.
          This presentation will provide an overview of the JUTWG and the standard set of urban terrain characteristics
developed, description of AMSAA’s urban terrain templates, and examples of how these geotypical urban terrain templates
are being used to support MOUT modeling.


Finding the Right Terrain Database
MAJ Grant Martin (USA)                     LTC Jeffrey Schamburg, PhD (USA)             LTC Michael J. Kwinn, PhD (USA)
Operations Research Center                 Operations Research Center                   Director, Operations Research Center
Department of Systems Engineering          Department of Systems Engineering            Department of Systems Engineering
United States Military Academy             United States Military Academy               United States Military Academy
West Point, NY 10996                       West Point, NY 10996                         West Point, NY 10996
(845) 938-5661                             (845) 938-5661                               (845) 938-5661
phillip.martin@usma.edu                    jeffrey.schamburg@usma.edu                   michael.kwinn@usma.edu
          The modeling and simulation community relies on terrain databases to provide the underpinnings that drive models
used in analyses, studies, and training. Unfortunately, the problem of organizing these terrain databases is much more
difficult than maintaining a catalog of paper maps. Finding a suitable terrain database to use, given it exists, is compounded
by this problem, leading to inefficient searches and duplicative recreation of terrain databases. Terrain databases certainly
vary by location around the world, but also vary by terrain database format as required by different simulation programs and
platforms, by the amount of detail in terms of features and attributes contained, and by the resolution and fidelity among
other factors. Thus, there may be several different terrain databases for the same geographic location. This presentation
discusses the application of the Systems Engineering and Management Process (SEMP), taught by the Department of
Systems Engineering at the United States Military Academy, in developing a metadata framework for organizing these
terrain databases. Specifically, we focus on choosing among potentially dozens of descriptive metadata fields, keeping in
consideration the need for easy search capability as well as initial data entry. We also will highlight related initiatives within
the community.




                                                                                                                           D-61
    Military Environmental Factors                                                                           WG-10
From Stucco to Stairwells: Inferring Attributes and Floorplans from Limited Geospecific
Data
Dale D. Miller, PhD
Lockheed Martin Simulation, Training & Support
Advanced Simulation Center
3605 132nd Ave. SE, Suite 400, Bellevue, WA 98006
Voice: (425) 957-3259//FAX: (425) 746-1335
         Creating a 3D representation of an urban environment requires full specificity of detail, including such aspects as
construction materials and type, door and window placement, floor coverings and interior layout. While individual buildings
have been geospecifically modeled to such a level of detail, no authoritative source data exists to support such modeling on
even a moderate urban scale. Techniques to realistically infer geotypical attribution and interiors from known geospecific
information will be discussed. Often, the only information known about a building might be its area footprint, relationship to
the road network and geospatial context (e.g., residential vs. downtown corridor). From this limited geospecific information
we infer a rational and varied assignment of attribute values (e.g., roof shape, construction type) and geometry (e.g., window
and door placement, linear vs. circular hallway, room configuration). While inadequate for a squad-level mission rehearsal of
a specific building clearing operation, such semantic intensification does produce an urban representation with a realistic
“look and feel” and is useful for simulations supporting training, experimentation, and tactics and doctrine development.


Modeling Structural Weapons Effects in Urban Areas
Donald H. Nelson
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
CEERD-GS-V, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180
Voice: (601) 634-2754 / FAX: (601) 634-2341
Donald.H.Nelson@erdc.usace.army.mil

         Increased military activity in urban areas in recent operations has highlighted the need for better structural weapons
effects predictive and modeling capability that properly accounts for the unique environment of urban warfare. Traditional
methods and assumptions may no longer be valid or applicable. There is a need for better modeling of the response of
common urban construction materials and building types to dynamic loads and penetration, better modeling of weapons
effects and load predictions in typical urban scenarios, better prediction of rubble and the effects of rubble on mobility inside
and around structures, etc. It can no longer be assumed that military targets are hardened and isolated. Enemy combatants
are occupying light structures surrounded by structures housing non-combatants. Better structural weapons effects predictive
capability will enhance decision-aid tools and simulations modeling urban operations for such situations.
         This paper presents results of issues encountered in the development of a structural weapons effects modeling tool
for combat simulation software. Included is a discussion of issues affecting this work, needed research, and new or modified
methods for predicting structural weapons effects in urban areas.


Airborne RADAR Search for Diesel Submarines
Dr. Steven E. Pilnick                                                             LCDR Jose Landa
Department of Operations Research                                                 Venezuelan Navy
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA 93940
Voice: (831) 656-2283 / FAX: (831) 656-2595// spilnick@nps.navy.mil
     Aircraft search to catch diesel submarines on the sea surface or with masts exposed above the sea surface has been an
anti-submarine warfare tactic for more than half a century. However, rather than analysis, operational judgment has been
used to guess at good search tactics such as how large an area can one aircraft cover effectively. In this research, a detection
rate model is developed to analyze the effectiveness of an airborne radar search for a diesel submarine assumed to be
intermittently operating with periscopes or masts exposed above the sea surface. The analysis obtains cumulative probability
of detection vs. time based on the radar manufacturer’s performance data, user inputs for aircraft search area size, search
speed, and search altitude, and submarine periscope or mast exposure profile. The model can use given periscope radar cross
section data, or roughly calculate radar cross section given assumptions about exposed periscope height above the sea-surface
and sea-state conditions. Submarine evasion due to radar counter-detection is also modeled.

D-62
    Military Environmental Factors                                                                          WG-10
Single Integrated Space Environment Products (SISEEP)
Stephen Quigley                                               Kevin Scro
AFRL/VSBX at SMC/WXTG                                         SMC/WXT
1050 E. Stewart Ave                                           1050 E. Stewart Ave
Peterson AFB, CO, 80914-2902                                  Peterson AFB, CO, 80914-2902
Voice: (719) 556-2889 / FAX: (719) 556-3130                   Voice: (719) 556-2792 / FAX: (719) 556-2525
Stephen.Quigley@cisf.af.mil                                   Kevin.Scro@cisf.af.mil
         The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL/VSB) and Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC/WXT) have
combined efforts to design, develop, test, and implement numerical and graphical products for use in Department of Defense
(DoD) operations and integrated systems. The real-time space weather system-impact products developed analyze, specify,
and forecast the effects of the near-earth space environment on Department of Defense weapons, surveillance, and
communications systems. Products that have been, or will soon be made available include the Solar Radio Burst Effects
(SoRBE), upgraded Radar Auroral Clutter (RAC-II), Radar Scintillation (RadScint), upgraded SATCOM Scintillation
(SatScint-II), and Satellite Charge/Discharge (Char/D) products. Plans are also underway for development of Meteor Effects
(ME) and upgraded GPS Error products. Together these products represent, and will be combined into, a Single Integrated
Space Environmental Effects Products (SISEEP) model for use by system operators, planners and commanders alike. This
presentation will provide a general overview of each of the system-impact products developed, a brief explanation of how the
products may feed higher-level decision aids, and plans for integrating such products with other programs/systems.


Rule-based and Physics-based Weather Effects and Impacts for AWARS
Dr. Richard Shirkey                      Dr. Sean O’Brien                         Leelinda Parker
Army Research Laboratory                 Army Research Laboratory                 Army Research Laboratory
Computational and Information            Computational and Information            Computational and Information
Sciences Directorate, Battlefield        Sciences Directorate, Battlefield        Sciences Directorate, Battlefield
Environment Division                     Environment Division                     Environment Division
Attn: AMSRD-ARL-CI-EE                    Attn: AMSRD-ARL-CI-EE                    Attn: AMSRD-ARL-CI-EE
WSMR, NM 88002-5501                      WSMR, NM 88002-5501                      Adelphi, MD 20783-1197
(505) 678-5470                           (505) 678-1570                           (301) 394-5636
FAX:(505) 678-4449                       FAX:(505) 678-4449                       lparker@arl.army.mil
rshirkey@arl.army.mil                    sobrien@arl.army.mil
D. Quintis                               Terry Gach                               S. Glasgow
Army Research Laboratory                 Director, USA TRAC-FLVN                  Director, USA TRAC-FLVN
Computational and Information            ATTN: ATRC-FMA                           Bldg 314
Sciences Directorate, Battlefield        255 Sedgwick Ave                         255 Sedgwick Ave
Environment Division                     Fort Leavenworth KS 66027                Ft Leavenworth, KS 66027
Attn: AMSRD-ARL-CI-EE                    (913) 684-9235                           (913) 684-9271
WSMR, NM 88002-5501                      FAX: (913) 684-9232                      FAX: (913) 684-9232
(505) 678-2066                           gacht@trac.army.mil                      glasgows@trac.army.mil
dquintis@arl.army.mil
         Weather effects, while important to wargame scenarios, are notoriously difficult to play due to the large variations of
weather that may occur in any given timeframe and the resultant increase in wargame runtime. To circumvent these problems
we have presented a methodology for implementing system rules and physics-based visibility parametric curves at the 71st
MORSS. We then implemented a small sub-set of these rules and parametric curves to show the viability of the methodology.
Results, including verification, for helicopters in a high wind vs. no wind scenario were presented at the 72nd MORSS where
we discussed impacts on blue/red forces. Having shown the practicality of this method, we have added numerous new rules
and curves and will make a two-part presentation showing 1) the individual impact of rules on other systems (tracked
vehicles and UAVs) and 2) the effect of varying visibilities on ISR systems.




                                                                                                                         D-63
    Military Environmental Factors                                                                         WG-10
Urban Warfare: Detailing Single Building Airflow, Turbulence, and Stability Variation
Characteristics
Gail-Tirrell Vaucher                                         Ronald M. Cionco
Army Research Laboratory                                     Army Research Laboratory
AMSRD-ARL-CI-EE                                              AMSRD-ARL-CI-EM
White Sands Missile Range, NM                                White Sands Missile Range, NM
Voice: (505) 678-3237                                        Voice: (505) 678-1572
FAX: (505) 678-3385                                          rcionco@arl.army.mil
gvaucher@arl.army.mil
          Detailing dynamic airflow behavior and thermodynamic properties above and about buildings significantly enhances
the ability to understand and simulate the urban atmosphere. Applications of this understanding are relevant to both the
Army and Homeland-Defense atmospheric issues. In March 2003, the Army-Research-Laboratory at White-Sands-Missile-
Range conducted a field study based upon Snyder and Lawson’s wind tunnel airflow studies over a single model ‘building’.
The field study objectives included verifying gross airflow effects about a single office building and characterizing stability
variation surrounding this structure. Study results validated at least 5 gross features: the velocity increase with height,
velocity acceleration over and between buildings, leeside velocity deficit and finally, leeside cavity-flow. Time histories
comparing upwind/downwind wind-directions revealed that the leeside cavity flow phenomena were transitory in nature,
generating and degenerating frequently during a two-hour period. The flow field’s angle-of-attack was the important factor
affecting the leeside vortex strength. These flow features also govern aerosol plume and puff behavior above/about
buildings. The analysis also indicated the presence of a very local heat island effect. In March 2005, we conducted a more
comprehensive study. This time, the objectives focused on the detailed nature of turbulent airflow, stability features and the
detection of horizontal vortices.


Shipboard Organic UAV Operations
Joe Wenderoth                                                Elliott Sidewater
Lockheed Martin MS2 LS&S                                     Lockheed Martin IS & S
2323 Eastern Boulevard, M/S E2                               P.O Box 8048
Baltimore, MD 21220-4207                                     Bldg 100, Rm U1237
(410) 682-1366                                               Philadelphia, PA 19101
joe.wenderoth@lmco.com                                       (610) 354-6361,
                                                             elliott.sidewater@lmco.com



         Keen interest in unmanned vehicle operations has been exhibited across a number of venues. In the MORSS
analytical forum, for example, papers investigating unmanned vehicle search strategies and related missions have been
presented in a variety of Working Groups. More immediate, tactical forum applications have been examined by the military.
They have been experimenting with small Unmanned Vehicles, even in the IRAQ theater, to deal with the asymmetric threat
posed there.
         Shipboard Organic UAV Operations documents the origin, vision, evolution, development, implementation and
operation of unmanned vehicle concepts undertaken by an industry led collaboration. The industry team has performed
several experiments / demonstrations in a maritime environment with “embedded engineers” at the controls for the purpose
of collecting data and insights about the littoral warfighting environment. This paper presents some notable observations and
findings gleaned from those efforts that demonstrated an At-Sea UAV Launch, Control and Recovery System designed for
implementation on small ships. The concept is extensible to large ships as well, using re-locatable mission modules to
rapidly implement the organic UAV capability.




D-64
    Military Environmental Factors                                                                              WG-10
The Integrated Natural Environment Authoritative Representation Process
Edward F. Weitzner
The Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD 20723-6099
Voice: (703) 601-1489
FAX: (703) 601-1350
edward.weitzner@navy.mil

         No realistic simulation can be conducted without an in-depth understanding of the environment and its effects on
platforms, weapon systems, and sensors. The Department of Defense (DoD) understood this fact early and established DoD
Modeling & Simulation Executive Agents (MSEAs) for Environmental Representations. MSEAs are responsible for
supporting both short and long term DoD M&S requirements for environmental representations, establishing appropriate
standards and procedures to facilitate interoperability and reuse of environmental data and models, and providing direction to
DoD and the military services to meet cost-effective, just-in-time requirements for authoritative representations of the natural
environment.
         There are three environmental DoD MSEAs with the following responsibilities; Department of the Navy for Ocean
representations, Department of the Air Force for Air & Space representations, and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
for Terrain representations. The Department of the Navy was designated MSEA for Ocean Representations by the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics (USD (AT&L)) in April 1996 and the Oceanographer of the
Navy has been the Navy's lead organization since then.
         This paper discusses the Integrated Natural Environment Authoritative Representation Process (INEARP), the
process that was developed by the environmental MSEAs in collaboration with the Defense Modeling & Simulation Office
(DMSO) to meet the environmental representation requirements of the DoD M&S community and fulfill the responsibilities
of the MSEAs. Issues relating to meeting DoD M&S environmental requirements are presented, the INEARP is described
and four diverse examples are given showing how the INEARP has responded to the environmental requirements of a global
naval war game, a Navy fleet battle experiment, a theater-wide naval campaign analysis study and a much-faster-than-real-
time campaign simulation.


Generating Enhanced Natural Environments and Terrain for Interactive Combat
Simulations (GENETICS)
Major William David Wells (USAF)
Naval Postgraduate School/MOVES Institute
700 Dyer Road
Monterey, CA 93943
Voice: (831) 521-2301
FAX: (831) 656-7599
wdwells@nps.navy.mil


          Virtual battlefields devoid of vegetation deprive soldiers of valuable training in the critical aspects of terrain tactics
and terrain-based situational awareness. Barren landscapes fail to provide the trainee with the necessary visual cues required
to grasp the scale of one’s surroundings. Without the cover of vegetation, targets are easily visible from the air. Line of sight
calculations become simply a matter of sorting elevations. There is a need to (re)introduce vegetation into the virtual
battlefield to improve training effectiveness.
          Our approach uses runtime processing of elevation data points to generate heightmaps, slope maps (with aspect
angles), and relative elevation maps. We process land cover classification (LCC) image data of the given terrain region to
determine proximal relationships. Using this analysis and the topological influences derived previously, a probability map is
produced for each LCC type to reflect the likelihood that a particular LCC type exists within a corresponding area on the
terrain surface. Random draws against this probability map determine the location and type of vegetation found within the
synthetic environment. The resulting geotypical distribution looks plausible and this simple algorithm can be extended to
incorporate soil moisture and other factors or to generate geotypical distributions of man-made landscape features.


                                                                                                                             D-65
    Military Environmental Factors                                                                        WG-10

The Importance of Understanding Uncertainty in Terrain Data
Edward J. Wright
Information Extraction and Transport, Inc.
Suite 600
1911 N. Ft Myer Dr.
Arlington, VA 22209
Voice: (703) 284-0609
FAX: (703) 841-3501
ewright@iet.com
         Digital terrain data is widely used to support military planning and command and control in training, simulations,
and for real operations. These processes use terrain data to predict the effects of the terrain on military operations.
Automated systems and their users rely on the predictions based on assumptions that that terrain data is current and accurate.
Unfortunately, terrain data quality is not well understood and is often worse than is commonly assumed. Even current high
resolution terrain data sets contain observational and processing errors that result in uncertainty. Even when available, data
quality information is usually not used when users make decision about how to use terrain data, and few users are aware of
how dramatically even small uncertainties in terrain data can impact the tactical decision aids used to support military
planning and operations. This paper presents an argument that commander’s who fail to understand the potential for errors in
terrain data are setting themselves up for tactical surprise. Conversely, an evaluation of the risks inherent in the use of
uncertain terrain data provides the commander with opportunities to prevent tactical surprise, and to “exploit the terrain” to
defeat opponents.


A Methodology for Assessing the Impact of Terrain Data Quality on Military
Performance
Edward J. Wright
Information Extraction and Transport, Inc.
Suite 600
1911 N. Ft Myer Dr.
Arlington, VA 22209
Voice: (703) 284-0609 / FAX: (703) 841-3501
ewright@iet.com
          Currently, the DOD topographic community lacks tools and methodology for understanding and evaluating terrain
data quality, and the impact terrain data quality has on military operational decisions and performance. The current DOD
geospatial data support concept requires operational users to identify their specific terrain data content and data quality
requirements when terrain data is needed to support specific operational missions. Unfortunately there is no accepted
methodology for performing this analysis. This presentation reports on research to develop a Terrain Products Simulator and
a methodology that allows users to evaluate how well a terrain data product’s quality supports operational needs. The Terrain
Product Simulator is based on an innovative approach to understanding and measuring terrain data quality, and uses advanced
probabilistic models to generate simulated terrain data. The results can be used to evaluate terrain data requirements and to
understand how terrain data quality impacts military operations and decisions. This capability allows users to determine what
terrain data is required to support their applications. This requirements analysis can be applied at two different levels:
strategic, where the Services evaluate requirements for new terrain data products to be produced by National Geospatial-
intelligence Agency, and tactical, where specific users evaluate the terrain data requirements for specific operations.




D-66
                     Unmanned Systems                                                                         WG-11
CHAIR: Gary Engel, The Boeing Company
CO-CHAIRS: Dr. Roger Burk, Department of Systems Engineering, United States Military Academy
Robert Chalmers, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Russell Gottfried, Lockheed Martin Space Systems

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


A Preliminary Analysis Of Launching KE Kill Missiles From A UAV With Loitering
Capability
Bobbie Leon Foote, Ph.D.                                           Roger C. Burk, Ph.D.
Senior Faculty                                                     Associate Professor
Systems Engineering, Mahan Hall, Room 309                          Systems Engineering, Mahan Hall, Room 309
United States Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996               U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996
(845) 938-4893 // Bobbie.Foote@usma.edu                            (845) 938-4754 // Roger.Burk@usma.edu

          One approach to anti-ballistic missile defense is to attack the ballistic missile, if possible, at launch. This approach is
attractive because of the large signatures that are present at launch that make detection easier. The relevant variables are
accelerations of the ballistic missile, the KE defense missile, and the distance from the site of the launch system: ship, ground
or UAV loiter craft. We use simple geometries and basic physics to analyze some of the situations where such a defense is
possible. We show that some of the technologies developed and already tested in the aerospace industry render a loiter UAV
feasible.


WOLFPAC - Principles of Unmanned, Distributed Combat Forces
Dave Garvey
Vice President, Government Programs
Alidade Incorporated, 31 Bridge Street, Newport, RI, 02840
(401) 367-0040, ext. 123 // www.alidade.net

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Arming Army UAVs

Brandt W. Germann                            Brian H. Lee                                  Todd J. Severson
Department of Systems Engineering            Department of Systems Engineering             Department of Systems Engineering
USMA, West Point, NY 10996                   USMA, West Point, NY 10996                    USMA, West Point, NY 10996
(845) 938-2700                               (845) 938-2700                                (845) 938-2700
Brandt.Germann@usma.edu                      Brian.Lee@usma.edu                            Todd.Severson@usma.edu

Matthew C. Wesmiller                         Roger C. Burk, Ph.D.
Department of Systems Engineering            Associate Professor
U.S. Military Academy                        Department of Systems Engineering
West Point, NY 10996                         Mahan Hall, Room 309
(845) 938-2700                               U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996
Matthew.Wesmiller@usma.edu                   (845) 938-4754 // Roger.Burk@usma.edu

         A team of West Point cadets evaluated the military utility of arming Army medium-sized UAVs (IGNAT, Hunter,
Fire Scout) with air-to-surface missiles. A set of stochastic models were used to develop different metrics of system
performance for a medium-intensity guerilla insurgency in various types of terrain (forest, mountain, open, urban). The
metrics were then combined in a value model to measure overall utility.


                                                                                                                              D-67
                    Unmanned Systems                                                                     WG-11
Contribution of Swarming Architectures to Ground Force Operations

Mr. Paul Alexander Page                                      Mr. Chris Rickard
U.S. Army SMDC Future Warfare Center                         Science Applications International Corporation
Studies and Analysis Division                                Operations Research Analyst
Team Lead, Tactical Analysis                                 4901-D Corporate Drive
P.O. Box 1500, Huntsville, AL 35807-3801                     Huntsville, AL 35805-6201
(256) 955-1618 // Paul.Page@smdc.army.mil                    (256) 864-8355 // RickardC@US-Huntsville.mail.SAIC.com

          The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) C4ISR Decision Support Center (DSC) sponsored the execution of a
Swarming Entities Study to examine the potential military utility that unmanned swarming architectures afford the Combined
Task Force and its subordinate units. Swarming is defined as “the useful self-organization of multiple entities through local
interactions”. For this joint study, Swarming applied to multiple entities, domains (air, ground, water, underwater), and
functional areas (ISR, Comms, threat detection, etc.). The study was executed using four Operational Situations (OPSITS),
to examine a broad spectrum of conflict ranging from Urban Operations to large scale Theater Operations. The evaluation of
multiple scenarios made it possible to assess military utility across numerous mission areas to include target tracking /
trailing, surveillance, Battle Damage Assessment, Attack Operations, Suppression of Enemy Air Defense, timeliness, mine
detection, etc. The resultant analysis demonstrated a significant increase in military utility when unmanned swarming
operational architectures were compared to a base case without swarming. The presentation will concentrate on how
Swarming Concepts were instantiated into constructive simulations, findings / insights gleaned from constructive analysis,
and an analytical path forward.


Establishing Survivability Requirements for Future Force Unmanned Army Platforms
and Systems
Robert A. Pfeffer
USNCA, 7150 Heller Loop #101
Springfield, VA 22150-3164
(703) 806-7862 // pfeffer@usanca-smtp.mil

          The introduction of high-tech equipment into the Army inventory has substantially increased battle effectiveness,
reduced personnel requirements, and in some cases allowed replacement of several manned operational platforms and
systems with unmanned equivalents. The continued trend toward digital robotics in the battlespace has become extremely
attractive to military planners, so much so that future warfighters are expected to employ a considerable number of unmanned
platforms and systems. Up to this point in time, however, nuclear hardening criteria have been applied principally to manned
systems and have been balanced to the nuclear survivability of the operating crew.
           This paper provides the rationale for establishing reasonable nuclear hardening criteria for objective force
unmanned mission critical equipment. It starts with the survivability requirement and then identifies the process used to
establish criteria for five unmanned equipment classes. Also included are the factors to be considered and steps to be taken to
establish hardening criteria for all nuclear weapons effects (NEW) and for all weapon yields of interest. The paper concludes
with an application of the process to a hypothetical system. Details given in the paper form the basis for proposed
Quadripartite Standardization Agreement (QSTAG) 2041, a standard for the Armies of the United States, the United
Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.


Robotics Modeling for Army Combat Simulation
Mr. Mason L. Pusey
U.S. Army Material Systems Analysis Activity
ATTN: AMSRD-AMS-SC
392 Hopkins Road, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5071
(410) 278-6253 // jason.pusey@smdc.army.mil

       The US Army Material Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) has recently investigated the representation (portrayal)
of unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) in Army force-on-force combat models such as Combined Arms and Support Task

D-68
                   Unmanned Systems                                                                    WG-11
Force Evaluation Model (CASTFOREM). AMSAA’s primary goal is to assess the current state of robotics modeling and to
lay the ground work for future robotics implementation in modeling and simulation (M&S). The progress of the study will
be executed in phases. The initial phase will examine how UGVs are currently played in CASTFOREM, identify
deficiencies that may impact results, and recommend corrective actions for these deficiencies. The recommendations for the
initial phase will be focused to impact the Future Combat Systems (FCS) Milestone-B update. Currently there is very little
difference between the UGVs and the manned ground vehicles (MGVs) within combat modeling.
          The next phase in the study will include other Army combat models (OneSAF, COMBAT XXI, JANUS, ATCOM,
SURVIVE, IWARS, etc.) and investigate the capabilities to support higher level simulations with item level performance
models. In addition, the analysis of unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) will be incorporated.


Shipboard Organic UAV Operations
Joe Wenderoth                                                  Elliott Sidewater
Lockheed Martin MS2                                            Lockheed Martin IS&S
2323 Eastern Boulevard                                         P.O Box 8048
M/S E2                                                         Bldg 100, Rm U1237
Baltimore, MD 21220-4207                                       Philadelphia, PA 19101
(410) 682-1366 // Fax: (410) 682-1742                          (610) 354-6361// Fax: (610) 354-4810
joe.wenderoth@lmco.co                                          elliott.sidewater@lmco.com

     Keen interest in unmanned vehicle operations has been exhibited across a number of venues. In the MORSS analytical
forum, for example, papers investigating unmanned vehicle search strategies and related missions have been presented in a
variety of Working Groups. More immediate, tactical forum applications have been examined by the military. They have
been experimenting with small Unmanned Vehicles, even in the IRAQ theater, to deal with the asymmetric threat posed
there.
     Shipboard Organic UAV Operations at Sea documents the origin, vision, evolution, development, implementation and
operation of unmanned vehicle concepts undertaken by an industry led collaboration. The industry team has performed
several experiments / demonstrations in a maritime environment with “embedded engineers” at the controls for the purpose
of collecting data and insights about the littoral warfighting environment. This paper presents some notable observations and
findings gleaned from those efforts that demonstrated an At-Sea UAV Launch, Control and Recovery System designed for
implementation on small ships. The concept is extensible to large ships as well, using re-locatable mission modules to
rapidly implement the organic UAV capability.




                                                                                                                      D-69
     Land and Expeditionary Warfare                                                                        WG-12
CHAIR: Paul Works, TRAC-FLVN
CO-CHAIR’S: Cindy Grier, TRAC-FLVN
MAJ Marc Lee, TRAC
Ken Amster, CNO (N812E3)
Cortez (Steve) Stephens, MCCDC
MAJ Donald (Britt) McNeill Jr, J-8
ADVISOR: LTC Stephen Riese, TRAC-FLVN


The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


Modeling Active Protection Systems (APS) in Vector-In-Commander (VIC)
Michael Scott Cox
Model Management and Development Directorate
TRADOC Analysis Center
ATTN: ATRC-FM, 255 Sedgwick Avenue
Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345
Phone: (913) 684-9171//Fax: (913) 684-9232
scott.cox@trac.army.mil

         The Objective Force is the Army’s future force that will be organized, manned, equipped and trained to be more
strategically responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable and sustainable than we are today across the full
spectrum of military operations as an integral member of a cohesive joint team. Survivability is a crucially important
characteristic of military vehicles. Defensive approaches to increase vehicle survivability include Camouflage, Concealment
and Deception (CCD) techniques, which reduce detectability, and armor, which enables the vehicle to absorb a hit and still
remain functional. A third defensive approach is the Active Protection Systems (APS) that detect and respond automatically to
incoming weapons. The concept involves the detection and tracking of an incoming threat and the deployment of a
countermeasure (CM) to defeat the threat before it impacts the intended target. APS may provide an alternative to thicker
armor as a means for making systems more survivable. In order to address the area of enhanced survivability the TRADOC
Analysis Center (TRAC) has developed and incorporated a methodology into the Vector-In-Commander (VIC) model
providing the ability to represent vehicles that possess an APS or suite of APS.


Modeling Automated Target Recognition in Vector-In-Commander (VIC)
Michael Scott Cox
Model Management and Development Directorate
TRADOC Analysis Center, ATTN: ATRC-FM
255 Sedgwick Avenue, Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345
Phone: (913) 684-9171//Fax: (913) 684-9232
scott.cox@trac.army.mil

          The U.S. Army’s Future Force will be organized, manned, equipped, and trained to be more strategically responsive,
deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable than we are today. This goal applies across the full spectrum
of military operations as an integral member of an effective cohesive joint team i . In support of the Future Force analysis, the
TRADOC Analysis Center (TRAC) developed a methodology in Vector-In-Commander (VIC) to update the engagement
characteristics associated with munitions that have the Automated Target Recognition (ATR) capability. This enhancement
allowed the analysis of increased lethality associated with the Future Force systems.
           VIC is a two-sided, deterministic, discrete event simulation of combat in a combined arms environment representing
land, sea, and air forces at the Joint Task Force level with a commensurate enemy force in a mid-intensity battle. VIC's primary
role is the development of TRADOC standard operational level scenarios and the conduct of combined arms analysis on doctrine,
force structure, operational concepts, and Analysis of Alternatives (AoA's).


D-70
     Land and Expeditionary Warfare                                                                       WG-12
Survivability Analysis of a Ceramic Tile Armored Vehicle
Paul Fedele                                    William deRosset                               Mark Mahaffey
U.S. Army Research Laboratory                  U.S. Army Research Laboratory                  U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Survivability/Lethality Analysis               Survivability/Lethality Analysis               Survivability/Lethality Analysis
Directorate                                    Directorate                                    Directorate
ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-SL-BB                          ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-SL-BB                          ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-SL-BB
APG, Maryland 21005-5068                       APG, Maryland 21005-5068                       APG, Maryland 21005-5068
Phone: (410) 278-4081
Paul.fedele@us.army.mil

Timothy Mallary                                Richard Saucier
U.S. Army Research Laboratory                  U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Survivability/Lethality Analysis               Survivability/Lethality Analysis
Directorate                                    Directorate
ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-SL-BB                          ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-SL-BB
APG, Maryland 21005-5068                       APG, Maryland 21005-5068

          For a lightly armored vehicle, we give an analysis of the increase in survivability produced by the addition of
ceramic tile armor, which has been designed to defeat a particular medium or heavy machine gun munition. The U.S. Army
Research Laboratory (ARL) is responsible for developing and analyzing new army systems. Ceramic tile armors are
currently being used and are being considered for future light-weight armored vehicles. Ceramics can provide the same
ballistic protection as steel at a reduced weight. Although ceramic tile armor can defeat individual rounds, these impacts
locally degrade the armor and subsequent impacts in the same location can penetrate the armor system. Traditionally, ARL
analyses consider only individual hits, but medium and heavy caliber machine guns can deliver hundreds of rounds/minute on
a target; it is essential to consider the survivability of the entire vehicle, over the entire encounter. This work expands work
by deRosset and others at ARL. We apply binomial statistics in analyzing total armor array penetration and the impact of the
penetration on vehicle survivability. Our analysis shows the influence of threat range and associated dispersion on vehicle
survivability and on the ballistic protection provided by developing ceramic armors.



Web-Based Fire Support Information System Provides Near Real-Time Reporting and
Combat Analysis During Operation Iraqi Freedom II
MAJ Garrett D. Heath
Battalion Executive Officer
HHS / 1-33 FA, 1st Infantry Division
Unit 27513, Box 618
APO AE 09392
garrett.heath@us.army.mil

          A challenge facing division and lower staffs is the efficient and effective use of information-age technologies while
performing the six basic functions of an operations center. The importance of performing these functions has not changed
over time; however, rapid advances in the conduct of modern warfare require change in the methods and systems used.
          This presentation provides an overview and demonstration of the 1st Infantry Division Artillery Portal – a Web-
based fire support information system. The Portal provides battlefield operating system staffs and units the ability to submit
and access near real-time fire support information and perform dynamic analysis. The Division Artillery Fire Support
Element used the Portal throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom II, and the follow-on units for Operation Iraqi Freedom III
transitioned to the Portal also.
          The 1st Infantry Division Artillery Portal received a 2004 Army Knowledge Award for Transformation Initiative in
Battlefield Applications.




                                                                                                                         D-71
     Land and Expeditionary Warfare                                                                      WG-12
Geospatial Analysis for Measuring the Effectiveness of Joint Operations
LTC Robert Kewley                             LTC Mark Brantley                          MAJ Jeff Libby
Center for Army Analysis                      Center for Army Analysis                   Center for Army Analysis
6001 Goethals Road                            6001 Goethals Road                         6001 Goethals Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                        Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                     Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
703-806-5562//FAX 703-806-5726                703-806-5611//FAX 703-806-5726             703-806-5382//FAX 703-806-5726
Robert.Kewley@us.army.mil                     Mark.Brantley@us.army.mil                  Jeffrey.Libby@us.army.mil

MAJ Andy Farnsler                             LTC Mike Stollenwerk                       Mr. John Bott
HQDA, Army G8, DAPR-QDR,                      Center for Army Analysis                   Center for Army Analysis
700 Army Pentagon Room 3E434                  6001 Goethals Road                         6001 Goethals Road
Washington DC 20310                           Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                     Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
703-695-1102                                  703-806-5638//FAX 703-806-5726             703-806-5669//FAX 703-806-5732
Andy.Farnsler@us.army.mil                     Mike.Stollenwerk@us.army.mil               John.Bott@us.army.mil

          A recurring theme in effects-based assessments of joint operations is analysis of the effects of different joint
operations on the pattern of enemy activity. Joint staffs engaged in a full spectrum campaign are continuously interested in
the localized effects of a wide variety of activities. These include civil projects, leader engagement, counter-IED operations,
base protection measures, and offensive operations. Geospatial analysis is one technique for analysis of these effects. This
involves defining the effected area and duration of the effects. Once this area and duration are defined, enemy activities in
the area are extracted using geospatial techniques. If enough friendly events are analyzed, statistical analysis allows
conclusions to be drawn about the expected effects of joint operations on a particular pattern of enemy activity. One
drawback of this technique is that it can only show correlation, not cause and effect. In spite of this limitation, these
techniques have shown great utility in supporting joint assessments in Iraq and Afghanistan.


A Joint Fires Model for Urban Close Air Support Operations
LTC Jeffery Joles                                                Mr. Donald Hinton
TRADOC Analysis Center, ATRC-FM, 255 Sedgwick Ave                TRADOC Analysis Center, ATRC-FM, 255 Sedgwick Ave
Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345                                   Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345
Phone: (913) 684-9298// Jeffery.Joles@trac.army.mil              Phone: (913) 684-9298

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Infrastructure Assessment Tool
CPT Travis J. Lindberg                                           COL Joe D. Manous, Jr.
United States Military Academy                                   United States Military Academy
Department of Systems Engineering                                Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering
Mahan Hall, Thayer Road, West Point, NY 10996                    Thayer Road, West Point, NY 10996
(845) 938-4752                                                   (845) 938-2930
travis.lindberg@us.army.mil                                      joe.manous@usma.edu

COL Ronald W. Welch                                              LTC Timothy Trainor
United States Military Academy                                   United States Military Academy
Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering                   Dept of Systems Engineering
Mahan Hall, Thayer Road, West Point, NY 10996                    Mahan Hall, Thayer Road, West Point NY 10996
(845) 938-4099//Ronald.Welch@usma.edu                            (845) 938-5534//timothy.trainor@usma.edu

         Faced with a world population that is increasingly becoming more urbanized, civilian (both governmental and non-
governmental) relief agencies and military commanders continue to struggle with how to best allocate infrastructure renewal
assets in areas ravaged by natural disasters and military conflict. Relief agencies and military organizations currently use
numerous infrastructure assessment tools, each with varying degrees of sophistication. Unfortunately, many of these existing

D-72
     Land and Expeditionary Warfare                                                                          WG-12
Infrastructure Assessment Tools produce reports that do not necessarily help higher headquarters prioritize the allocation of
infrastructure renewal assets. However, the Infrastructure Assessment tool, as designed by three engineering departments at
the United States Military Academy (USMA), seeks to quantifiably assess a region’s infrastructure status, while
simultaneously accounting for environmental factors, in order to help prioritize the allocation of infrastructure renewal assets.
The Infrastructure Assessment tool conducts assessments by using a common set of metrics based on the type of
infrastructure category assessed. Assessment areas are weighted to reflect their relative importance in contributing to mission
success in a particular area of operations. It is intended to be used by combat units and technical specialists alike, and will
adjust the level of specificity to the technical ability of the individual, or organizations, attempting to conduct the assessment.


Joint Forcible Entry Operations (JFEO) Capability-Based Assessment
Maj Donald B. (Britt) McNeill, Jr., USMC
J-8, Force Application Assessment Division
Pentagon, Room 1D940, Washington, DC
(703) 695-4447//donald.mcneill@js.pentagon.mil

          I propose presenting an updated paper on the Joint Staff-led Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System
(JCIDS)-driven Capability-Based Assessment for Joint Forcible Entry Operations, studying airborne, air assault, and
amphibious operations. This study was briefed to MORSS in 2004 and was also presented at the Capabilities-Based Planning
workshop in October 2004.
          This ground-breaking study, which began in January 2004 and is currently ongoing, is the first study to go through
the full JCIDS process (reference CJCSI 3170.01C). In this study, study team members will produce a Functional Area
Analysis (FAA) using the JFCOM-produced Joint Integrating Concept (JIC). This document provided a starting list of
capabilities that the working group modified to produce a final list of required capabilities for JFEO. The working group
determined which of the required capabilities are critical for conducting JFEO. This list of critical capabilities is the final
output of the FAA.
          The study team then conducted a Functional Needs Assessment (FNA) using the FAA output. In this phase, we used
three main components of analysis to determine the gaps, shortfalls, and redundancies as defined in CJCSI 3170.01C:
systems-level analysis using values focused thinking, a literature review of previous studies and their results, and modeling
and simulation. We used a list of attributes for JFEO that is based upon applicable functional concept attributes. For the
systems level analysis, Services provided lists of systems, current, planned and possible, that will provide the required
capabilities from the FAA. The working group then defined metrics to determine the value of the systems provided by the
Services. For the modeling and simulation, the J-8 contracted with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab using a
complex terrain scenario and a desert terrain scenario, looking at five force combinations. This work, which is ongoing, has
identified a number of gaps and shortfalls, and work is underway to determine if there are any potential redundancies, as well.
          At the completion of the FNA, JCIDS calls for conducting a Functional Solutions Assessment (FSA) in order to
determine the solutions, materiel and non-materiel, to the gaps determined to exist in the FNA. It is yet to be determined
whether or not an FSA will be done and how it will be done. According to CJCSI 3170.01C, the FSA will produce an Interim
Capabilities Document (ICD) that will be used to direct experimentation by JFCOM and potential changes to doctrine.


Assessing the Effects of Joint Fires on Joint Forcible Entry Operations (JFEO)
Peter B. Melim                                                   Steven Darcy
JWARS Program Office                                             CACI, Inc. - Federal
1555 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22209                            1600 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 696-9563//pmelim@caci.com                                  (703) 558-0277//sdarcy@caci.com

          The Joint Warfare Systems (JWARS) is a theater-level campaign simulation model that integrates Joint Fires in
support of Joint Forcible Entry Operations. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of Joint Fires, in the
form of airpower, in support of airborne forces conducting forcible entry operations. This study was conducted to assist Joint
Staff J-8/FAAD in determining what factors influence the level of joint fire support required during the assault phase to
effectively insert and maintain friendly ground forces. The results indicate that key factors influence the level of joint fire
support is not only dependant on the type, duration and environmental factors, but also key factors influencing the enemy’s
ability to counter the foreign forces by maneuver. JWARS was able to highlight the critical aspects of applying airpower at

                                                                                                                            D-73
    Land and Expeditionary Warfare                                                                    WG-12
the proper place and timing to mitigate the effectiveness of the enemy’s counter maneuver. The briefing will summarize the
modeling methodology and results of the study.


Convoy Planning Tool for ECM Placement
Mr. Matthew Koehler                          Mr. Lawton Clites                            Major Joseph Monaghan
The MITRE Corporation                        Marine Corps Warfighting Lab                 Marine Corps Warfighting Lab
W903, Mailstop: H305                         3255 Meyers Avenue                           3255 Meyers Avenue
7515 Colshire Dr.                            Quantico, VA 22134                           Quantico, VA 22134
McLean, VA 22102                                                                          703-432-1305
(703) 883-1214
mkoehler@mitre.org

Major Bruce Paterson                         Mr. Jonathan Schwartz
Marine Corps Warfighting Lab                 The MITRE Corporation
3255 Meyers Avenue                           Mailstop: H305
Quantico, VA 22134                           7515 Colshire Dr.
703-432-1305                                 McLean, VA 22102
                                             (703) 883-1214
                                             jschwart@mitre.org

          As the Improvised Explosive Device (IED) threat proliferates in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Defense
has increased efforts to field multiple electronic countermeasures (ECM) to help neutralize this problem. Recognizing the
complexity of the problem of employing new technology in a very dynamic environment, the Marine Corps Improvised
Explosive Device Working Group created an easy to use software program to assist planning staffs and convoy commanders
in placing ECMs within a convoy. An initial release of the software is being prepared for deployment to Iraq. The software
allows the user to: visually lay out a convoy, add ECMs of various types, create a “threat environment” from a list of
potential threats found in theater, see a protection assessment for the convoy as a whole and for individual vehicles, make
global changes to convoy such as adjust spacing or cluster trucks around ECMs, add or remove trucks or ECMs, and print out
a report for use in briefings. Feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Development will continue through the Joint IED
Task Force, Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division, and the Marine Corps IED Working Group.



Military Utility of Blue Force Tracking
Mr. Ioroslau Parowczenko                                       Mr. William M. Tomlinson
U.S. Army SMDC FWC                                             Science Applications International Corporation
Studies and Analysis Division                                  Senior Operations Research Analyst
Study Team Lead                                                4901-D Corporate Drive
P.O. Box 1500                                                  Huntsville, AL 35805
Huntsville, AL 35807-3801                                      (256) 864-8355
(256) 955-1278                                                 tomlinsonw@saic.com
Jerry.Parowczenko@smdc.army.mil


    The United States Army Space and Missile Defense Command Future Warfare Center executed an analysis into the
benefits vital Space Architectures provide to Blue Force Tracking (BFT). The study focused on military utility from the
perspective of the maneuver warfighter at the Combined Arms Battalion (CAB) Future Force echelon. The BFT analysis was
conducted using warfighter-in-the-loop simulations including JANUS and Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS).
After executing a rigorous case matrix, outputs were examined to identify any deltas in military utility between cases with
persistent BFT and cases with a degraded BFT capability. Prior to conducting simulation runs, Essential Elements of
Analysis (EEAs) were developed and continually examined to ensure study issues were being explored. JANUS was used to
examine the military utility that space based BFT added to the Special Operations Force level while JCATS was used to
examine the additional utility added to an urban conflict by space based BFT and precision weapon delivery. Key findings

D-74
     Land and Expeditionary Warfare                                                                     WG-12
and insights from Phase I were used to “frame” the ongoing Phase II effort which continues to “drill-down” into key study
issues. This presentation will focus on key study insights and findings and will discuss on-going and future BFT analysis
efforts.



Benefits of Precision Artillery Fires to Military Operations in Urban Terrain and
Maneuver Warfare


Jon E Peoble                                  Gordon G Latta                                Jim M. Rodrigue
Raytheon Missile Systems                      Raytheon Missile Systems                      Raytheon Missile Systems
Operations Research and                       Operations Research and                       Operations Research and
System Performance Department                 System Performance Department                 System Performance Department
1151 E. Hermans Road                          1151 E. Hermans Road                          1151 E. Hermans Road
Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                         Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                         Tucson, AZ 85734-1337
(520) 545-7841                                (520) 545-7841                                (520) 545-7841
FAX: (520) 794-8625                           FAX: (520) 794-8625                           FAX: (520) 794-8625
Jon_E_Peoble@raytheon.com                     gglatta@raytheon.com                          jmrodrigue@raytheon.com

          As exemplified by recent history and current operations in Iraq, today’s Army and Marine ground forces are facing a
variety of unconventional threats in complex and urban terrain. The threat is increasingly employing asymmetric methods
and technologies and future threats are expected to become even more elusive and adaptive. In such an environment, the need
for highly responsive, precision fires becomes apparent in direct combat, force protection, and counterinsurgency operations.
It is these precise, measurable responses that will shatter the enemies’ cohesion and render them incapable of resisting
effectively, while also allowing our land and expeditionary forces to avoid collateral damage and fratricide and to defeat
threats that now escape being engaged. Organic precision artillery fires places this capability directly into the hands of the
land Warfighter, allowing them to achieve these measured responses when traditional and Joint fires are either not available
or are not appropriate. This presentation addresses the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) for employing organic
precision fires in military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) and maneuver warfare. It highlights the performance attributes
that are key to achieving measurable improvements in combat effects on the battlefield. It also quantifies the benefits by
examining results from several studies using the Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS) and the Combined Arms
and Support Task Force Evaluation Model (CASTFOREM).


Operational Maneuver Analysis - Future Combat System Unit of Action
 LTC Brad Pippin                                                  Mr. Matt Boetig
 Joint and Combined Operations Directorate                        Joint and Combined Operations Directorate
 TRADOC Analysis Center                                           TRADOC Analysis Center
 Attn: ATRC-FJ                                                    Attn: ATRC-FJ
 255 Sedgwick Avenue                                              255 Sedgwick Avenue
 Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345                                   Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345
 (913) 684-9226                                                   (913) 684-9280 Matt.Boetig@trac.army.mil
pippinb@trac.army.mil


         TRADOC Analysis Center (TRAC), in coordination with the Unit of Action Mounted Battle Lab, the Combined
Arms Support Command, and the Future Combat System (FCS) Lead System Integrator, is conducting an assessment of
operational maneuver of a Future Combat System force. The study will assess the ability of the FCS UA to operationally
maneuver a force using C-130 transport to deliver a specific mission-defined capability. The force will employ the LSI's 24
ton “build-to” platform design concept for the FCS which requires transport in packages and assemblage into a full combat
configuration(FCC) platform upon arrival. A range of relevant, operationally sound vignettes will provide a foundation for
this analysis. TRAC will combine upfront research and data collection with a series of subject matter expert workshops to
define the parameters of operational maneuver. These parameters will be used to model operational maneuver within a


                                                                                                                       D-75
     Land and Expeditionary Warfare                                                                     WG-12
network flow model. TRAC will brief the results in support of the May 2005 FCS Milestone B update. The presentation to
MORS will include the study methods as well as the study results and insights.




Applying Directed-Energy/Non-Lethal Technologies for Critical Infrastructure Protection
(CIP)
Jim M. Rodrigue                                                  Shawn A. Miller
Raytheon Missile Systems                                         Raytheon Missile Systems
Operations Research and                                          Directed Energy Weapons
System Performance Department                                    1151 E. Hermans Road
1151 E. Hermans Road                                             Tucson, AZ 85734-1337
Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                                            (520) 794-0418
(520) 794-1349//FAX: (520) 794-8625                              FAX: (520) 794-8332
jmrodrigue@raytheon.com                                          Shawn_A_Miller@raytheon.com

         Using the past decade as a measuring stick, the ability to successfully control crowds and protect critical
infrastructures is increasing in importance. Organizations have been trying to understand how training, doctrine and
technology impact their ability to mitigate the multiple threats crowds place on security personnel. Homeland Security,
Department of Energy, Department of Transportation and the State Department are among the organizations interested in
understanding how to effectively protect their facilities and personnel from uncontrolled crowds. One of their focus areas is
in understanding how to incorporate Non-Lethal Weapons (NLWs) into their overall security plan. Quantifying the
effectiveness of the multiple NLW alternatives is critical to enable efficient use of limited infrastructure security budgets.
Directed Energy (DE) NLWs are one of the emerging alternatives showing unparalleled capabilities to deny crowd access to
controlled areas. This presentation summarizes analysis conducted using the Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS)
to address and quantify issues related to incorporating DE NLWs into the CIP security architecture. It highlights the use of
modeling, simulation and analysis to determine the impact technology has on mission outcome, doctrine and tactics to
enhance crowd control.


Correlation Between Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) Attacks and Weapon Caches
Belinda H. Scheber                                               Seth Howell
The Center for Army Analysis                                     The Center for Army Analysis
6001 Goethals Road                                               6001 Goethals Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5230                                      Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5230
(703) 806-5559                                                   (703) 806-5685//(703) 806-5732
belinda.scheber@caa.army.mil                                     seth.howell@caa.army.mil

     This study was completed as a reach back support for OIF and MNC-I and looks at a possible association of Improvised
Explosive Devices (IEDs), weapons caches and cultural sites in metropolitan areas. Using Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) and separate statistical methods this study looks at patterns and trends of IED attacks, locations of weapons caches and
also the locations of cultural sites in the metropolitan areas.


Enhanced Planning Process (EPP): Joint Forcible Entry Operations (JFEO) Analysis




D-76
     Land and Expeditionary Warfare                                                                      WG-12
Mr. Chuck Werchado                                               Dr. Web Ewell
OSD/PA&E/NFD                                                     OSD/PA&E/NFD
Room 2D278, 1800 Defense Pentagon                                Room 2D278
Washington, DC 20301-1800                                        1800 Defense Pentagon
Chuck.werchado@osd.mil                                           Washington, DC 20301-1800


     As part of the EPP capabilities-based assessment process initiated in FY04, the OSD Program Analysis and Evaluation
(PA&E) Naval Forces Division led an analysis of various methods to quickly close a Marine Expeditionary Brigade-sized
force to crisis locations across the “arc of instability” from Africa to East Asia. Force structure, crewing, and basing
alternatives were all assessed. An improvement to the already-innovative Force Structure Assessment Tool (FORSAT)
allowed literally thousands of data points to be obtained from a simulated six-year period, and both the crisis response time
and operating stress on alternative expeditionary warfare forces were assessed. The recommendations of this study were used
to inform the POM06 program review.


Modular Redesign of the Army: TRADOC Analysis Center and Task Force Modularity
MAJ Eugene A. Yancey, III                     COL Jeffrey R. Witsken                         LTC Todd Gesling
TRADOC Analysis Center                        TRADOC Analysis Center                         TRADOC Analysis Center
255 Sedgwick Avenue                           255 Sedgwick Avenue                            255 Sedgwick Avenue
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027                Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027                 Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027
(913) 684-9181                                (913) 684-6861                                 (913) 684-3259
Eugene.yancey@trac.army.mil                   Jeffrey.witsken@us.army.mil                    Todd.Gesling@trac.army.mil

MAJ Joseph Roach                              MAJ Patrick Walden
TRADOC Analysis Center- Fort                  TRADOC Analysis Center- Fort
Leavenworth                                   Leavenworth
255 Sedgwick Avenue                           255 Sedgwick Avenue
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027                Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027
(913) 684-9134                                (913) 684-9172
Joseph.Roach@trac.army.mil                    Patrick.walden@us.army.mil

          In the fall of 2003 the CSA recognized a “window of opportunity” to reset the Army as a brigade-based force, more
relevant in the current strategic environment. The CSA commissioned Task Force Modularity to design modular,
capabilities-based units of action to enable rapid packaging and responsive, sustained employment within the current end
strength of the Army. The basic methodology employed by the task force was an iterative process of developing
organizations, assessing effectiveness and identifying stress points, then refining the designs and again entering the
evaluation cycle.
          Based upon this analysis, the CSA made the decision to implement the Heavy BCT and Infantry BCT designs,
Army-wide, on 4 February 2004. As the designs of the maneuver BCTs matured, the emphasis of the analysis effort shifted
to those operational level organizations that had already converted to the design or are undergoing conversion. This analysis
continues today.
          To date, within the last year, TF Modularity has integrated input from over 25 independent study efforts to include 5
days of Rules of Allocation Reviews, over 68 days of operational level assessments, 102 days of tactical level assessments
and simulation, and 88 days of focused observation of units in the field. Analysis from TRAC TF Modularity analysts has
underpinned recent decisions on the most sweeping changes to the structure of the Army in over fifty years.


Precision Munitions Mix Analysis




                                                                                                                        D-77
     Land and Expeditionary Warfare                                                                    WG-12
Major Guy Younger                                               Dr. Tony Quinzi
TRADOC Analysis Center                                          TRADOC Analysis Center
ATTN: ATRC-WB                                                   ATTN: ATRC-WB
Building 1400, Martin Luther King Drive                         Building 1400, Martin Luther King Drive
White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002-5502                        White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002-5502
(505) 678-2339                                                  (505) 678-2339
youngergc@trac.wsmr.army.mil

         There are numerous precision munitions proposed to support current and future forces. These encompass both
Army specific and Joint precision munitions. Realistically only a few of these precision munitions can be funded and fielded
to the force. The purpose of the Precision Munitions Mix Analysis (PMMA) is to examine unique combinations of these
precision munitions in a holistic manner and subsequently provide recommendations for future precision munition
investment.
         PMMA is structured in three phases, each building upon the other, in order to provide recommendations with a
sound analytic foundation. Phase I screening identifies the most versatile Army and Joint alternatives employed against a
representative target set in two major regional contingencies. Phase II mix development establishes unique combinations
(mixes) of Army precision alternatives for examination in combat simulation. Phase III mix analysis determines the
preferred mixes to support both the current and future force utilizing both force level and mix specific criteria.
         This presentation will discuss precision munition screening, development of precision munitions mixes, insights on
the importance of enabling systems to precision munition employment and the impact of mixes to support both the current
and future force.

Back-up presentation:

A Methodology and Tool for Estimating Stability and Reconstruction Operations Force
Size and Mix


Thomas Szayna                                                   Patrick Mills
RAND Corporation                                                Associate Operations Researcher
1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138                                 RAND Corporation
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138                                     1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138
(310) 393-0411                                                  Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
szayna@rand.org                                                 (310) 393-0411 x7983
                                                                pmills@rand.org


        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING




D-78
  Littoral Warfare and Regional Sea Control WG-13
CHAIR: Nelky Rodriguez, Naval Surface Warfare Center
CO-CHAIRS: Tom Butherus Naval Surface Warfare Center, LCDR Brian Grimm, PA&E/GPP/
Richard Miller Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory
David Flanigan, Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory
ADVISOR: Gordon Hall, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City, Littoral Warfare Branch

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


High Resolution Characterization of Riverine and Coastal Currents
Cheryl Ann Blain                          T. Christopher Massey                      Brett D. Estrade
Naval Research Laboratory                 Naval Research Laboratory                  Naval Research Laboratory
Oceanography Division                     Oceanography Division                      Oceanography Division
Code 7322                                 Code 7322                                  Code 7322
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529            Stennis Space Center, MS 39529             Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
228-688-5450                              228-688-5449                               228-688-4151
FAX 228-688-4759                          FAX 228-688-4759                           FAX 228-688-4759
blain@nrlssc.navy.mil                     massey@nrlssc.navy.mil                     estrade@nrlssc.navy.mil

         Advanced numerical models of the coastal ocean applied at spatial scales of 10 to 100 m incorporate appropriate
dynamics, complex shorelines and bathymetry, and are able to predict the variability of coastal circulation throughout the
entire water column. High-resolution models can be exercised as a virtual laboratory for understanding the cause and effect
between forcing and circulation. In denied areas, satellite imagery may provide synoptic, real-time measurements but the
large spatial scales (250m – 1km) and infrequent temporal resolution are limiting. Numerical models fill the gap and can
provide critical environmental information for military operations.
         Currents at unprecedented, meter resolutions in the northern Persian Gulf are predicted by the coastal circulation
model, ADCIRC, which utilizes unstructured grids. Details of the forecast system and examples demonstrating the benefit of
modeling at high resolution are provided. The correlation of tidal currents to diver visibility derived from the MODIS
imagery clearly connects the circulation to military operations. Additional results from a recently developed model of the
Mississippi River and its outflow provide further evidence of the variability of coastal circulation and the need for an
advanced high resolution predictive system.


Relative Value of Stealth and Mobility in Littoral Operations
Mr. Mark Campbell
Naval Surface Warfare Center-NSWCCD
Code 242
Military Effectiveness Group
(301) 227-5239
campbellma@nswc.navy.mil

          NSWC-Carderock was tasked by ONR in FY04 to undertake a study to examine the relative effects of different
levels of stealth and mobility upon the military effectiveness of future USN frigate-sized surface combatants in a variety of
littoral environments. Conditions tested included a variety of threats, including surface and air platforms, in both high-and
low-density neutral traffic environments. Our presentation will discuss the logic behind creation of the scenarios, the M&S
tool used (NABEM), the analytical process, and the resulting conclusions. This will be a secret-level presentation.




                                                                                                                      D-79
  Littoral Warfare and Regional Sea Control WG-13
Maritime Air to Surface Tool Used to Show Engagement Zones for Inbound Surface
Threats by Varying Alert Bases and Times
CDR Scott Dix                                                   Mr. Steve James
NORAD/NORTHCOM ANALYSIS                                         NORAD/NORTHCOM ANALYSIS
250 South Peterson Blvd, Suite 116                              250 South Peterson Blvd, Suite 116
719-554-9917                                                    719-554-5122
scott.dix@northcom.mil                                          steve.james@northcom.mil

     This tool evolved from the NORAD model, PC Fighter Intercept Boundary (PCFIB), which was used to determine where
inbound airborne threats would be intercepted given a set of bases, interceptors, and surveillance radars. The Analysis
Directorate modified the tool to simulate inbound surface threats instead of air threats. This tool will determine where a
launch order must be given in order to intercept an inbound surface threat based on: alert aircraft type, alert base, alert time,
threat speed, and desired intercept distance from CONUS. In addition to showing each base’s engagement zone, it will also
show any gaps in coverage, revealing a possible vulnerability. By varying alert times and bases, the user can best determine
which bases give the best coverage on inbound surface threats.


Dynamic Effects of Target Location Area of Uncertainty (AoU) on Attacking Long-range
Moving Targets
Dave Flanigan
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab
Johns Hopkins Road, Laurel, MD 20723-6099
(240) 228-8129//FAX (240) 228-5229
david.flanigan@jhuapl.edu

          A System of Systems (SoS) may be developed to reveal the benefits of operating synergistically towards
accomplishing a particular mission. While it may be simple to analyze an individual system’s performance and ability to
accomplish this mission, it is more challenging to analyze a SoS ability to accomplish the same mission to reveal the value of
a SoS. The purpose of this presentation is to describe a MATLAB tool that was created to demonstrate the utility of multiple
surveillance sensors and interceptors operating in concert to detect and engage threats. Within the tool there are several
options for the analyst to consider including: placement of surveillance assets, placement of interceptors, information
exchange latency, sensor performance, interceptor performance, and interceptor employment times/ranges. Analysis may be
performed to determine the most significant factor (or interaction of multiple factors) in accomplishing the mission through
statistical significance. The tool output can also feed external programs constructed to be able to visualize the scenario.
          This tool is flexible enough to be used for multi-warfare scenarios; the first increment will focus on air warfare
(AW) and surface warfare (SUW). Two operational scenarios are used to illustrate the utility of this tool and the results that
may be generated. This presentation provides examples how such an approach is implemented, the variation of different
parameters (and their effects), sample output visualizations, and some of the insights gained from asset employment
decisions.


LCS Study-Design Principles of Distributed Naval Forces
Mr. David Garvey                                                Mr. Jeff Cares
Alidade Incorporated                                            Alidade Incorporated
31 Bridge Street, Newport, RI, 02840                            31 Bridge Street, Newport, RI, 02840
(401) 367-0040//FAX (401) 633-6420                              (401) 367-0040//FAX (401) 633-6420
Dave.garvey@alidade.net                                         jeff.cares@alidade.net


         Defense community innovators have proposed concepts that use cutting-edge technologies to solve long standing
military challenges, including destruction of time-critical targets, theater-wide surveillance and power projection and access
to contested littorals. These concepts assume great benefit from networking of unmanned, distributed force, but a useful
definition of networked forces does not yet exist and the advantages of networking have not been fully and convincingly
expressed. This document defines and describes how "Distributed Forces" provide Information Age advantage and offers
some design principles for future distributed naval forces in the littoral.

D-80
  Littoral Warfare and Regional Sea Control WG-13
The Salvo Equations: Tests and Applications-Naval Operations Logistics
Prof Wayne P. Hughes, FS
Naval Postgraduate School
Code 550R/HL, Department of OR, Monterey CA 93943-5000
(831) 656-2848 DSN: 756-2484//FAX: (831) 656-2595 // whughes@nps.navy.mil

          The simplicity and transparency of the "Salvo Equations," first described in Naval Operations Logistics in March
1995, has led to expansions, tests, and applications. I will describe some of these from the past decade, notably by professors
Tom Lucas and Michael Armstrong and the most interesting ones by many students who have used the salvo equations as the
basis of a Naval Postgraduate School thesis.


Optimal Reload Strategies for Identify and Destroy Missions
Dr. John Hyland                                                   Dr. Cheryl Smith
Naval Surface Warfare Center                                      Naval Surface Warfare Center
110 Vernon Avenue,Panama City, FL 32407                           110 Vernon Avenue
(850)234-4252//john.hyland@navy.mil                               Panama City, FL 32407

         The research of R. K. Reber forms the basis of current U. S. Navy minehunting, minesweeping and reconnaissance
analysis. This analysis was developed from the late 1940s through the 1950s and was a major breakthrough for the U. S. Navy.
Under the conditions for which it was designed - single-sensor systems with trapezoidal shaped performance functions, deployed
from surface ships with Gaussian navigation error – the techniques work extremely well. However, the US Navy’s mine
countermeasure (MCM) missions have now become inconceivably more complex; today’s MCM missions now utilize a myriad
of platforms, each outfitted with a complex array of sensors. The US Navy envisions simultaneously utilizing unmanned
underwater vehicles, remotely operated vehicles, towed systems, airborne systems, swarms of crawling vehicles, etc., all working
together towards a common mission goal. Analyzing these complex operations with current modeling tools can be quite
cumbersome.
         In general, when properly formulated, most MCM missions can be described mathematically as a resource allocation
problem. Specific missions might include which assets should be deployed to specific areas so that overall mission time is
minimize, what platform trajectory optimizes mission performance, or how should the output of multiple sensors be
combined to maximize probability of detection. Although each mission is distinct, much of the underlying mathematical
analysis used to calculate the mission’s overall measure of effectiveness (MOE) is identical. Fortunately, numerous
mathematical tools currently exist and are readily available to solve these problems. These tools include dynamic
programming, search trees, Markov modeling, multi-dimensional probability analysis, incremental optimization,
combinatorial analysis, and Monte Carlo simulations. Over the past decade, the Naval Surface Warfare Center-Panama City
(NSWC-PC) has applied these various techniques to numerous mine warfare problems and has had considerable success.
The presentation summarizes our results for asset allocation, multi-dimensional tactical analysis, optimal prosecution
sequence, optimal reload strategies, minimum risk mine avoidance, and optimal decision regions.


LHA(R) Cargo Handling System Trade Study Models
Tyson Kackley
Naval Surface Warfare Center, 110 Vernon Ave., Panama City, FL 32407
(850) 234-4751 // tyson.kackley@navy.mil
          The Cargo Handling System Trade Study Models were created in support of a trade study conducted for the LHA(R)
program at a time when LHA(R) was slated to have a well deck. The study was sponsored by NAVSEA 05D. The study was
to determine what the realistic throughput would be for several cargo handling system options under consideration for the
LHA(R) well deck. The three options—fork trucks only, cargo monorail, and bridge crane—were modeled in detail using
the AutoMod 3-D discrete-event simulation environment.
          Subject matter experts were consulted to determine exactly how the cargo loading process would take place, and
usable information was gleaned from data obtained in past studies. The realistic 3-D presentation of the models was useful
for verification, validation, and communication of results. The end result of the study was realistic LCAC cycle times for the
LHA(R) well deck for each of the cargo handling systems under consideration. This type of modeling effort enables
decision-makers to make well-informed judgments regarding such complicated systems.

                                                                                                                         D-81
  Littoral Warfare and Regional Sea Control WG-13
 Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS): Considering Resource Conflict Resolution
in Multi-warfare Analyses
Dr. Joseph Kovalchik
John Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory
11100 John Hopkins Road
Laurel MD, 20723
(240) 228-6264
Joseph.Kovalchik@jhuapl.edu

          This paper presents the details of the APL Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS) which addresses the
growing interest in the Defense community in the ability to perform multi-warfare analysis-analysis that crosses the domains
of multiple mission areas. Because of the complexity involved, previous efforts to conduct multi-warfare analyses were
conducted on carefully constructed scenarios which artificially lead to stove piped, single mission area analysis. These
studies avoided both the effects of competing resources across multi-warfare areas and the dependencies of one warfare area
on another.
          Advances in the speed of computer hardware and in the development of interoperability standards for simulations
have now made it possible to consider performing multi-warfare analysis by federating “best-of-breed” mission level
simulations into a single interoperability simulation operating across several networked computers. The John Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) has developed such a multi-warfare simulation federation, using the High
Level Architecture (HLA) standard developed by the Department of Defense. The federation combines the Extended Air
Defense Simulation (EADSIM), the Naval Simulation System (NSS), (ORBIS), and the APL-developed simulations Surface
AAW Multi-Ship Simulation (SAMS) and the Battle Force Engagement Model (BFEM) into a single federation, the APL
Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS). AIM is being used to simulate a tactical situation associated with multi-
warfare combat in the littorals. A Commander Federate, utilizing an expert system, sets warfare priorities either by time or
event, provides inter-warfare area conflict resolution for asset allocation, motion plans, and weapon and sensor allocation
among warfare area commanders.
          Using AIMS, analysts will not only have the “best of breed” simulations for analysis of individual mission areas, but
will also be able to examine the effects of one warfare area on another.


Dynamic Effects of Target Location Area of Uncertainty (AoU) on Attacking Long-range
Moving Targets
Jeffrey S. Levin
John Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory
11100 John Hopkins Road,
Laurel, MD, 20723-6099
(240) 228-3533
Jeffrey.Levin@jhuapl.edu

         This presentation explores a key dynamic for anti-surface warfare (ASuW) targeting: ensuring target containment
and target selectivity simultaneously. Both conditions are necessary for efficient targeting; yet both are in conflict with one
another. For successful targeting of moving targets, a weapon’s terminal basket needs to be big enough to ensure target
location AoU coverage. However, if containment gets too big, then target selectivity decreases. A generic tracking
simulation was used to estimate target AoU sizes for various sensor types, standoff ranges, target sizes, and C4ISR time
latencies. Based on these simulation data, weapon-seeker search footprints were compared with the various AoU sizes to
measure the weapon’s containment capacity, or its containment safety factor. Surprisingly, many tracking situations resulted
in unreasonably excessive containment safety factors. Various trade spaces associated with utilizing this excess containment
safety factor were identified and explored parametrically. The dynamic effects of AoU ripple through the supporting kill
chain infrastructure. Although this research pertains to maritime targeting, it is hoped that designers can find application to
other mission areas, other types of C4ISR systems, and other types of weapons that are employed against moving targets.
This will be a secret-level presentation.




D-82
  Littoral Warfare and Regional Sea Control WG-13
An Effectiveness-Limiting Model of Naval Minesweeper Casualties
Michael McCurdy
94-035 Puanane Place, Mililani, HI 96789
(808) 625-1269// hammajang@hawaii.rr.com

         This briefing presents a model of naval minesweeping operations in which sweeper casualties directly affect mission
accomplishment. Heretofore, sweeper casualties associated with a given sweeping plan have been estimated, but not allowed
to constrain mission accomplishment.
         The briefing presents two models of naval influence minesweeping: the existing “many-sweeper model” and the
new “one-sweeper model.” The many-sweeper model replaces sweeper casualties seamlessly (in space and time) as they
occur and implicitly assumes that an unlimited number of replacement sweepers is available. The one-sweeper model makes
the diametrically opposite assumption that no replacements are available. Thus occurrence of a minesweeper casualty
precludes further minefield clearance. Clearance level, countermeasures effort, and expected casualties metrics are presented
for both models.
         The briefing presents results from the two models for a sample planning problem in which countermeasures effort is
minimized subject to an upper limit on expected casualties and a lower limit on clearance level. The sample results show that
the behavior of the one-sweeper model is reasonable.


Joint Forcible Entry Operations (JFEO) Capability-Based Assessment
 Major Britt McNeill, USMC
 Land Forces Analyst
 J-8, Force Application Assessment Division, Pentagon, Room 1D940
 703-695-4447//697-1113 (DSN 225 or 227)//donald.mcneill@js.pentagon.mil

          This presentation is an updated paper on the Joint Staff-led Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System
(JCIDS)-driven Capability-Based Assessment for Joint Forcible Entry Operations, studying airborne, air assault, and
amphibious operations. This study was briefed to MORSS in 2004 and was also presented at the Capabilities-Based Planning
workshop in October 2004.
          This ground-breaking study, which began in January 2004 and is currently ongoing, is the first study to go through
the full JCIDS process (reference CJCSI 3170.01C). In this study, study team members will produce a Functional Area
Analysis (FAA) using the JFCOM-produced Joint Integrating Concept (JIC). This document provided a starting list of
capabilities that the working group modified to produce a final list of required capabilities for JFEO. The working group
determined which of the required capabilities are critical for conducting JFEO. This list of critical capabilities is the final
output of the FAA.
          The study team then conducted a Functional Needs Assessment (FNA) using the FAA output. In this phase, we used
three main components of analysis to determine the gaps, shortfalls, and redundancies as defined in CJCSI 3170.01C:
systems-level analysis using values focused thinking, a literature review of previous studies and their results, and modeling
and simulation. We used a list of attributes for JFEO that is based upon applicable functional concept attributes. For the
systems level analysis, Services provided lists of systems, current, planned and possible, that will provide the required
capabilities from the FAA. The working group then defined metrics to determine the value of the systems provided by the
Services. For the modeling and simulation, the J-8 contracted with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab using a
complex terrain scenario and a desert terrain scenario, looking at five force combinations. This work, which is ongoing, has
identified a number of gaps and shortfalls, and work is underway to determine if there are any potential redundancies, as well.
          At the completion of the FNA, JCIDS calls for conducting a Functional Solutions Assessment (FSA) in order to
determine the solutions, materiel and non-materiel, to the gaps determined to exist in the FNA. It is yet to be determined
whether or not an FSA will be done and how it will be done. According to CJCSI 3170.01C, the FSA will produce an Interim
Capabilities Document (ICD) that will be used to direct experimentation by JFCOM and potential changes to doctrine. The
first Joint Staff-led Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)-directed Capability-Based Assessments
(CBA) are currently underway with a completion date of 30 September 2004. These assessments are a completely new way
of looking at the ability to analyses of military operations. In the Joint Forcible Entry Operations (JFEO) CBA, study team
members will determine the required capabilities to conduct JFEO and then determine current and planned gaps,
redundancies, and shortfalls in JFEO. From these, study members will look to science and technology as well as the full
range of DOTMLPF to determine ways of filling the gaps and shortfalls to the identified critical capabilities and thus make
recommendations as to the best areas for further experimentation to improve our ability to conduct JFEO.

                                                                                                                        D-83
  Littoral Warfare and Regional Sea Control WG-13
Airborne Radar Search for Diesel Submarines
Dr. Steven Pilnick                                              LCDR Jose Landa
Department of Operations Research                               Venezuelan Navy
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, CA 93940
831-656-2283, Fax 831-656-2595
spilnick@nps.navy.mil

         Aircraft search to catch diesel submarines on the sea surface or with masts exposed above the sea surface has been
an anti-submarine warfare tactic for more than half a century. However, rather than analysis, operational judgment has been
used to guess at good search tactics such as how large an area can one aircraft cover effectively. In this research, a detection
rate model is developed to analyze the effectiveness of an airborne radar search for a diesel submarine assumed to be
intermittently operating with periscopes or masts exposed above the sea surface. The analysis obtains cumulative probability
of detection vs. time based on the radar manufacturer’s performance data, user inputs for aircraft search area size, search
speed, and search altitude, and submarine periscope or mast exposure profile. The model can use given periscope radar cross
section data, or roughly calculate radar cross section given assumptions about exposed periscope height above the sea-surface
and sea-state conditions. Submarine evasion due to radar counter-detection is also modeled.


Chief of Naval Operation’s World Class Modeling Initiative
LCDR Phillip E. Pournelle
OPNAV N816
2000 Navy Pentagon (Room 4D453)
Washington, DC 20350-2000
703/693-8743
phillip.pournelle@navy.mil

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING


Defense against Small Boat Attacks – Single DDG and Surface Action Group Transits
 Richard C. Rigazio
 Operations Research Analyst
 Navy Warfare Development Command
 401-841-3104; FAX: 401-841-7022
 rigazior@nwdc.navy.mil

         To support NWDC’s Concept of Operations, Defense against Small Boat Attacks, matrices of simulated scenarios
were analyzed for single DDG and Surface Action Group (2 DDG, 1 FFG, 2 attack helicopters) transits. Since the study
considered individual and group small boat behaviors, ship tactics, weapons employment, and environment, NWDC chose
Joint Semi-Automated Forces (JSAF) for simulations. A DDG or SAG must satisfy three requirements to counter large
numbers of boats:(1) Identifying the threat (behavior) at sufficient range (not less than 10,000 yards), (2) Maneuvering to
decrease closure rate, maintaining weapons arcs open, and (3) Employing high volumes of fire with accurate weapons (HE-
ET, KE-ET, CIWS-1B 20 mm). We use Kills Prior to First Leaker as our primary MOE, where a leaker is any small boat
approaching within 1000 yards of any ship. A SAG helicopter has ample opportunity to kill, but is limited by its weapons
allocation (4 Hellfire missiles). Incorporating Fire-and-Forget rockets (LOGIR - 38 rockets per helo, high P-hit) makes the
helicopter the primary defense platform. Results for a tactical scenario where a DDG (SAG) escorts a tanker in a restricted
waterway shows the DDG cannot prevent close-range attack, while the SAG, when equipped with near-term weapons,
adequately defends the vessel. This will be a secret-level presentation.




D-84
  Littoral Warfare and Regional Sea Control WG-13
DD(X) and the Transformation of the American Way of War
 Adam B. Siegel
 Northrop Grumman Analysis Center.
 1000 Wilson Blvd., Suite 2407
 Arlington, VA 22209
 703-875-0005
 fax: 703-351-6663
 adam.siegel@ngc.com

          This presentation will examine how the DD(X), the core element of the U.S. Navy's developing "Family of Ships",
might prove a tool for another leap forward in the ongoing American Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) . The briefing
will discuss an analysis showing how the technologies coming together in DD(X) will underwrite enhanced operational
capabilities that will enable transformational battlefield effects. The discussion continues with some concepts about how
these effects could transform the American Way of War in the decades ahead.


Simulation and Analysis Support of Counter Mine/Counter Obstacle System
Development
Michael Thompson
Naval Surface Warfare Center
110 Vernon Avenue
Panama City, FL 32407
(850) 235-5063
michael.h.thompson@navy.mil

          Amphibious operations are one of the cornerstones of the Ship to Objective Maneuver (STOM) concept. These
operations may be severely hindered by the use of inexpensive yet highly effective defensive steps such as mine/obstacle
placement in the surf and beach zones. Overcoming these threats in this dynamic environment presents a complex and
difficult problem. As a solution, the Assault Breaching System of Systems (ABSoS) has been conceived.
          One of the key components of the ABSoS concept is the Counter Mine/Counter Obstacle (CMCO) capability.
Several candidate systems have been forwarded to meet near-term and far-term goals. Evaluating the effectiveness of these
CMCO concepts requires a disciplined analysis process with simulation tools developed to support it.
          The Breaching Systems Effectiveness Simulation (BSES) has been developed to support this analysis task. BSES is
a system level, Monte Carlo simulation that describes the behavior of candidate CMCO systems and their interactions with
mine/obstacle targets. During its iterative simulation process, BSES allows for the introduction of such real-world aspects as
targeting and location errors, as well as system reliability probabilities. This capability is wrapped in a user interface that
allows the analyst to create and modify mission characteristics such as transit lanes, target lines, areas, types and
overburdens. Results of simulation runs are correlated and presented in reports that support analysis studies.
          BSES allows the analyst to easily play “what-if” games, or perform relative comparisons related to CMCO
candidate system configuration and performance. The analyst can focus on a true definition of “better” in terms of mission
performance, thereby more effectively directing the technology or system development. All tradeoffs are done strictly in the
virtual conceptual domain, requiring very little effort to modify and re-evaluate, a contrast to costly bench/field/sea tests.


Shipboard Organic UAV Operations
Joe Wenderoth                                                   Elliott Sidewater
Lockheed Martin MS2 LS&S                                        Lockheed Martin IS & S
2323 Eastern Boulevard, M/S E2                                  P.O Box 8048
Baltimore, MD 21220-4207                                        Bldg 100, Rm U1237
410-682-1366                                                    Philadelphia, PA 19101
joe.wenderoth@lmco.com                                          610/354-6361,
                                                                elliott.sidewater@lmco.com



                                                                                                                        D-85
  Littoral Warfare and Regional Sea Control WG-13
         Keen interest in unmanned vehicle operations has been exhibited across a number of venues. In the MORSS
analytical forum, for example, papers investigating unmanned vehicle search strategies and related missions have been
presented in a variety of Working Groups. More immediate, tactical forum applications have been examined by the military.
They have been experimenting with small Unmanned Vehicles, even in the IRAQ theater, to deal with the asymmetric threat
posed there.
         Shipboard Organic UAV Operations documents the origin, vision, evolution, development, implementation and
operation of unmanned vehicle concepts undertaken by an industry led collaboration. The industry team has performed
several experiments / demonstrations in a maritime environment with “embedded engineers” at the controls for the purpose
of collecting data and insights about the littoral warfighting environment. This paper presents some notable observations and
findings gleaned from those efforts that demonstrated an At-Sea UAV Launch, Control and Recovery System designed for
implementation on small ships. The concept is extensible to large ships as well, using re-locatable mission modules to
rapidly implement the organic UAV capability.


Enhanced Planning Process (EPP): Joint Forcible Entry Operations (JFEO) Analysis
Chuck Werchado
OSD/PA&E/NFD
Room 2D278
1800 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1800
Chuck.werchado@osd.mil

         As part of the EPP capabilities-based assessment process initiated in FY04, the OSD Program Analysis and
Evaluation (PA&E) Naval Forces Division led an analysis of various methods to quickly close a Marine Expeditionary
Brigade-sized force to crisis locations across the “arc of instability” from Africa to East Asia. Force structure, crewing, and
basing alternatives were all assessed. An improvement to the already-innovative Force Structure Assessment Tool
(FORSAT) allowed literally thousands of data points to be obtained from a simulated six-year period, and both the crisis
response time and operating stress on alternative expeditionary warfare forces were assessed. The recommendations of this
study were used to inform the POM06 program review.




D-86
                             Strike Warfare                                                                WG-14
Chair: Scott D. Simpkins, The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Co-chairs: Timothy J. Sullivan, Lockheed Martin Corporation
Jim Dettbarn, Lockheed Martin Corporation
Advisor: Dennis L. Lester, JGPSCE JT&E (SRC)

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


Building Analysis Module (BAM)
Anna Barnette
AAC/ENAW, System Effectiveness Branch
Analysis Division, Engineering Directorate
Air Armament Center, 101 West Eglin Blvd., Ste 384
Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5499
(850) 883-5286 / FAX (850) 882-9049//anna.barnette@eglin.af.mil

         The Building Analysis Module (BAM) is an operational-level tool used to evaluate weapon effects on above ground
buildings. The Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME) sponsored the development of
BAM; the module is included in WinJMEM and is distributed with JAWS. BAM evaluates the effectiveness of a weapon
against a building in terms of structural and/or functional damage resulting from an attack.
         BAM calculates the actual expected damage caused by the weapon/target interactions using a Monte Carlo analysis.
This differs from other WinJMEM methodologies, which use Effectiveness Indices (EIs) to analyze weapon effects. BAM
computes damage due to penetration, blast, fragmentation, and collapse.
         The targeted buildings are generated automatically by BAM with its target model generator. The current
construction types in BAM are masonry, steel framed, reinforced concrete framed, and precast concrete framed. The
construction types planned for the near future are adobe, wood framed, and heavy crane.
         Acronyms: JMEM/AS-Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals – Air-to-Surface, JAWS- JMEM/AS Weaponeering
System, WinJMEM-Windows version of JMEM

Net-Centric Modeling, Simulation and Analysis
Dan Caudill                                        Jim Zeh                                    Lt. Eric Like
AFRL/VACD                                          AFRL/VACD                                  AFRL/VACD
2180 8th Street, Suite 1                           2180 8th Street, Suite 1                   2180 8th Street, Suite 1
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433                     Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433             WPAFB, OH 45433
(937) 904-6539                                     937-904-6556                               937-904-6546
FAX: (937) 255-9746                                FAX: (937) 255-9746                        FAX: (937) 255-9746
Dan.caudill@wpafb.af.mil                           James.Zeh@wpafb.af.mil

Matthew Garr                                       Steve Topper
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics           Johns Hopkins University Applied
Lab, 11100 Johns Hopkins Road                      Physics Lab
Laurel MD 20723                                    11100 Johns Hopkins Road
240-228-3423                                       Laurel MD 20723
FAX: (240) 228-5229                                240-228-6220//FAX: (240) 228-5229
Matthew.Garr@jhuapl.edu                            Steve.Topper@jhuapl.edu

          A collaborative team is developing procedures and Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis (MS&A) tools that will
facilitate analysis of how future air vehicle capabilities can be most effectively employed and interoperate within a circa
2020+ net-centric war fighting environment.
          Successful modeling, implementation, and utilization of the advanced war fighting environments that these future
capabilities will operate in requires designing sound experimental procedures. M&S is required to execute the large number
of tests that will support these experiments, but is not an end in itself. This team is critically examining the architecture-to-
model link to discover how M&S is best utilized for these types of analysis activities.


                                                                                                                          D-87
                               Strike Warfare                                                              WG-14
           This paper first provides some background on the reasons for performing such MS&A activities followed by a
  description of the mission level modeling components that are required. Next, it provides additional details on the Blue
  C4ISR network capability that was chosen to be modeled, followed by an overview of the experimental and architectural
  design processes that were developed. These processes include our use of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and a
  generalized "meta-model" for net-centric architecture development as well as a process for linking these architectures to
  executable models. Finally, it wraps up with a discussion regarding our plans for continued MS&A activities focused on
  evaluating future air vehicle capabilities operating in net-centric environments.


  Expeditionary Strike Group: Command Structure Design Support

  Susan G. Hutchins                                              William G. Kemple
  Information Sciences Department                                Information Sciences Department
  Naval Postgraduate School                                      Naval Postgraduate School
  589 Dyer Road                                                  589 Dyer Road
  Monterey, CA 93943                                             Monterey, CA 93943
  831 656-3768                                                   831 656-3309
  shutchins@nps.edu                                              kemple@nps.edu

  Susan P. Hocevar                                               David L. Kleinman
  Graduate School of Business and Public Policy                  Information Sciences Department
  Naval Postgraduate School                                      Naval Postgraduate School
  589 Dyer Road                                                  589 Dyer Road
  Monterey, CA 93943                                             Monterey, CA 93943
  831 6562-249                                                   831 656-7627
  shocevar@nps.edu                                               kleinman@nps.edu

            A key component of planning for future U.S. military capabilities is the expeditionary strike force (ESF) concept. Naval
expeditionary force capabilities provide quick reaction to hostilities, providing humanitarian aid, power projection, and logistical
support to forces ashore, in addition to supporting other types of operations. The expeditionary strike group (ESG), one part of the
ESF concept, combines an Amphibious Readiness Group/ Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) with the combat
power of surface and submarine combatants. Amphibious landing ships transport troops, vehicles, and supplies wherever they are
needed and provide great flexibility to commanders in planning operations. In order to counter littoral threats, the Navy has
transformed ARGs to ESGs by assigning dedicated combatant ships—cruisers, destroyers, and frigates—to protect the amphibious
ships.
            The Adaptive Architectures for Command and Control (A2C2) research program has focused on helping to define
adaptive command structures for future joint and combined forces. Early research involved working with the Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO) Strategic Studies Group (SSG) XVIII to help define adaptive command structures for what will become Sea
Power XXI. Next, the A2C2 team worked with Commander Carrier Group One (COMCARGRUONE), ADM Polatty’s staff, to
conduct a one-week experiment with model-driven alternative command structures in preparation for Global Wargame 1999.
            Our current research entails the use of A2C2 approaches for assessing ESG organizational constructs and structures. The
A2C2 research team is engaged in a program to support the analysis and design of ESG-1 command structures based on interactions
with RADM LeFever, Expeditionary Warfare (N75), and BGEN Schmidle, USMC, Expeditionary Force Develop-ment Center. An
adaptive C2 architecture for ESG — referring to both structure and process — should be able to work smoothly in either of the
following two contexts (for both planning and operations) and to shift between the two: (1) As part of a Joint Force, working
directly for the Joint Force Commander (e.g., operating as a theater reserve or operating as a small JTF). This could occur anywhere
on a continuum ranging from acting as a small JTF with its own AOR to being in more complex context that requires significantly
more coordination with the Joint Force Air Component Commander, Joint Force Land Component Commander, and Joint Force
Maritime Component Commander. (2) As part of a larger Naval Force requiring coordination with its N-staff/CWC structure.




  D-88
                             Strike Warfare                                                                WG-14
Highly Flexible Weaponeering Methods in a Rapid Response Environment

Andreas G. Keipert                                              Evangeline R. Yost
AAC/ENAW                                                        AAC/ENAW
System Effectiveness Branch, Analysis Division                  System Effectiveness Branch, Analysis Division
Engineering Directorate, Air Armament Center                    Engineering Directorate, Air Armament Center
101 West Eglin Blvd, Ste 384, Eglin AFB FL 32542-5499           101 West Eglin Blvd, Ste 384, Eglin AFB FL 32542-5499
850 883-5280//keipert@eglin.af.mil                              850 883-5285//eva.yost@eglin.af.mil

Alan T. Yoshida, TSgt USAF                                      Kevin D. Keicher, Capt USAF
HQ AFSOC                                                        HQ AFSOC/XPT Test
Hurlburt FL 32544                                               Hurlburt FL 32544
850 884-6783//alan.yoshida@hurlburt.af.mil                      850 884-3634//kevin.keicher@hurlburt.af.mil

         Recent mission scenarios require fast, flexible weaponeering solutions. The targets can move quickly from tunnel to
tunnel or to safe houses in crowded neighborhoods. Special teams operate in austere locations, use satellite communications,
GPS, rangefinders, and laptops to provide real time targeting solutions. Global Power projection with mixed weapons loads
can provide multiple solutions to the target at hand. In order to choose the right weapon, tactical considerations can include:
         • What is the threat to air operations?
         • What are the target’s vulnerabilities?
         • How accurate must the weapons be?
         • What is the effect of weather?
         • How can collateral effects be minimized?
         • How can response time be minimized?
         This paper reviews the flex targeting problem and reviews current weaponeering approaches to accelerate the kill
chain. New weaponeering tools like WinJMEM’s Hardened Target Module and the Building Analysis Module are currently
undergoing significant changes to better meet these needs. User Helps & “Wizards” are being developed (analogous to tax
preparation software) that step users through the process and assist in selecting the right weapon, fuze setting, and attack
conditions combinations. Users include weaponeers, intelligence analysts, mission planners, aircrew, and special tactics
teams. The new tools will be reviewed in context of the rapid response environment.


Military Utility of Synchronized Persistence of C4, ISR, and Weapons
 Gordon G. Latta                            Tom Horrigan                              P. Kevin Peppe
 Raytheon Missile Systems                   Raytheon Missile Systems                  Raytheon Missile Systems
 Operations Research and                    Operations Research and                   Precision Engagement Strategic
 System Performance Department              System Performance Department             Business Activity
 1151 E. Hermans Road                       1151 E. Hermans Road                      1151 E. Hermans Road
 Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                      Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                     Tucson, AZ 85734-1337
 (520) 794-1349                             (520) 794-2962                            (520) 794-5919
 FAX: (520) 794-8625                        FAX: (520) 794-8625                       FAX: (520) 794-1209
 gglatta@raytheon.com                       tjhorrigan@raytheon.com                   kevinpeppe@raytheon.com

         Persistent C4, ISR, and weapons are cornerstones to realization of the future visions of net-centric operations
embodied in the military initiatives of FORCENet (Navy), C2 Constellation (Air Force), and LandWarNet (Army).
Synchronization of these new visionary capabilities is key to successfully maximizing effects on the battlefield. This study
quantifies the war fighter benefits of synchronizing persistence across the effects chain and investigates sensitivities to the
performance levels of the effects chain components. Performance sensitivities examined include C4 responsiveness, ISR
coverage rate and continuous track, and loiter and retargeting for weapons. Trade analyses across these driving performance
parameters refine the CONOPS and define balanced requirements, while identifying priorities for investment that yield the
greatest military utility. The study is conducted in the context of a scenario driven campaign analysis examining metrics such
as targets destroyed, battle time, threats denied, and cost to kill. It focuses on the defeat of short dwell anti-access targets
early in a war fighting campaign to facilitate safe entry of follow-on forces. The analysis approach and results demonstrates
how persistence is the enabler to holds these time sensitive targets at risk.


                                                                                                                         D-89
                             Strike Warfare                                                                WG-14
Dynamic Effects of Target Location Area of Uncertainty (AoU) on Attacking Long-range
Moving Targets
 Jeffrey S. Levin
 Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab
 Johns Hopkins Road, Laurel, MD 20723-6099
 240-228-3533; FAX: 240-228-5229
 Jeffrey.Levin@jhuapl.edu

         This presentation explores a key dynamic for anti-surface warfare (ASuW) targeting: ensuring target containment
and target selectivity simultaneously. Both conditions are necessary for efficient targeting; yet both are in conflict with one
another. For successful targeting of moving targets, a weapon’s terminal basket needs to be big enough to ensure target
location AoU coverage. However, if containment gets too big, then target selectivity decreases. A generic tracking
simulation was used to estimate target AoU sizes for various sensor types, standoff ranges, target sizes, and C4ISR time
latencies. Based on these simulation data, weapon-seeker search footprints were compared with the various AoU sizes to
measure the weapon’s containment capacity, or its containment safety factor. Surprisingly, many tracking situations resulted
in unreasonably excessive containment safety factors. Various trade spaces associated with utilizing this excess containment
safety factor were identified and explored parametrically. The dynamic effects of AoU ripple through the supporting kill
chain infrastructure. Although this research pertains to maritime targeting, it is hoped that designers can find application to
other mission areas, other types of C4ISR systems, and other types of weapons that are employed against moving targets.


SSGN Weapons Mix for Enabling Joint Force Operations
 Kimberly Meares                            Gordon G. Latta                           P. Kevin Peppe
 Raytheon Missile Systems                   Raytheon Missile Systems                  Raytheon Missile Systems
 Operations Research and                    Operations Research and                   Precision Engagement Strategic
 System Performance Department              System Performance Department             Business Activity
 1151 E. Hermans Road                       1151 E. Hermans Road                      1151 E. Hermans Road
 Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                      Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                     Tucson, AZ 85734-1337
 (520) 794-1612                             (520) 794-1306                            (520) 794-5919
 FAX: (520) 794-8625                        FAX: (520) 794-8625                       FAX: (520) 794-1209
 kameares@raytheon.com                      gglatta@raytheon.com                      kevinpeppe@raytheon.com

          The proliferation of threat systems that can deny immediate response by U.S and allied forces is a major problem
facing the Component Commander today. The defeat of anti-access targets, which include double-digit Surface-to-Air
Missiles, Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBM), and Cruise Missiles, is essential to enable early entry of joint follow-on forces.
The stealthy SSGN with large weapon capacity is potentially an ideal platform available to STRATCOM for this mission.
Tomahawk Block IV (TacTom) is the Program of Record and brings revolutionary capabilities such as loiter and in-flight
retargeting that can provide responsive attack against the access denial, time sensitive target set. However, depending on
Predictive Battlespace Awareness, Tomahawk Block IVs may not always be in a loiter position which may dictate the need
for a Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM). Furthermore, failure to acquire or to kill TBM
launchers prior to launch may require a Submarine Launched Anti-Ballistic Missile (SLABM) to prevent damage and
casualties to friendly forces. This study employed two approaches to develop the preferred mix of Tomahawk Block IV,
SLIRBM, and SLABM. The first approach flowed down the mix based on examination of the worldwide target distribution
and alternative weapon allocation strategies based on tactical objectives and ranges to targets given strategic placement of
SSGNs. The second approach used a campaign level analysis in a major theatre of war. Performance capabilities (range,
speed, lethality) of the SLIRBM and SLABM are driven by the size of the missile which influences loadout potential. The
study traded performance and loadout to derive the mix that yielded the best utility and combat effects for the war fighter in a
major theater of war context.




D-90
                             Strike Warfare                                                                WG-14
Assessing the Effects of Joint Fires on Joint Forcible Entry Operations (JFEO)
  Peter B. Melim                                                  Steven Darcy
  JWARS Program Office                                            CACI, Inc. - Federal
  1555 Wilson Blvd                                                1600 Wilson Blvd
  Arlington, VA 22209                                             Arlington, VA 22209
  (703) 696-9490, Ext 171                                         (703) 558-0277
  FAX (703) 696-9563                                              FAX (703) 875-2904
  pmelim@caci.com                                                 sdarcy@caci.com

          The Joint Warfare Systems (JWARS) is a theater-level campaign simulation model that integrates Joint Fires in
support of Joint Forcible Entry Operations. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of Joint Fires, in the
form of airpower, in support of airborne forces conducting forcible entry operations. This study was conducted to assist Joint
Staff J-8/FAAD in determining what factors influence the level of joint fire support required during the assault phase to
effectively insert and maintain friendly ground forces. The results indicate that key factors influencing the level of joint fire
support is not only dependant on the type, duration, and environmental factors, but also key factors influencing the enemy’s
ability to counter the foreign forces by maneuver. JWARS was able to highlight the critical aspects of applying airpower at
the proper place and timing to mitigate the effectiveness of the enemy’s counter maneuver. The briefing will summarize the
modeling methodology and results of the study.

Dynamic Battle Management
  Randy Peterson
  Lockheed Martin, Integrated Systems & Solutions
  9970 Federal Drive, MS 22A, Colorado Springs, CO 80921
  719- 277-5877//randall.c.peterson@lmco.com

          Lockheed Martin has developed a Dynamic Battle Management System to provide the operational decision maker
with the tools, information and situational awareness to enable interactive command and control from operational to tactical
levels of conflict. This revolutionary new battle management system enables commanders at all levels to react and respond
in real time to the constantly changing battlefield. The Total Integrated Warfare (TIW) initiative combines today’s deployed,
proven systems with experimental technologies to deliver unprecedented capabilities for real-time battle management to the
warfighter. This system has used both real and simulated combat platforms and command centers, and has demonstrated
advanced capabilities for real-time situational awareness, automated mission planning, deconfliction, and dynamic re-tasking
of air, land and maritime platforms, sensors and weapons.
          TIW accelerates the decision cycle by horizontally integrating today’s battle management systems and adding new,
Transformational capabilities. The system maximizes machine-to-machine interfaces, eliminating gaps, delays and manual
hand-offs whenever possible. Through TIW, operators receive real-time feedback on the status of missions, targets and
friendly units, keeping the commander informed of battlefield events as they occur. The system then optimizes mission
planning and execution, instantly mapping out potential courses of action based on a given situation. Finally, it allows for
dynamic re-tasking, enabling the commander to re-assign tasks and objectives to joint resources based on their status,
capabilities and the potential effects that they can generate – all with a single keystroke.
          Central to TIW are newly-developed systems that enhance the capabilities of currently-deployed. The Mission Battle
Management System (MBMS) and Operational Battle Management System (OBMS) -- new capabilities developed by
Lockheed Martin that automate mission planning and dynamic re-tasking between the Joint Force Commander and the
tactical mission commander. The MBMS system resides on the platform and enables a tactical mission commander to
receive new tasks and objectives, dynamically re-plan his resources to respond to the new tasking, and then disseminate the
new plan to all the members of his package or squad as well as sending that same plan back to commanders at the operational
level. Commanders at the operational level use the OBMS system to generate and manage courses of action across the
multiple tactical groups to keep the battlespace synchronized in real time.




                                                                                                                          D-91
                             Strike Warfare                                                               WG-14
Military Utility of Moving Target Prosecution
 Michael Stokes                            Patrick Lewis                             Mike Schneider
 Raytheon Missile Systems                  Raytheon Missile Systems                  Raytheon Missile Systems
 Operations Research and                   Operations Research and                   Operations Research and
 System Performance Department             System Performance Department             System Performance Department
 1151 E. Hermans Road                      1151 E. Hermans Road                      1151 E. Hermans Road
 Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                     Tucson, AZ 85734-1337                     Tucson, AZ 85734-1337
 (520) 794-2694                            (520) 794-2807                            (520) 794-1543
 FAX: (520) 794-8625                       FAX: (520) 794-8625                       FAX: (520) 794-8625
 mstokes@raytheon.com                      Patrick_V_Lewis@raytheon.com              mrschneider@raytheon.com

         The Capability Area Review process is the latest tool DOD officials are using to ensure acquisition decisions are
based on providing integrated capabilities rather than focused on individual weapon systems. The Land Attack Weapons
Capability Area Review was the first incarnation of this process and reported it’s finding to the Defense Acquisition Board in
January 05. The Review team with members from the services, OSD, the Joint Staff, defense agencies and the combatant
commands concluded that one of two deficiencies that currently exist in the weapon inventory is the ability to prosecute
moving targets. This paper takes a holistic view to derive the desired set of weapons needed to attack movers and quantifies
the military benefits of moving target attack capability. Rather than address specific weapon types, the study investigates
moving target attack across three generic weapons categories - Standoff Area Defense (SOAD), Standoff Point Defense
(SOPD), and Direct Attack (DA). In order to minimize questions of model bias, a first principals approach was adopted to
derive a recommended mix using a government approved target set and well defined employment strategies based on
survivability considerations. Detailed campaign level modeling was then exercised to verify the utility of the resulting mix
and to quantify the associated operational and cost effectiveness benefits. The results provide guidance on which weapon
categories benefit the most from moving attack capability and dramatically demonstrate the leveraging impact on a major
military operation.


Knowledge is Power - Joint Datalink Information Combat Execution (JDICE) Joint Test
and Evaluation
 Clarence M. Stone
 OSD/JT&E/JDICE
 5930 Devlin Drive, Nellis AFB NV 89191
 (702) 652 9237, DSN 682-9237
 clarence.stone@nellis.af.mil

         Joint Vision 2020 advises that “Command and Control is most effective when decision superiority exists.”
         A common operational picture supports Major Combat Operations Joint Operating Concept vision of deconflicted,
coordinated, integrated, and interdependent forces that are coherently joint, capabilities based, collaborative and
networkcentric where forces can make rapid, decentralized decisions based upon near real-time information.
         Services are fielding multiple data link systems that provide increased information to forces; but optimum
joint/combined combat capability requires integration of data linked information.
A Joint Feasibility Study demonstrated that current Joint tactics, techniques and procedures (JTTP) were inadequate to
provide critical mission information across multi-platform, fielded, tactical data links. Development and assessment of JTTP
detailing coordination and integration are necessary to exploit enhanced joint battlespace situational awareness.
         The JDICE Joint Test and Evaluation is developing JTTP that provide actionable targeting and blue force tracking
data to war fighters via Link 16. These JTTP are already improving interoperability in current operations of theater deployed
forces. This enables accurate, timely, complete and tactically significant transfer of information on forces, targets, threats,
and fires to the shooter to reduce fratricide, improve target de-confliction, minimize the impact of enemy ground based
counter-air systems and improve mission effectiveness.




D-92
                             Strike Warfare                                                                WG-14
Effects-Based Operations using the Strategy Development Tool
Dr. Christopher M. White                                         Nicholas J. Pioch
BAE SYSTEMS                                                      BAE SYSTEMS
6 New England Executive Park                                     6 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803                                             Burlington, MA 01803
781-273-3388                                                     781-273-3388
FAX 781-273-9345                                                 FAX 781-273-9345
christopher.m.white@baesystems.com                               nicholas.pioch@baesystems.com

          The Strategy Development Tool (SDT), sponsored by AFRL-IFS, supports effects-based planning by tightly
integrating adversary modeling and analysis with plan authoring in a collaborative environment. At Joint Expeditionary
Forces Experiment (JEFX) ’04 the SDT was evaluated as part of an AFRL-sponsored initiative integrating tools for effects-
based operations and predictive battlespace awareness. SDT was used primarily in the Strategy Division of the Combined
Air Operation Center to build and analyze plans for the air campaign strategy played out in JEFX ‘04. This presentation
starts with an overview of the SDT capabilities including effects-based modeling, mission planning and assessment, and
target system analysis. The effect-based modeling subsystem provides a lightweight ontology for building temporal causal
models relating enemy goals, beliefs, actions, and resources across multiple types of Centers of Gravity (COGs). Users may
overlay blue interventions, analyze their impact on enemy COGs, and automatically incorporate the causal chains stemming
from the best interventions into the current effects-based mission plan. Finally, the target system analysis subsystem
provides option generation tools that use a variety of heuristics to propose candidate target set options to achieve specified
effects. The remainder of the presentation focuses on the successes and lessons learned from user experiences at JEFX ‘04
with SDT’s collaborative planning and adversary modeling capabilities.


Mission Effectiveness Assessment on the F-35
Ms. Teresa Wilson                          Mr. Stacy VanHouten                        Mr. Jim Dettbarn
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics                Lockheed Martin Aeronautics                Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company                                    Company                                    Company
PO Box 748, MS 1755                        PO Box 748, MS 1755                        PO Box 748, MS 1755
Fort Worth, TX 76101                       Fort Worth, TX 76101                       Fort Worth, TX 76101
817-762-2174                               817-763-7713                               817-762-1819
teresa.l.wilson@lmco.com                   stacy.vanhouten@lmco.com                   jim.dettbarn@lmco.com

          The Lockheed Martin Aeronautics F-35 Air Systems Analysis (ASA) team is evaluating the F-35 Operational
Effectiveness as part of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) System Design and Development (SDD) program. This presentation
will discuss the processes and methods to approach these assessments. The mission effectiveness evaluation will be done in
the context of the F-35 SDD reference missions across mission segments focusing on the live-kill chains. Key areas in the
kill chain will be assessed, such as mission planning, tactical ingress, tactical engagement (detect, track, identify, engage and
BDI), and tactical egress. The survivability chain (avoid detect, avoid track, avoid shot, break guidance, and survive hit) will
be assessed throughout the missions. The presentation will address the mission level evaluation process, a structured flow of
the functional Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) and Measures of Performance (MOPs) to the mission level MOEs and
MOPs leading to the air system level MOEs (Is the F-35 effective?) An example will be presented, describing the flow from
the air system MOE through the functional measures and the related data requirements.




                                                                                                                          D-93
   Air Combat Analysis and CID                                                                        WG-15
Chair: Chris Linhardt, General Dynamics
Co-chairs: Ken Mellin, Sparta Inc
Branford McAllister, Sverdrup
Charles Sadowski, Titan Systems Corp
Paul Sheridan, CACI
Advisor: Debra Hall, General Dynamics

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


Classification of Sequenced SAR Target Images via Hidden Markov Models with
Decision Fusion
Maj Timothy W. Albrecht                                        Dr. Kenneth W. Bauer, Jr.
Air Force Institute of Technology, AFIT/ENS                    Air Force Institute of Technology, AFIT/ENG
Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765                             Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765
Phone: 937.255.6565 x4330 // Fax: 937.656.4943                 Phone: 937.255.6565 x4328 // Fax: 937.656-4943
Timothy.Albrecht@afit.edu                                      Kenneth.Bauer@afit.edu


          The classification ground vehicle targets from the MSTAR (Moving and Stationary Target Acquisition and
Recognition) database is investigated using Gaussian-mixture hidden Markov models (gHMMs) and synthetic aperture radar
images. The HMMs employ features extracted from High Range Resolution (HRR) radar signal magnitude versus range
profiles of the targets. Feature enhancement is made using Çetin’s point-based reconstruction technique. The impact on
classification accuracy across numbers of hidden states and sequence length is explored using test and validation data.
Multiple feature sets are fused according to various decision rules across which classification performance is explored.


Utilization of Small UAVs for Hunter/Killer Mission
Terry Brown                               David Brown                               Frank Campanile
General Dynamics                          AFRL/VASA                                 The Greentree Group
5200 Springfield Pike                     2130 8th St, B045 R134C                   1360 Technology Court
Dayton, OH 45431                          Wright Patterson, OH 45433                Beavercreek, OH 45430
(937) 476-2514                            (937) 656-6265                            (937) 904-7206
Terry.Brown@gd-ais.com                    David.Brown@wpafb.af.mil                  Frank.Campanile@wpafb.af.mil
Eric Martin                               Brian Sanders
SAIC, 4031 Colonel Glenn Highway          AFRL/VASA, 2210 8th St., B146 R219
Beavercreek, OH 45431                     Wright Patterson, OH 45433
(937) 904-6527                            (937) 785-8296
Eric.Martin@wpafb.af.mil                  Brian.Sanders@wpafb.af.mil

         This effort takes a close look at several small morphing and fixed-wing affordable UAVs for the hunter/killer
mission. Working with vehicles with gross weight less than 20,000 pounds, an AFRL team developed a design mission
profile and key parameters as a starting point for this assessment. From these guidelines the design team developed Level 0
designs (weights, engine parameters, key vehicle performance characteristics). The concepts included a broad range of
vehicles—two morphing-wing aircraft; high, low and modified blend aspect ratios aircraft; and three current manned and
unmanned inventory aircraft. For their constructive analysis the team utilized the System Effectiveness Analysis Simulation
(SEAS) model to assess the mission effectiveness of each concept. Measures of Merits (MOMs) used in the assessment
included targets killed (conventional and time-sensitive targets), sorties flown, and munitions expenditures to determine the
effectiveness of the concepts in an operational environment. The study provided insight into key drivers in such an analysis
and the adaptability of SEAS for such a study. Since all the morphing wing technology concepts were derived from air
vehicle conceptual designs, a rough order of magnitude (ROM) life cycle cost analysis of the configurations was also
performed.


D-94
   Air Combat Analysis and CID                                                                           WG-15
Net-Centric Modeling, Simulation and Analysis
Matthew Garr                               Dan Caudill                                Steve Topper
Johns Hopkins University/APL               AFRL/VACD, 2180 8th St., #1                Johns Hopkins University/APL
11100 Johns Hopkins Rd.                    WPAFB, OH 45433                            11100 Johns Hopkins Rd
Laurel MD 20723                            (937) 904-6539                             Laurel MD 20723
(240) 228-3423                             Dan.Caudill@wpafb.af.mil                   (240) 228-3423
Matthew.Garr@jhuapl.edu                                                               Steve.Topper@jhuapl.edu

          The Air Force Research Lab Air Vehicles Directorate (AFRL/VA) and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
Lab (JHU/APL) are developing procedures and Modeling, Simulation and Analysis (MS&A) tools to enable analysis of how
future air vehicle capabilities are best employed in a c. 2020+ net-centric war fighting environment.
          Successful analysis of this environment requires designing sound experimental procedures. M&S is required to
support this analysis, but is not an end in itself. This team is therefore critically examining the architecture-to-model link to
discover how M&S is best utilized.
          This paper first provides a context for these MS&A activities, followed by a description of required mission level
modeling components. Next, it provides details on the Blue C4ISR architecture capability chosen to be modeled and an
overview of the experimental and architectural design processes developed. These processes include use of the Unified
Modeling Language (UML), a generalized "meta-model" for net-centric architecture development, and a process for linking
these architectures to executable models. Finally, it concludes with a discussion of future work planned in M&S development
and execution.


The War in Iraq: Winning on the Forgotten Front
Lt Johnathan J. Gilliard                                         Lt Fernando J. Cruz
HQ AFRS/RSOAP                                                    AFRL/MNAL
550 D St West #1                                                 306 W. Eglin Blvd, Bldg 13
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4526                                       Eglin AFB, FL 32542
(210) 565-0317                                                   (850) 882-4126
Johnathan.Gilliard@af.mil                                        Fernando.Cruz@eglin.af.mil

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Battle Control Center-Experimental: Analysis of Tactical C2 at the Joint Expeditionary
Force Experiment 2004
Lt Col Robin A. Hosch                  Maj Matthew R. Webb                        Maj Kevin P. Smith
Commander, 133d Test Squadron          Ground Systems Branch                      PM, Battle Management Systems
1649 Nelson Ave                        ACC/DOYG                                   ESC/ACMG
Ft. Dodge, IA 50501                    205 Dodd Blvd, Suite 101                   11 Barksdale St, bldg 1614
Com: 515- 574-3246                     Langley AFB, VA 23665-2789                 Hanscom AFB, MA 01731
FAX: 515- 574-3228                     Com: 757-764-8380, DSN 574                 Com: 781- 266-9217
robin.hosch@iasiou.ang.af.mil          FAX: 757-764-8460                          FAX: 781- 271-3366
                                       Matthew.webb@langley.af.mil                Kevin.psmith@hanscom.af.mil

Lt Danyawn M. “D” Miles                SMSgt Robert A. Steffes                    Michael W. Garrambone
PM for Battle Control Center           133d Test Squadron                         General Dynamics
ESC/ACMG                               1649 Nelson Ave                            5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200
11 Barksdale St, bldg 1614             Ft. Dodge, IA 50501                        Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255
Hanscom AFB, MA 01731                  515- 574-3246//FAX: 515- 574-3228          937-476-2516//FAX: 937-476-2900
781- 266-9217//FX781- 271-3366         bob.steffes@iasiou.ang.af.mil              Mike.garrambone@gd-ais.com
Danyawn.Miles@hanscom.af.mil




                                                                                                                          D-95
   Air Combat Analysis and CID                                                                          WG-15
Michael S. Goodman                     Carl J. “CJ” Jensen                       Jason S. Hamblen
General Dynamics                       Ground Systems Branch                     ESC/ACMG
5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200       ACC/DOYG                                  11 Barksdale St, bldg 1614
Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255                205 Dodd Blvd, Suite 101                  Hanscom AFB, MA 01731
Com: 937-476-2527                      Langley AFB, VA 23665-2789                Com: 781- 266-9083
FAX: 937-476-2900                      Com: 757-764-8380, DSN 574                FAX: 781- 266-9470
Mike.goodman@gd-ais.com                FAX: 757-764-8460                         Jason.hamblen@hanscom.af.mil
                                       Carl.jensen@langley.af.mil

          A major factor in the success of the 1940 Battle of Britain was Air Chief Marshal Dowding’s operations center’s
ability to see the unfolding of the air battle and to conserve limited warfighter resources-using timely information. His use of
radar and OR provided a new form of battle management to control airspace and airborne weapon syste If you were able to
attend the Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment 2004 (JEFX 04) at Nellis AFB this past summer, you would have observed
the full picture of this endeavor by watching the 133d Test Squadron (formally the 133d Air Control Squadron) match up to a
similar battle in live flight, virtual, and constructive simulation. The 133d TS deployed to Nellis with the mission of serving
the Combined Air and Space Operations Center as the tactical ground element of the Theater Air Control System. The unit
took with them three vital items to make the experiment a unique experience. The first was an array of their own Aerospace
Control and Warning System Technicians, Air Battle Managers, and maintenance personnel along with operators from ten
different active duty and guard sister units. The second was an array of experimental equipment provided by the Battle
Control System Program Managers at the Electronic Systems Center. The third element of this mix was a small slice of
assessors from the JEFX 04 Air Combat Command/Air Force Experimentation Office Assessment Team. Based on the
133d’s mission to support and test new equipment, the unit had been designated the host unit and the principal developers of
the Battle Control Center-Experimental (BCC-X). They came to Nellis (and Black Mountain) to perform tactical command
and control and to shake out their prototype systems while devising new tactics, techniques and procedures during this “Air
War.” While actively engaged every day in combat support, offensive and defensive missions, these warfighters subjected
themselves and their equipment to endless periodic assessments, operator on-position interviews, over-the shoulder data
collection, technical equipment tests, operational evaluations, mission debriefings, and “down-in-the-dirt” after-action
reviews. The experience was exhilarating for the military ops researchers and operations analysts of the assessment team, but
moreover, the information garnered from 21 days of tactical command and control in Nevada was priceless. If you are
interested in Theater Air Defense, battle management and command and control, Theater Missile Defense, Combat
Identification, Air Battle Execution, or Data Link Management, then you want to hear this Ops talk. If you are analytically
bent and enjoy operational discussions, then you too will definitely enjoy this interesting and informative tactical and
technical presentation.


Military Space Plane: Ground Operations Model
Thomas H. Jacobs                           Dr. George M. Huntley                      Michael W. Garrambone
Air Vehicles Directorate, Air Force        Systems Engineering Department             General Dynamics
Research Laboratory                        US Army Logistics Management               5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200
2180 Eighth Street, B-145, R-202           College                                    Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255
Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433-            2401 Quarters Road                         Com: 937-476-2516
7505                                       Fort Lee, Virginia 23801-1705              FAX: 937-476-2900
Com: 937-904-6520                          Com: 804-765-4265                          mike.garrambone@gd-ais.com
FAX: 937-255-9746                          FAX: 804-765-4648
thomas.jacobs@wpafb.af.mil                 george.huntley@us.army.mil

Elan T. Smith                              Frank C. Betts
General Dynamics                           General Dynamics
5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200           5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200
Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255                    Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255
Com: 937-255-8648                          Com: 937-476-2534
FAX: 937-656-4547                          FAX: 937-476-2900
elan.smith@wpafb.af.mil                    frank.betts@gd-ais.com


D-96
   Air Combat Analysis and CID                                                                        WG-15
         This presentation addresses ground operations which are of interest to a variety of agencies from NASA and the
Services to commercial firms who expect to create everything from space engines to spaceports. We will discuss viewpoints
on what constitutes ground operations, what activities are being done, and show estimates on how long it should take to
perform those operations. This work, to shed light on spaceplane ground operations was done by researchers and scientists at
the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) Air Vehicles and Space Vehicles Directorates who collaborated with NASA in
order to create a first order model for the experimental X-37 system. Being experimental, the ground operations processes
are hybrid to a number of existing air and space systems, but the model built fits the Operation Research credo of “give them
something useful now, so they can work out the details later.” We will discuss the graphical model of ground ops developed
from space expert opinion. In the unresolved world of space vehicle modeling, we chose and will defend our use of a simple
and powerful stochastic computer simulation model; VERT, Venture Evaluation and Review Technique. VERT’s proponent,
the Army Logistics Management College (ALMC) supported the modeling and simulation effort and will discuss the
computer model, ground ops model design, and output analyses. If you have interest in space, space modelings, M&S,
and/or stochastic processes, then you are invited to come listen to this enjoyable and enlightening presentation.


Dynamic Sensor Coverage
Dr. David E. Jeffcoat                                          Abhishek Tiwari
Air Force Research Lab                                         135 Steele Laboratory 107-81
AFRL/MNGN                                                      California Institute of Technology
101 W Eglin Blvd, Suite 341                                    1200 East California Boulevard
Eglin AFB, FL 32542                                            Pasadena, CA 91125
(850) 882-2961 Ext. 3362//FAX 850-882-0715                     (626) 395-3369//FAX (626) 796-8914
david.jeffcoat@eglin.af.mil                                    atiwari@cds.caltech.edu

Prof. Richard M. Murray                                        Dr. Myungsoo Jun
Control and Dynamical Systems 107-81                           University of Florida
California Institute of Technology                             1350 N. Poquito Road
1200 E. California Blvd, Pasadena, CA 91125                    Shalimar, FL 32579
(626) 395-6460//FAX (626) 796-8914                             (850) 833-9350//FAX 850-833-9366
murray@cds.caltech.edu                                         mjun@gerc.eng.ufl.edu

         Sensor coverage is the problem of deploying multiple sensors for the purpose of automatic surveillance, cooperative
exploration or target detection. We introduce a theoretical framework for the dynamic sensor coverage problem for a simple
case with multiple discrete time linear dynamical systems located in different spatial locations. The objective is to keep an
appreciable estimate of the states of the systems at all times by deploying a few mobile sensors. The sensors are assumed to
have a limited range and they implement a Kalman filter to estimate the states of all the systeThe motion of the sensor is
modeled as a discrete time Markov chain. We derive conditions under which a single sensor fails to solve the coverage
problem, and give conditions under which we can guarantee that a single sensor is adequate to solve the dynamic coverage
problem.


Joint Low Altitude Aircraft Survivability Quick Reaction Test
Major West Kasper                                                Dennis L. Lester
AFJTEG, 2050 2nd Street, SE                                      AFJTEG (SRC), 2050 2nd Street, SE
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5522                                      Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5522
505-853-0293//Fax 505-853-2537                                   505-853-7395//Fax 505-853-2537
west.kasper@afotec.af.mil                                        dennis.lester@afotec.af.mil

          On 16 September 2004, the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), in cooperation with the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and Services, established the Joint Low Altitude Aircraft Survivability (JLAAS) Quick Reaction Test (QRT).
Continuing operations by U.S. Forces in the wake of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) have resulted in aircraft being
engaged by Man-Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS). These incidents have involved both fixed and rotary wing
aircraft operating in the low-altitude, low-speed environment. The operational environment includes aircraft arrivals and
departures at joint airfields. The objectives of the JLAAS QRT are as follows:


                                                                                                                      D-97
   Air Combat Analysis and CID                                                                         WG-15
    •    Determine the effectiveness of selected arrival and departure tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) for the C-
         130H against SA-16 MANPADS
    •    Determine the effectiveness of selected arrival and departure TTP for the UH-60L against SA-16 MANPADS
    •    Develop, demonstrate, and document a process for assessing TTP effectiveness

The Air Force Joint Test and Evaluation Group (AFJTEG) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico will conduct the JLAAS
QRT over the next several months. Test activities include live field testing and modeling and simulation (M&S). This
presentation will describe the JLAAS QRT test methodology and preliminary test results.


Draft Operations Assessment Construct
Captain David Koewler
Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency
1570 Air Force Pentagon
Washington DC, 20330-1570
Phone: (703)-931-1177
FAX: (703) 696-8738
David.Koewler@pentagon.af.mil

         AF/XO tasked XOI to establish the AF Assessment Task Force (AFATF) based on Operation Iraqi Freedom lessons
learned that indicated that current assessment processes did not provide commanders with timely, accurate assessments or
recommendations of future actions. The task force addresses problems with, and solutions to, battle damage assessment,
combat assessment, and operational assessment. The task force’s long-term vision is to instill effects-based approaches
throughout the operational cycle of planning, executing, and assessing force employment.
         The main focus of the presentation is a draft operations assessment construct that was revised and proposed within a
working group at the Oct 2004 conference for the AFATF. This construct briefly covers assessment at the National &
Campaign level. The main focus of the construct is the levels that the Air Force is typically tasked with, the Operational and
Tactical levels of assessment. The construct provides an overview of what types of information should be considered at the
operational and tactical levels, as well as possible sources. The bottom line is that we cannot successfully conduct effects
based operations, if we cannot do effects based assessment.


Weapon Safety in Joint Warfighting Environments
Edward Kratovil                                                 James Wilmeth
United States Naval Office of Safety and Security Activity      Force Protection Div, J-8, The Joint Staff
Indianhead, MD 20640                                            Northrop Grumman, 1851 S. Bell Street
301-744-6002                                                    Arlington, VA 22202
Edward.kratovail@navy.mil                                       703-602-7243 // FAX 703-602-3956
                                                                james.Wilmeth@js.pentagon.mil

          In an age of increased joint and combined military operations; increased joint shipboard operations; the Seabasing
Concept; and emphasis on Insensitive Munitions we find that weapons in such environments may be exposed to hazards
against which they were never adequately tested during the acquisition process. Service weapon safety review processes and
procedures do not necessarily account for the additional and unforeseen risks of the Joint Battlefield.
          To this end the Joint Staff, J-8 Deputy Director for Force Protection (DDFP), RADM Mike Mathis, set about to
leverage the Joint Capabilities Integration and Documentation System (JCIDS) process through proposed changes to
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction and Memorandum 3170.01 that will provide proper joint safety oversight and
certification for new weapons and weapon syste Specifically, the effort will develop a certification process designed to ensure
that weapon capability documents generated within the JCIDS process will lead to materiel solutions that provide for
adequate weapon safety in joint warfighting environments. Central to this process is a recommendation for the establishment
of an advisory council consisting of highly qualified Service safety experts and warfighting professionals to advise the DDFP
and the various weapon program managers and sponsors on safety issues as they lead their respective programs through the
JCIDS and acquisition processes. More importantly, the process will ensure that safety considerations are addressed at a time
when joint warfighting tactics and techniques continue to change, potentially impacting the employment of new weapons and
weapon syste

D-98
   Air Combat Analysis and CID                                                                          WG-15
Optimization of CID Fusion Methodologies Using a Mathematical Programming
Framework to Incorporate Warfighter Preferences
Maj Trevor I. Laine                                             Dr. Kenneth W. Bauer
Air Force Institute of Technology                               Air Force Institute of Technology
Dept. of Operational Sciences                                   Dept. of Operational Sciences
2950 Hobson Way, Bldg 640, WPAFB, OH 45433                      2950 Hobson Way, Bldg 640, WPAFB, OH 45433
937-287-5656// FAX 937-656-4943                                 937-255-6565 x4328// FAX 937-656-4943
Trevor.Laine@afit.edu                                           Kenneth.Bauer@afit.edu

          In many pattern recognition applications, significant costs can be associated with various decision options. Often, a
minimum acceptable level of confidence is required prior to making an actionable decision. Combat target identification
(CID) is one example where the incorrect labeling of Targets and Non-targets has substantial costs; yet, these costs may be
difficult to quantify. One way to increase decision confidence is through fusion of data from multiple sources or from
multiple looks through time. Numerous methods have been published to determine a Bayes’ optimal fusion decision if
decision costs are known. This paper introduces a mathematical framework to optimize multiple decision thresholds subject
to a decision maker’s preferences. An objective function with the time associated for each look is incorporated to optimize
and compare CID syste The decision variables may include rejection thresholds to specify non-declaration regions and ROC
thresholds to explore viable true positive and false positive Target classification rates. This methodology yields an optimal
class declaration rule subject to decision maker preferences without using explicit costs associated with each type of decision.
This optimization framework is demonstrated using Boolean logic and probabilistic neural networks for the fusion of
collected 2-D SAR data processed via 1-D HRR moving target algorith Sensitivity analysis is performed by varying
parameters such as: the prior probabilities of Targets and Non-targets, different fusion rules, and the effects of different
correlation within and across multiple sensor looks.


Estimating the Tactical Advantage of Throttle Management Techniques on Surviving
MANPAD Threats
Paul R. Sheridan                                                Charles A. Starkey
CACI International Inc                                          CACI International Inc
8527 Egret Meadow Lane, West Palm Beach, FL 33412               1600 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1300, Arlington, VA 22209
561.625.5498 // psheridan@caci.com                              703.558.0279//FAX: 703.875.2904 // cstarkey@caci.com

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Exploring the Nonlinear Battlefield: A Mission-Level Tool for Future Weapon Systems
Kelly Stewart                                                   Jeff Hanes
AFRL / MNGG                                                     Applied Research Associates, Inc
101 West Eglin Blvd, #305, Eglin AFB, FL, 32542-6810            101 West Eglin Blvd, #305, Eglin AFB, FL, 32542-6810
850-882-8195 x 3217//FAX 850-882-4128                           850-882-8195 x 3282//FAX 850-882-4128
kelly.stewart@eglin.af.mil                                      phillip.hanes@eglin.af.mil

          The Air Force Research Laboratory has developed a mission-level simulation for evaluating the effectiveness of
system-of-systems weapon concepts in the battlefield of the future. The Integrating Concept Evaluation Tool (ICET) has
been used to evaluate concepts for future munitions. These concept munitions break the one-weapon to one-target paradigm
of the past and form a network of weapons to most efficiently deal with a collection of targets. This type of behavior has
proven difficult, if not impossible, to model using existing simulation software, most of which relies on the one-weapon to
one-target paradigm and on historical effectiveness data - which is based on assumptions that may not be valid in the
battlefield of the future. ICET introduces the ability to network munitions so they share sensor information and behave in a
collaborative manner, allowing the simulation to reveal nonlinearities that might otherwise go unnoticed until the weapon
was actually deployed in the battlefield. ICET also has a module for an automated C3I structure for opposing force,
providing an adaptive/reactive opponent for the scenarios. This allows for basic CONOPS development to begin early in the
process of weapon design. Two examples will be given demonstrating the flexibility of ICET and its ability to assist in
making decisions of conceptual, technological and financial importance.
                                                                                                                         D-99
   Air Combat Analysis and CID                                                                          WG-15
Korean Theater Missile Defense Study
Major Thomas J. Timmerman                                         Gary Stipe
US Forces Korea, Ops Analysis Branch                              Northup-Grumman Information Technology
Unit #15237                                                       J-8/Warfighting Analysis Division
APO AP 96205-0010
822 7913 7673
t2.timmerman@korea.army.mil

          The US-Republic of Korea Combined Forces Command (CFC) is responsible for preparing a defense against
potential North Korean aggression against South Korea, to include North Korea’s substantial force of theater ballistic
missiles (TBMs). CFC’s Operations Analysis Branch (OAB) was tasked by the Commander, CFC, to analyze the fight
against North Korea’s TBMs in July 2003. In the resulting study, OAB collaborated with the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency and the USAF’s Nuclear Weapons and Counterproliferation Agency, who provided their expertise in modeling
airbase sortie generation under TBM and chemical attack. We examined the interactions of: North Korean ballistic missile
threat, to include potential targeting choices against targets in South Korea; CFC missile warning capabilities and procedures;
CFC active defenses; CFC attack operations; and the abilities of CFC airbases to generate aircraft sorties under TBM attack.
The resulting insights changed CFC and air component plans and are guiding current efforts to improve theater missile
warning capabilities.


Modeling runway damage and repair using the Simulation of Linear Interdiction,
Cratering, and Repair (SLICR) Model
William Todd                               Allen Harvey                               Frank Lewis
OSD/PA&E/TACAIR                            OSD/PA&E/TACAIR                            OSD/PA&E
1225 South Clark Street                    1225 South Clark Street                    Pentagon Room 2C281
Arlington, VA 22202                        Arlington, VA 22202                        Washington DC 20301
703-601-0429                               703-601-0429                               703-695-2606
Fax: 703-601-0432                          Fax: 703-601-0432
wlliam.todd.ctr@osd.mil                    allen.harvey.ctr@osd.mil

         The ability to estimate the effectiveness of a missile attack against runways is an important factor in determining the
capability to keep an airfield open. We will present a convenient Monte Carlo model that calculates the probability that a
strike will close a single runway or pair of parallel runways. In addition, the model will calculate the average number of
craters needing repair to reopen a section of runway meeting the minimum operating strip requirements. The model is
written in VBA and runs from an Excel spreadsheet. It is designed to quickly generate parameterized studies, rather than
plan a specific attack. It can model attacks by unitary weapons or sub-munitions. Other parameters that can be adjusted
include target length and width, minimum operating segment length and width, weapon crater diameter, number of sub-
munitions, weapon CEP, sub-munition dispersal, and weapon and sub-munition reliability. This presentation will provide an
overview of the model, a detailed look at the types and uses of the parameters, and examples of scenario outputs.




D-100
        Special Operations / Operations                                                                   WG-16
      Other Than War & Interagency Issues
CHAIR: LTC Clark Heidelbaugh, Center for Army Analysis
CO-CHAIRS: Joe Bonnet, Joint Staff J8
Renee Carlucci, U.S. Marine Corps Combat Development Command
MAJ Lee Ewing, Center for Army Analysis
Dr. Dean S. Hartley III, Hartley Consulting
COL Darrall Henderson, PhD, Department of Mathematical Sciences, USMA
H. J. "Touggy" Orgeron, U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency
Bruce Simpson, USSOCOM
ADVISOR: Tim Hope, Alion Science and Technology

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


Integrated Analysis Tools for Military Operations Other Than War
John Cipparone                                                  Dr. Dean S. Hartley III
Dynamics Research Corporation                                   Hartley Consulting
Metro Place 1 Bldg, 2650 Park Tower Dr,                         106 Windsong Lane
#400, Vienna, VA 22180                                          Oak Ridge, TN 37830
571-226-2765; FAX 571-226-8640//jcipparone@drc.com              865-482-3268//DSHartley3@comcast.net

Curtis Blais                                                      Wayne Randolph
MOVES Institute, Naval Postgraduate School                        Dynamics Research Corporation
700 Dyer Road RM366, Monterey, CA 93943                           3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 100, Orlando, FL 32817
831-656-3215; FAX 831-656-7599                                    407-380-1200
clblais@nps.edu                                                   wrandolph@drc.com
          Current military operations are exceedingly complex, reaching far beyond direct combat operations into social,
political, and economic dimensions. The importance of “military operations other than war” (MOOTW) continues to grow.
Military analysts, at home and deployed, require a comprehensive set of modeling, simulation, data base, and other
computational tools to rapidly represent the operational situation and to perform various analyses to assist in planning, course
of action evaluation, decision support, rehearsal, and training.
          In response to documented operational needs for modeling peace support operations as well as non-force-on-force
and stability operations, the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO) continues to explore modeling and simulation
technologies relevant to MOOTW. An initial prototype MOOTW “toolbox” has been developed comprising a collection of
software capabilities loosely integrated to facilitate data and scenario re-use. This presentation will describe the current
operational status of the MOOTW Flexible Asymmetric Simulation Technologies (FAST) toolbox, providing a brief
overview of functional capabilities and proposed additions to the tool set. The presentation will include an example of
employment of the toolbox to represent and analyze an operational situation. Finally, the presentation will describe lessons
learned from application of the toolbox in an instructional setting at the Naval Postgraduate School.


Multi-National Corps – Iraq Campaign Plan Assessment
MAJ Loren Eggen                                                  MAJ Eric Hanson
DOA, Center for Army Analysis, Force Strategy Div                DOA, Center for Army Analysis, Force Strategy Division
6001 Goethals Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                       6001 Goethals Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
703-806-5598(P) 703-806-5725 (fax)                               703-806-5613(P) 703-806-5726 (fax)
loren.eggen@caa.army.mil                                         eric.hanson@caa.army.mil
         Lessons learned during Operations Iraqi Freedom, OIF 04-06 working as Operations Research Systems Analysts
(ORSA) in the Multi-National Corps - Iraq, MNC-I C3 Plans. Currently we brief GEN Casey, CG MNF-I and LTG Metz, CG
MNC-I, on weekly attack trends. We also brief LTG Metz on the Military Campaign Plan Assessment and conduct numerous
analyses in support of the MNC staff sections. Of particular interest during this period were the first Iraqi democratic
elections and the transfer of authority from III Corps to XVIII Airborne Corps.




                                                                                                                        D-101
       Special Operations / Operations                                                                  WG-16
     Other Than War & Interagency Issues
Analytic Support to Stability Operations
Dr. Karsten Engelmann                                MAJ Andrew Farnsler                    Cortez Stephens
Center for Army Analysis                             Army QDR Office                        Studies & Analysis, MCCDC
6001 Goethals Road                                   3E434, Pentagon                        3300 Russell Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                               Washington, DC 20310                   Quantico, VA 22134
703-806-5532                                         703-695-1102                           703-784-6029
karsten.engelmann@us.army.mil                        andy.farnsler@us.army.mil              cortez.stephens@usmc.mil

         Based on the experience of OR analysts from all services and civilians deployed to various stability operations, this
presentation sets forth analytic skills, tools, models, methods and metrics for supporting stability operations in nations and
regions after military intervention by the U.S. A special emphasis is placed on what proved to be, and not be, effective and
useful to the commanders in the various theaters. Additionally, recommendations are presented on how to increase the
effectiveness of deployed OR analysts in stability operations.


DIME Synchronization

MAJ Andrew F. Farnsler
Army Quadrennial Defense Review Office
Department of the Army, ATTN: DAPR-ZA-QDR
700 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0700
703-695-1102; FAX 703-695-7419
andrew.farnsler@hqda.army.mil

          America‘s military investment in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) currently amounts to a continuous presence of
approximately 120,000 troops. Additionally, Iraqi Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF) expenditures total more than $18
Billion in construction. Diplomacy (called engagement below the strategic level) and information operations (IO) add to the
vast but finite resources the United States is expending in the Global War on Terrorism. As the situation changes,
commanders must be able to plan, make decisions, and allocate resources using quantifiable metrics. Furthermore,
synchronization of Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic (DIME) elements of power allows for risk mitigation
and efficient use of critical assets. This paper examines OR analysis to support synchronization of the elements of power at
the tactical and operational levels. The constructive engagement study examines battalion operations to reduce the insurgent
base in certain sectors of Baghdad. Project Decision Analysis (DA) is a planning tool developed by the Center for Army
Analysis (CAA) to allocate DIME resources in OIF based on commanders’ priorities.


Historical Analysis of Lesser Contingency Operations

Trudy Ferguson
U.S. Army Center for Army Analysis
Force Strategy Division, 6001 Goethals Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5230
(703) 806-5537//Trudy.Ferguson@us.army.mil

         The Center for Army Analysis (CAA) conducted a historical analysis of lesser contingency (LC) operations under
the sponsorship of the War Plans Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff – G3. The analysis uses a database of joint
operations occurring from January 1990 through March 2004 (with a focus on the last five years). The methodology uses a
discrete event simulation based on queuing theory to predict the number, frequency, type, and duration of future LC
operations. An analysis of the data provides insights on how LC operations have changed as a result of the Global War on
Terrorism (GWOT). To estimate personnel and units needed to support the set of predicted operations by mission type, the
analysis uses an EXCEL spreadsheet model, which matches predicted operations to representative Army force lists. Analysis
results incorporate both the uncertainty associated with the duration and frequency of operations and the uncertainty
associated with the utilization of soldiers and units to provide a basis for evaluating the risk associated with key resource
decisions.


D-102
        Special Operations / Operations                                                                    WG-16
      Other Than War & Interagency Issues
Analysis of USFK Noncombatant Evacuation Operations
Brenda Harms                                             LTC Thomas Slafkosky
Group W, Inc.                                            USFK CJ35 Plans
PSC 303 Box 38                                           APO AP 96205-0027
APO AP 96204-3038                                        011-822-7913-8371
011-822-7913-3852                                        SlafkoskyT@korea.army.mil
FAX 822-7913-8244
Brenda.Harms@korea.army.mil

          Per Joint Pub 3-07.5, noncombatant evacuation operations (NEOs) are conducted by combatant commanders to
assist the Department of State in evacuating US noncombatants, nonessential military personnel, selected host-nation
citizens, and third country nationals whose lives are in danger from a foreign nation to an appropriate safe haven and/or the
United States. Successful NEOs are often critical first steps in further contingency operations -- the removal of
noncombatants from harm’s way, including military family members, must be done quickly in the midst of great turmoil.
United States Forces Korea’s Operations Analysis Branch (OAB) recently analyzed NEO planning for South Korea, the
largest noncombatant evacuation ever contemplated. OAB used Arena®, a commercial, off-the-shelf simulation
development toolkit, to simulate the movement of noncombatant evacuees from their arrival at evacuation control centers
through their departure from an air or sea port of embarkation. OAB’s results helped refine the USFK NEO plan’s resource
requirements including: the number of tracking system registration terminals needed at each evacuation control center;
housing requirements at evacuation control and relocation centers; host-nation transportation requirements between
evacuation control centers, relocation centers, and ports of embarkation; and off-peninsula transportation requirements. The
insights from the OAB analysis are guiding the complete revision of the NEO plan.


Analytical Support to the Multinational Force – Iraq Campaign Plan
COL Darrall Henderson
Department of Mathematical Sciences
United States Military Academy, 646 Swift Road, West Point, NY 10996
(845) 938-4544//Fax (845) 938-2409
darrall.henderson@usma.edu

         The Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Plans and Assessment, Multinational Force – Iraq is charged with
developing strategy and plans to support the campaign plan that directs operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This
presentation will highlight analysis supporting the campaign plan’s four lines of operation: Security, Economic Development,
Governance and Information. In particular, the presentation will focus on the counterinsurgency effort leading up to and
through the January 2005 Iraqi elections.


Integration of Defense and Non-Defense Resources in Post-Conflict Operations
A. Martin Lidy
Institute for Defense Analyses
4850 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311
(703) 845-2411; Fax (703) 845-6911 // mlidy@ida.org

          Recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that military forces and civilian personnel must work
together closely to achieve unity of effort so they can accomplish essential tasks that will lead to a stable and viable nation
after a forceful intervention by international coalitions. This presentation describes the ongoing interagency work to develop
a U.S. Government civilian-military solution to this complex problem. It outlines the roles and responsibilities of the recently
created Department of State Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization and, within the framework
established by the National Security Council, develops regional and national organizational templates to integrate civilian and
military resources at tactical through strategic levels. These templates provide a basis to develop the emerging expeditionary
civilian resource capability and standardized training for both military Civil Affairs and civilian personnel that will fill these
positions in future contingencies.

                                                                                                                          D-103
        Special Operations / Operations                                                                   WG-16
      Other Than War & Interagency Issues
Improving Alliance and Coalition Management
A. Martin Lidy
Institute for Defense Analyses
4850 Mark Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22311
(703) 845-2411; Fax (703) 845-6911
mlidy@ida.org

         The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is now underway. The U.S. National Security Strategy has as goals the
strengthening of alliances to defeat global terrorism and working with others to defuse regional conflicts. The OSD Director
for Program Analysis and Evaluation tasked IDA to conduct research and develop recommendations for the Department to
improve its management of alliances and coalitions. This presentation provides a summary of the background information
and preliminary recommendations developed by the study group. The recommendations are intended to help the Department
transform its operation to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st Century.


An Analytic Approach For Monitoring, Shaping, and Evaluating Responses to State
Fragility
Dr. Sean P. O’Brien
Department of the Army
Center for Army Analysis, Force Strategy Division
6001 Goethals Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
703-806-5361(P) 703-806-5750 (fax)
obrien@caa.army.mil

          Over the past 5 years, the Center for Army Analysis (CAA) has developed several analytical models to forecast
country instability. CAA’s ACTOR (Analyzing Complex Threats for Operations and Readiness) model generates long-term
forecasts of the likelihood that any given country in the world will experience a certain level of intensity of instability over
each of the next 20 years. These “first cut” vulnerability assessments are derived from forecast trends in each state’s macro-
structural conditions (e.g., social, political, economic, and demographic).
          CAA’s NEAR-TERM FORECITE (Near-term Forecasts of Crisis and Instability using Text-Based Events) is a
system for monitoring, assessing and forecasting (in near-real time) the character and intensity of interactions between
individuals and organizations operating within each country of interest. Whereas the ACTOR model provides an assessment
of the environmental conditions that enable and constrain people, FORECITE provides an assessment of who is doing what
to whom, when where and how in each country.
          In this paper, we apply both models to two countries of interest to the DoD and show how each can be used, both
together and independently, to develop shaping strategies, as well as monitor the effectiveness of interventions designed to
stabilize targeted countries.


Mission Task Organized Force Decision Support System (MTOF DSS)

LTC Kyle Rogers
U.S. Army Center for Army Analysis
Force Strategy Division, 6001 Goethals Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5230
(703) 806-5676 // kyle.rogers@caa.army.mil

         The Center for Army Analysis (CAA) is supporting Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA) G-3 by
developing a decision support system (DSS) for Mission Task Organized Forces (MTOF). The MTOF DSS is specifically
oriented on stability and support operations (SASO) and lesser contingency (LC) operations. When completed, the MTOF
DSS will assist analysts and action officers in selecting units by size and type (at the standard requirement code (SRC) level

D-104
        Special Operations / Operations                                                                    WG-16
      Other Than War & Interagency Issues
of detail) that are required to perform selected tasks required to complete a specific lesser contingency mission. Currently,
the major component of the MTOF DSS is a relational database and query tool that processes a series of user defined queries
to establish a range of force structure options (expressed by SRC) to accomplish a series of Army tactical tasks. The MTOF
DSS provides the analyst with a list of all those tasks that are associated with a specific lesser contingency type operation.
Once the analyst determines which tasks are required, the MTOF DSS will then display the units (by SRC) that can
accomplish that specific task. The analyst then selects a unit and it is added to the overall force list being constructed for the
scenario. The MTOF DSS can display those tasks that were identified as required, but no forces were assigned to accomplish
them. This helps insure that all identified tasks have been assigned to a specific element of force structure for
accomplishment. At this point, the MTOF DSS does not provide a final, nor optimum solution. It does provide the analyst
with a fairly robust first cut at the problem that can be then adjusted using professional military judgment. It also provides a
means to clearly show the linkages between selected SRCs and required tasks.


Correlation Between Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) Attacks and Weapon Caches
Belinda H. Scheber                                       Dr. Seth Howell
The Center for Army Analysis                             The Center for Army Analysis
6001 Goethals Road                                       6001 Goethals Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5230                              Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5230
(703) 806-5559                                           (703) 806-5685
(703) 806-5750                                           (703) 806-5732
belinda.scheber@caa.army.mil                             seth.howell@caa.army.mil

        This study was completed as a reach back support for OIF and MNC-I and looks at a possible association of
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), weapons caches and cultural sites in metropolitan areas. Using Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) and separate statistical methods this study looks at patterns and trends of IED attacks, locations of
weapons caches and also the locations of cultural sites in the metropolitan areas.


Dynamic Incident Display and Change Point Detection in Counterinsurgency Operations
Capt. Paul Schneider                                 Dr. David H. Olwell                       Dr. Gordon Bradley
Operations Research Analyst                          Department of Systems Engineering         Department of Operations
Joint and External Analysis Branch                   Naval Postgraduate School                 Research
Studies and Analysis Division, MCCDC                 Monterey, California 93943                Naval Postgraduate School
Quantico, VA 22134-5130                              (831) 656-3583 DSN 756-3583               Monterey, California 93943
Phone: (703) 784-6005 DSN 278-6005                   Fax: (831) 656-2595                       (831) 656-2359 DSN: 756-2359
Fax: (703) 784-3547 DSN 278-3547                     Email: dholwell@nps.navy.mil              Fax: (831) 656-2595
NIPR: paul.schneider@usmc.mil                                                                  Email: bradley@nps.navy.mil
SIPR: schneiderpm@mccdc.smil.mil

         Counterinsurgency is among the most challenging types of military operations because battlefield events appear to
occur randomly. Insurgents can increase or decrease the scale, type, and number of attacks while still achieving their
objective of discrediting the current government and gaining support of the population. Identifying change points in
insurgent behavior is critical to effective counterinsurgency. In order to help gain an understanding of insurgent attacks, an
existing map-based Java program was modified to support the data collection, display, and statistical analysis of situation
reports from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Each report was converted to an XML document that
allowed for input, validation, and display of the data. The map display can be animated so the incidents appear in their
proper place in space and time. A timeline is used to track civil, political, economic events. Network tools were added for
analysis or to dynamically plot insurgent escape routes after an attack. Due to the continuous nature of the battle, univariate
and multivariate statistical process control techniques were utilized to signal changes in insurgent tactics. The dynamic
display, timeline, and statistical analysis help to paint a picture of the battlefield for analysts, civilian leaders, and
commanders.




                                                                                                                          D-105
        Special Operations / Operations                                                                   WG-16
      Other Than War & Interagency Issues
Lesson Learned: Interagency Coordination is Critical
Dr. Julie A. Seton
Advanced Systems Technology
TRAC-WSMR, ATTN: ATRC-WS(AST, Inc.)
White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
Phone: (505) 678-4949; FAX: (505) 678-5104
Email: Julie.Seton@us.army.mil

          Coordination of various agencies and functions has become one of the most sought-after tasks in the war against
terrorism. In Afghanistan and Iraq, US troops are coordinating efforts to help rebuild infrastructure and train security forces.
In the US, emergency preparedness mandates focus on the need for interagency cooperation, planning, and training. These
tasks require many hours of coordination. Since 1999, the Emergency Preparedness Incident Command Simulation (EPiCS)
program has facilitated coordination and implementation of multi-agency, multi-disciplinary command-level emergency
response exercises. Military, local, state, and federal agencies have come together for planning meetings and exercise
activities geared toward testing operational plans, communications, and equipment. This paper will discuss the successes and
pitfalls of coordination across disciplines and offer lessons learned on how to create effective and secure partnerships across
government and functional boundaries. Keys to success include buy-in from the highest levels of each organization and a
willingness to reach across the table to resources available in other sectors.


Civil-Military Liaison Structures: A Bosnia Case Study
Adam B. Siegel
Senior Analyst
Northrop Grumman Analysis Center
1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 2300
Arlington, Virginia 22209
703-875-0005 // fax: 703-351-6663
Adam.Siegel@ngc.com

          This briefing will examine the nature and method for liaison by NATO forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina with primary
civilian organizations in 1996/1997. It focuses on the five primary civilian organizations (PCOs) with which the Civil-
Military Task Force (CMTF) had specific liaison structures. The briefing covers not solely CMTF liaison officers (LNOs),
but also discusses other SFOR liaison and significant coordination mechanisms with these organizations. In terms of LNOs,
the chapter addresses: the overall LNO structure; criteria for selecting individual CMTF LNOs; general CMTF LNO tasks;
LNO information paths and support that LNOs gave to PCOs. The chapter concludes with lessons for Civil-Military
liaison/support structures and doctrine based on the NATO SFOR experience.


Modeling the Effects of Special Operations Forces at the Theater Campaign Level
Bruce E. Simpson                           Eduardo Cardenas                            David R. Holdsworth
USSOCOM                                    USSOCOM                                     USSOCOM
SORR-J8-SC                                 SORR-J8-SC                                  SORR-J8-SC
MacDill AFB, FL 33621                      MacDill AFB, FL 33621                       MacDill AFB, FL 33621
813-828-4906; Fax: 813-828-3602            813-828-4893; Fax: 813-828-3602             813-828-4459; Fax: 813-828-3602
simpsob@socom.mil                          cardene@socom.mil                           holdswd@socom.mil

          Attempts have been made to analyze the use of Special Operations Forces and gauge the effects they would provide
to the overall theater campaign effort. Collaborating with some efforts from the Joint Staff and OSD, an attempt was made to
capture a methodology and establish a means to incorporate SOF effects in a major theater of war.
          The methodology involved utilizing a high-resolution simulation system (JCATS) to simulate the employment of
SOF elements for a special reconnaissance mission. The simulation captured acquisition segments along designated routes.
These acquisition segments provided information on identification, classification and line of sight for the intended targets of
missile launchers.

D-106
       Special Operations / Operations                                                                   WG-16
     Other Than War & Interagency Issues
          An Excel-based simulation model was developed to examine and track numbers of successful launches and number
of kills for the intended targets. The results provided some interesting insights and observations on strategy and time-
sensitive targeting. Additional analysis involving the number of SR teams and strike aircraft components should also be
examined.
          The methodology for incorporating SOF effects and their contribution to theater level modeling is in its infancy, but
efforts such as this one can establish the foundation and baseline to build upon. The requirement and necessity to include the
contribution of SOF forces to this genre of modeling and simulation is long overdue.


Joint Effects Assessment Cell Analysis – Afghanistan
MAJ Stewart, Allison
Department of the Army
Center for Army Analysis, Force Strategy Division
6001 Goethals Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
703-806-5317(P) 703-806-5725 (fax)
Allison.Stewart@caa.army.mil

         The Joint Effects Assessment Cell (JEAC) was established within Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan (CFC-
A) in August 2004. The JEAC is primarily responsible for assessment of the CFC-A campaign plan with additional focus on
assessment of the information operations plan. In addition, we provide detailed analysis for planning and act as subject
matter experts on Effects Based Operations. For the first three months, the cell consisted of one ORSA officer; within six
months it had expanded to also include a contractor and a three-person intelligence collection cell. Special emphasis areas
during my time in Afghanistan included the first democratic elections, counter-narcotics operations, provincial leadership
assessments, and disbandment of illegal militias.




                                                                                                                       D-107
          Joint Campaign Analysis                                                                         WG-17
CHAIR: Ron Trees, OSD PAE (SAC) (AT&T Government Solutions)
CO-CHAIRS: Ken Wagner, HQ, U.S. European Command
Mike Ottenberg, OSD PAE (SAC) (AT&T Government Solutions)
Major Loren Eggen, Center for Army Analysis
R. Eric Johnson, OSD PA&E (JDS) (Unisys Corp)
Doug Herbert, Group W Inc
Paul J. Bross, Lockheed Martin Corporation
Advisor: Jeffrey A. Paulus, OSD PAE (SAC) (AT&T Government Solutions)

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


JWARS - What happened? What next?
Jim Bexfield, FS                                                Dr. Bob Sheldon, FS
OSD/PA&E                                                        Group W, Inc.
1800 Defense Pentagon                                           8315 Lee Highway, Suite 303
Washington, DC 20301-1800                                       Fairfax, VA 22031
703-695-7945; Fax: 703-614-2981                                 703-752-5850; Fax: 703-752-5851
james.bexfield@osd.mil                                          bs@group-w-inc.com

         Late last year the Secretary of Defense terminated the Joint Warfare System (JWARS) initiative by removing all
funding from FY06 and beyond. Since then release 1.6 has been distributed and there have been several significant changes
to the scope, direction, and perhaps even name of the program. JWARS is a large-scale theater simulation integrating air,
ground, sea, and logistics forces. This presentation covers recent and potential future activities related to the JWARS
program.


Measuring the “Will to Fight” in Simulation
Paul J. Bross
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Center for Innovation
7021 Harbour View Boulevard (Suite 105)
Suffolk, Virginia, 23435
757-935-9504; Fax: 757-935-9233
Paul.Bross@lmco.com

          It is recognized by military historians and students of warfare that behavioral elements within each fighting force –
morale, leadership, etc. – have a significant impact on battlefield outcomes. Such so-called “soft factors” can influence the
battle towards victory or defeat. History is replete with examples of smaller, well-disciplined forces taking the fight to the
enemy and being victorious. However, these elements of combat performance are seldom modeled explicitly in simulations
at the campaign-level. The Joint Warfare Simulation (JWARS) is one of the few models that incorporate explicit behavioral
soft factors that can influence battle outcome. During the Unified Vision 04 (UV04) wargame conducted by the US Joint
Forces Command (JFCOM), the JWARS model was used in conjunction with a political-economic model to represent the
interplay of morale and cohesion as it affected the enemy force “will to fight”. Following the wargame, the Joint
Experimentation Analysis Division conducted a series of examinations on the sensitivity of the JWARS model to various
morale settings to further inform the analytical team as to the utility of this approach in future wargaming and modeling
efforts. This presentation describes the JWARS soft factors implementation and the results of that series of sensitivity
experiments.




D-108
          Joint Campaign Analysis                                                                         WG-17
Modeling the Effects of Special Operations Forces at the Theater Campaign Level
Ed Cardenas
Northrop Grumman - IT
USSOCOM, SORR-J8-SC
813-828-4893
CardenE@socom.mil

          Attempts have been made to analyze the use of Special Operations Forces and gauge the effects they would provide
to the overall theater campaign effort. Collaborating with some efforts from the Joint Staff and OSD, an attempt was made to
capture a methodology and establish a means to incorporate SOF effects in a major theater of war.
          The methodology involved utilizing a high resolution simulation system (JCATS) to simulate the employment of
SOF elements for a special reconnaissance mission. The simulation captured acquisition segments along designated routes.
These acquisition segments provided information on identification, classification and line of sight for the intended targets of
missile launchers.
          An Excel-based simulation model was developed to examine and track numbers of successful launches and number
of kills for the intended targets. The results provided some interesting insights and observations on strategy and time-
sensitive targeting. Additional analysis involving the number of SR teams and strike aircraft components should also be
examined.
          The methodology for incorporating SOF effects and their contribution to theater level modeling is in its infancy, but
efforts such as this one can establish the foundation and baseline to build upon. The requirement and necessity to include the
contribution of SOF forces to this genre of modeling and simulation is long overdue.


Defense Planning Scenario Development
LTC Stuart Davis
Joint Staff / J-7
Pentagon, Room 2B877, Washington, DC 20318
703-697-3664 Fax : 703-697-6322
davissd@js.pentagon.mil

         The FY 2004 – 2009 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) directed development of an Analytic Agenda to support
implementation of the Defense Strategy and DPG. OUSD(P), OUSD(PA&E), and the Joint Staff developed an Analytic
Agenda that aligns major analytical efforts with annual SPG development and budget cycles. The Analytic Agenda provides
a path for the conduct of strategic analyses that will provide insight to the Department’s decision-makers on policy and
programmatic issues. Defense Planning Scenarios (DPS), Multi-Service Force Deployment (MSFD) documents, and
Analytical Baselines are key elements in the execution of a robust Analytic Agenda. The set of DPS scenarios is intended to
serve as a standard by which the senior leadership of the Department can gauge the sufficiency of the Defense Program. This
briefing will describe the process that OSD and the Joint Staff use in collaboration with the Combatant Commands and
Services to develop the components of the Department’s Analytic Agenda.


Assessing Effects-Based Operations (EBO)
Lt Col Dave Denhard
AFIT/ENS
2950 Hobson Way, WPAFB, OH 45433-7765
937-255-3355 Ext 3325 Fax: 937-986-4943
David.Denhard@afit.edu

          In recent years, effects-based planning and assessment has moved from doctrinal debate to operational
implementation. Although EBO implementation strategies vary among the combat commands and services, each faces the
difficult task of assessing their EBO plans. Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM demonstrated the
challenges associated with assessing military operations in a real-time environment. The presentation will provide you with
an overview of current EBO implementation, how to approach the assessment of EBO, and specific assessment approaches
including measures of effectiveness.

                                                                                                                       D-109
          Joint Campaign Analysis                                                                          WG-17
Mobility Capability Study (MCS) Warfight Metric Discussion
Robert Drash                                                     Dr. Laura Williams
Potomac Analysis Corporation                                     OSD PA&E Projection Forces Division
8101 Oak Crest Lane                                              1800 Defense, Pentagon, Rm 2D272
Fairfax Station, Va 22039                                        Washington DC 20301
571-216-2197; Fax: 703-696-9394                                  703-693-5707
robert.drash.ctr@osd.mil                                         laura.Williams@osd.mil

         The Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS) is a Strategic Planning Guidance (SPG) directed study to identify and
quantify the mobility assets required to support the current National Military Strategy. This evaluation includes
consideration of Major Combat Operations (MCOs) as well as the demands of ongoing operations, lesser contingencies,
support to forward based troops, and transportation demands in support of Homeland Defense. The study examined
variations in alternative modes (land, air, sea) and sources (military, civilian, foreign) of strategic, CONUS and theater lift,
and variations of forward basing, seabasing, prepositioning (afloat and ashore), aerial refueling, advanced logistics concepts,
and destination theater austerity based on the new global footprint and global presence initiatives. Detailed metrics were
developed to assess the impact of the mobility alternatives on the warfights. The overview briefing will be presented in the
Composite Group D forum, with a question and answer period and additional warfight discussion during the WG-17 time
slot.


Process Documentation and Execution: A Tool Supporting Assessing Alternatives
Tom Dufresne                                                     Robert L. Turner Jr.
OSD PA&E Information Management and Analysis Group               OSD PA&E Information Management and Analysis Group
1225 S. Clark St., Suite 300                                     1225 S. Clark St., Suite 300
Arlington, VA 22202                                              Arlington, VA 22202
703-604-6349; Fax: 703-604-6400                                  703-604-6349; Fax: 703-604-6400
thomas.dufresne@osd.mil                                          robert.turner.ctr@osd.mil

          One of the most difficult concerns for analysis is the capture and coordination of real world data because of the
massive amount and extent required. Another daunting and sometimes prohibitive concern is that the process to formulate
the data into the needed construct is nebulous, painstaking, complex, time consuming, and extremely difficult to make
repeatable. Out of this need, the OSD/PA&E/RMOD/IMAG organization undertook the exploration of what is required, and
what automated processes can be provided to data Analysts. This effort lead to the development of a Process Execution Tool,
that not only helps manage the tasks required to perform extremely complex analysis, but also support its performance.
Numerous task areas can be automated both in sequencing and performing the sequence. This then allows the analyst to
spend time on needed decision-making tasks, rather than laborious data transformations. Once completed, the process may
be executed quickly, and is repeatable. The analyst can change the specific data to explore alternatives. By providing
coherent data sets, formulated in the same process, with only the desired changes made, the tool allows the analyst to have
comparable results for consideration of alternatives.
          The presentation includes, using a sample data set, a demonstration of how to use the tool. The first portion shows
how the Analysts capture steps of their process. The second portion shows how the Analyst can quickly attach the needed
step tool to each of the steps, to perform data manipulation functions. The third portion shows how the data can be processed
quickly through the steps. And the fourth shows how to add, delete, or change steps anywhere in the process. The
presentation also includes describing the data manipulation functions. These functions include such step functions as
importing data from databases or spreadsheets; performing a data manipulation task on the data; processing units, unit
equipment, and order of battle; and exporting data to databases and spreadsheets.




D-110
          Joint Campaign Analysis                                                                        WG-17
Operational Availability-05 Major Combat Operation-1 Mid-Term Swiftly Defeat the
Efforts Warfight Analysis
Lt Col Darren Durkee
Joint Staff/J8/Warfighting Analysis Div
Rm 1D940 The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20318-8000
703-693-3248; Fax: 703-693-4601
Darren.Durkee@js.pentagon.mil

         The Department of Defense (DoD) is undergoing major process changes for determining joint warfighting needs and
providing joint warfighting capabilities. The Operational Availability (OA) study series was chartered to determine the joint
military capabilities and force employments needed to achieve the defense strategy. The OA studies have been a
collaborative effort spanning a large cross-section of the DoD analytic community. This presentation provides an overview
of the Major Combat Operation-1 (MCO-1) Mid-Term Swiftly Defeat the Efforts (SDTE) warfight analysis conducted in
support of the Operational Availability (OA-05) study to include the warfight scenario, concept of operations, assumptions,
metrics and results/insights.


Multi-National Corps – Iraq (MNC-I) ORSA Cell
MAJ Loren Eggen
MNC-I C3 Plans ORSA
Camp Victory, Iraq
Unit 41900
APO AE 09342-1400
DSN: 318 822-2092
Loren.Eggen@iraq.centcom.mil
Loren.Eggen@us.army.mil


         Operations Research enables Commanders to make firm decisions with less risk and enhanced outcomes.
         The Center for Army Analysis (CAA) has maintained a team of OR Analyst deployed to Baghdad, Iraq in support of
the Coalition Joint Task Force CJTF-7, which became the Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) and the Multi-National Corps
– Iraq (MNC-I), starting with Operation Iraq Freedom - I (OIF) to present OIF 04-06. This team has been instrumental in
providing the key commanders and their staff with real-time analysis to support their decisions. A key to the team’s success
was in the MNC-I Significant Actions data base called SigActs, replaced by Combined Information Data Network Exchange
(CIDNE), pronounced Sydney. This paper will talk about the development of SigActs and the transition to CIDNE along with
the accolades and limitations of both data bases. In particular, we will discuss the means of which the team of ORSA from
CAA used these databases to support the war effort in Iraq.


Analytic Support to Stability Operations
Dr. Karsten Engelmann                      MAJ Andrew Farnsler                        Cortez Stephens
Center for Army Analysis                   Army QDR Office                            Studies & Analysis, MCCDC
6001 Goethals Road                         3E434, Pentagon                            3300 Russell Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                     Washington, DC 20310                       Quantico, VA 22134
703-806-5532                               703-695-1102                               703-784-6029
karsten.engelmann@us.army.mil              andy.farnsler@us.army.mil                  cortez.stephens@usmc.mil

         Based on the experience of OR analysts from all services and civilians deployed to various stability operations, this
presentation sets forth analytic skills, tools, models, methods and metrics for supporting stability operations in nations and
regions after military intervention by the U.S. A special emphasis is placed on what proved to be, and not be, effective and
useful to the commanders in the various theaters. Additionally, recommendations are presented on how to increase the
effectiveness of deployed OR analysts in stability operations.


                                                                                                                      D-111
          Joint Campaign Analysis                                                                         WG-17
Effects Assessments
Mark A. Gallagher                          Marc Warburton                              Wesley D. True
Analysis Management Division (J82)         6825 Pine Street, MS B10                    Analysis Management Division (J82)
United States Strategic Command            Omaha NE 68106                              United States Strategic Command
901 SAC Blvd, STE 2F16                     402-554-4745; Fax: 402-554-4759             901 SAC Blvd, STE 2F16
Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6500                  warburtonm@saic.com                         Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6500
402-294-1938; Fax: 402-294-6148                                                        402-292-5347; Fax: 402-294-6148
gallaghm@stratcom.mil                                                                  truew@stratcom.mil

          The Department of Defense is rapidly proceeding toward implementing effects-based operations (EBO), which
considers the impacts of various military actions. We define an effect for any single functional capability or behavior by
specifying four criteria:
          1) Range – which specifies the group of facilities or individuals considered
          2) Extent – which specifies the bound (upper or lower as appropriate) of the capability or behavior
          3) Start time – when the extent is achieved on the specified range
          4) End time – the minimum time that the effect remains
Actions that achieved the effects on greater than the range or longer duration still achieve the effect. Some objectives, such
as temporary or covert, require specifying multiple effects. This definition is broad enough that any combination of
Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic (DIME) actions could be used to evaluate the Political, Military, Economic,
Social, Information, and Infrastructure (PMESII) impacts. In addition, the definition is precise in that the outcome space is
completely specified so that we can apply a modeling approach such as probability theory.
          Actions may result in multiple effects. Actions and or effects can combine to “cause” other effects. This definition
lays the foundation to build a comprehensive dynamic system to analysis effects and states (multiple effects). We present a
systems engineering approach that decomposes functions into components upon which we can evaluate military actions. For
example, the various functions of a command post are decomposed to determine redundancy and attack vulnerability so
weapon damage can be translated to functional impact.


Geospatial Analysis for Measuring the Effectiveness of Joint Operations
LTC Robert Kewley                          LTC Mark Brantley                           MAJ Jeff Libby
Center for Army Analysis                   Center for Army Analysis                    Center for Army Analysis
6001 Goethals Road                         6001 Goethals Road                          6001 Goethals Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                     Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                      Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
703-806-5562                               703-806-5611                                703-806-5382
FAX 703-806-5726                           FAX 703-806-5726                            FAX 703-806-5726
Robert.Kewley@us.army.mil                  Mark.Brantley@us.army.mil                   Jeffrey.Libby@us.army.mil

MAJ Andy Farnsler                          LTC Mike Stollenwerk                        John Bott
HQDA, Army G8, DAPR-QDR,                   Center for Army Analysis                    Center for Army Analysis
700 Army Pentagon Room 3E434               6001 Goethals Road                          6001 Goethals Road
Washington DC 20310                        Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                      Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
703-695-1102                               703-806-5638                                703-806-5669
Andy.Farnsler@us.army.mil                  FAX 703-806-5726                            FAX 703-806-5732
                                                                                       John.Bott@us.army.mil

          A recurring theme in effects-based assessments of joint operations is analysis of the effects of different joint
operations on the pattern of enemy activity. Joint staffs engaged in a full spectrum campaign are continuously interested in
the localized effects of a wide variety of activities. These include civil projects, leader engagement, counter-IED operations,
base protection measures, and offensive operations. Geospatial analysis is one technique for analysis of these effects. This
involves defining the effected area and duration of the effects. Once this area and duration are defined, enemy activities in
the area are extracted using geospatial techniques. If enough friendly events are analyzed, statistical analysis allows
conclusions to be drawn about the expected effects of joint operations on a particular pattern of enemy activity. One
drawback of this technique is that it can only show correlation, not cause and effect. In spite of this limitation, these
techniques have shown great utility in supporting joint assessments in Iraq and Afghanistan.


D-112
          Joint Campaign Analysis                                                                          WG-17
The “Softer Side” of Combat OR, Operations Research Inside the Iraq Combat Zone
LTC Michael S. McGurk
Commander, USAAC, ATAL-ZS (McGURK)
Bldg. 100, 90 Ingalls Rd., Fort Monroe VA 23651
757-788-4872//Michael.mcgurk@us.army.mil

           Welcome to the “softer side” of Combat OR (A.K.A. Nailing jello to trees with thumbtacks)
           Operations Research has long been a field associated with mathematics, numbers, charts and graphs. Rounds pegs
that fit into round holes. What happens when all the pegs are square and we have no data? We develop it to the best of our
ability.
           LTC McGurk was assigned to Iraq in the summer of 2004, days after the end of CPA and the stand up of the Iraqi
Interim Government. One of his first tasks was to develop metrics on the progress being made in the Information War of
Strategic Communications. Strategic Communications in Iraq is the first time that Public Affairs, Information Operations
and Psychological Operations have worked side by side under an integrated structure. As a member of the Strategic
Communications Directorate of the Multi-National Force Iraq, LTC McGurk was a major contributor to the development of
the Commanders Assessment and Synchronization Board, used to assess the MNF-I Campaign plan for the war. His work to
build assessment data lead to the development of assessments from a complex collection of qualitative data sources. His
work included efforts to assist in the development of polling in a combat zone, PSYOP team tactical field reports, media
monitoring (TV and Print), combat intelligence reporting, and other available sources. He assisted in the development of
information operations plans and assessment of Operation Al Fajr, the Battle of Fallujah, and he wrote the After Action
Review. Discussion will focus on the challenges of soft data, public opinion polling, and media measurements in an austere
combat environment.


Assessing the Effects of Joint Fires on Joint Forcible Entry Operations (JFEO)
Peter B. Melim                                                    Steven Darcy
JWARS Program Office                                              CACI, Inc. - Federal
1555 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22209                             1600 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22209
703-696-9490, Ext 171; Fax –703-696-9563                          703-558-0277; Fax: 703-875-2904
pmelim@caci.com                                                   sdarcy@caci.com

          The Joint Warfare Systems (JWARS) is a theater-level campaign simulation model that integrates Joint Fires in
support of Joint Forcible Entry Operations. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of Joint Fires, in the
form of airpower, in support of airborne forces conducting forcible entry operations. This study was conducted to assist Joint
Staff J-8/FAAD in determining what factors influence the level of joint fire support required during the assault phase to
effectively insert and maintain friendly ground forces. The results indicate that key factors influencing the level of joint fire
support is not only dependant on the type, duration, and environmental factors, but also key factors influencing the enemy’s
ability to counter the foreign forces by maneuver. JWARS was able to highlight the critical aspects of applying airpower at
the proper place and timing to mitigate the effectiveness of the enemy’s counter maneuver. The briefing will summarize the
modeling methodology and results of the study.


Joint Forcible Entry Operations Using the Joint Integrated Contingency Model (JICM)
Julia Sharkey
U.S. Army Center For Army Analysis
Operational Capabilities Pacific Division
6001 Goethals Road, Fort Belvior, VA 22060-5230
(703) 806-5644//Julia.Sharkey@us.army.mil

         The Center for Army Analysis (CAA) conducts theater level analytic studies for use by Headquarters, Department of
the Army and other sponsors. CAA uses the Joint Integrated Contingency Model (JICM) as its primary theater campaign
tool. CAA has funded improvements to JICM since adopting it in 1999. Joint Forcible Entry Operations (JFEO) is the most
recent JICM development. CAA has taken receipt from the RAND Corporation a new Joint Forcible Entry Operations
(JFEO) capability for Joint Integrated Contingency Model (JICM). The JFEO capability was envisioned by CAA (OCA-

                                                                                                                         D-113
          Joint Campaign Analysis                                                                         WG-17
PAC), designed by CACI, and built by RAND. JFEO module is currently undergoing Beta testing at CAA using both a
Northeast Asia and Southwest Asia scenario. The JFEO module will enable CAA to explicitly represent the current and
future joint forced entry concepts and capabilities. CAA received the JFEO JICM Version late December 2004 and expects
to complete testing by mid-summer 2005.


The DoD Analytic Agenda and JDS – Update
Dr. James G. Stevens                                             R. Eric Johnson
OSD PA&E (Joint Data Support)                                    Unisys Corp. supporting OSD PA&E (JDS)
2521 S. Clark St., Ste. 550, Arlington, VA 22202                 2521 S. Clark St., Ste. 550, Arlington, VA 22202
703-699-1702//James.stevens@osd.mil                              703-699-1705//Richard.e.johnson.ctr@osd.mil

          The Analytic Agenda is a Department-wide initiative aimed at making analysis efforts more effective. Joint Data
Support (JDS) is a component of the Joint Analytic Model Improvement Program (JAMIP) under the administration of the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (Program Analysis and Evaluation) focused on improving the quality and consistency of
data supporting analytical efforts Department-wide. JDS assists OSD (Policy), OSD (PA&E) and the Joint Staff in their
management of the Department’s Analytic Agenda.
          This briefing traces the history of the Analytic Agenda from its conception to its present state and what’s next. The
briefing includes a discussion of the JDS data store for Analytic Agenda products and data help/reference desk.
          The briefing discusses challenges to DoD data visibility, accessibility, and traceability, and provides the “way
ahead” for the Analytic Agenda and JDS.
          There will be time allotted for questions and discussion.


Operational Availability 05 Overview
COL Al Sweetser
J8 Warfighting Analysis Division, 8000 Joint Staff Pentagon, Washington, DC 20318-8000
703-697-8651//Fax: 703 693-4601//sweetser@js.pentagon.mil

         Operational Availability (OA) was initiated by the 2004-2009 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) to assess how well
programmed capabilities achieve the goals of the Defense strategy. The DPG defined Operational Availability as "the joint
military capabilities and force employment timelines necessary to accomplish the Defense Strategy." The three OA studies
have emerged as key venues for strategic assessments within the Department of Defense. This Secret presentation will
present an overview of the most recent OA-05 study, and explain how the DoD operations research community is
contributing to these efforts.


Joint Effects-Based Planning Using the Strategy Development Tool at JEFX04
Dr. Christopher M. White                                         Nicholas J. Pioch
BAE SYSTEMS, 6 New England Executive Park                        BAE SYSTEMS, 6 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803                                             Burlington, MA 01803
781-273-3388; Fax : 781-273-9345                                 781-273-3388; Fax: 781-273-9345
christopher.m.white@baesystems.com                               nicholas.pioch@baesystems.com

           The Strategy Development Tool (SDT), sponsored by AFRL-IFS, supports effects-based planning by tightly
integrating adversary modeling and analysis with plan authoring in a collaborative environment. At Joint Expeditionary
Forces Experiment (JEFX) ’04 the SDT was evaluated as part of an AFRL-sponsored initiative integrating tools for effects-
based operations and predictive battlespace awareness. The SDT was used by the Joint Forces Commander to define an
initial strategic plan of objectives and desired effects. This plan was then collaboratively refined by the Joint Forces Air
Component Command and the Joint Forces Land Component Command, which were located at two geographically separated
locations. This presentation provides an overview of the SDT capabilities including effects-based modeling, collaborative
mission planning and assessment, and target system analysis. These capabilities assist both deliberate and crisis action
decision-making in a joint environment by providing a collaborative approach to effects-based planning in which a strategic-
theater-level mission is refined into operational-level and ultimately tactical-level tasks and desired effects, informed by
models of the expected enemy response at each level of abstraction.

D-114
          Joint Campaign Analysis                                                                       WG-17
Back-up presentations:


Synthetic Theater Operations Research Model (STORM)
Capt Eunice Ciskowski
AFSAA/SAA
1570 Air Force Pentagon
Washington DC 20330-1570
(703) 588-8606; Fax: (703) 696-8738
eunice.ciskowski@pentagon.af.mil

          STORM is the U.S. Air Force's next-generation, campaign analysis system. It is a stochastic, discrete-event,
simulation tool designed for the analysis of Joint War Fighting issues. STORM represents a new approach in analytic model
implementation, featuring maximum use of freeware/GOTS software (GNU compiler, MySQL database, MS Office(tm)
tools, OpenMap, et al) and multi-platform compatibility (currently SUN-Solaris, PC-Linux, and PC-Win-XP). AFSAA
released STORM version 1.2 with classified databases in January 2005.
          The STORM development mission is to provide flexible, credible, and usable representations of air, space, land, and
maritime operations in an information-constrained, C4ISR environment. STORM is chartered to model regional conflicts for
weeks-to-months of simulated time. STORM's stochastic representations and output mechanisms are designed to evaluate
comparative capabilities and risks across the operational tradespace. STORM also incorporates an EBO model enabling
analysis of non-lethal effects on war outcomes.
          The Common Analysis Simulation Architecture (CASA) underpinning STORM is an object-oriented, C++
framework designed to link simulations to database mechanisms, input interfaces, and output visualization and analysis tools.
STORM is currently one of two Air Force simulations to take advantage of CASA. This highly reconfigurable approach to
analytic systems allows users to define their own custom analysis tool suite and significantly reduce life cycle costs.
          This presentation will provide the current status of the STORM program and classified data development. More
detailed information will be provided during demonstrations of STORM (on-going throughout the symposium).


APL Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS): Considering Resource Conflict
Resolution in Multi-Warfare Analyses
Dr. Joseph G. Kovalchik, Ph.D.
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD 20723
240-228-6264; Fax 240-228-5910
Joseph.Kovalchik@jhuapl.edu

         This paper presents the details of the APL Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS) which addresses the
growing interest in the Defense community in the ability to perform multi-warfare analysis – analysis that crosses the
domains of multiple mission areas. Because of the complexity involved, previous efforts to conduct multi-warfare analyses
were conducted on carefully constructed scenarios which artificially lead to stove piped, single mission area analysis These
studies avoided both the effects of competing resources across multi-warfare areas and the dependencies of one warfare area
on another.
         Advances in the speed of computer hardware and in the development of interoperability standards for simulations
have now made it possible to consider performing multi-warfare analysis by federating "best-of-breed" mission-level
simulations into a single interoperable simulation operating across several networked computers. The Johns Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) has developed such a multi-warfare simulation federation, using the High
Level Architecture (HLA) standard developed by the Department of Defense. The federation combines the Extended Air
Defense Simulation (EADSIM), the Naval Simulation System (NSS), (ORBIS), and the APL-developed simulations Surface
AAW Multi-Ship Simulation (SAMS) and the Battle Force Engagement Model (BFEM) into a single federation, the APL
Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS). AIM is being used to simulate a tactical situation associated with multi-
warfare combat in the littorals. A Commander Federate, utilizing an expert system, sets warfare priorities either by time or
event, provides inter-warfare area conflict resolution for asset allocation, motion plans, and weapon and sensor allocation
among warfare area commanders.

                                                                                                                     D-115
          Joint Campaign Analysis                                                                      WG-17
An Experiment in Constructing Simulation Referents from Subject Matter Expert (SME)
Knowledge - Final Report
Mike Metz                                                      Mary Bonnet
Innovative Management Concepts, Inc.                           Innovative Management Concepts, Inc.
21400 Ridgetop Circle, Suite 210                               21400 Ridgetop Circle, Suite 210
Dulles, Virginia 20166                                         Dulles, Virginia 20166
703-318-8044 x210; Fax: 703-318-8740                           703-318-8044 x203; Fax: 703-318-8740
mmetz@imcva.com                                                mbonnet@imcva.com

         This presentation captures the results, analysis, lessons learned, and conclusions of the experiment that was
conducted to support results validation of the Joint Warfare System (JWARS) simulation and was updated and refined for
inclusion in the Army Standards Repository System (ASTARS). It describes a new technique under development to make
the use of Subject Matter Expert (SME) opinions in validation more independent, consistent, and repeatable. This technique
uniquely decouples the functions that SMEs provide, and explicitly recognizes the existence and influence of uncertainty in
SME predictions and simulation results. We conducted a survey that collected SME opinions about the outcomes of three
ground combat scenarios. Our results characterized the uncertainty associated with the data that we collected. This
technique applies equally well to all simulations that must rely on SMEs for referent knowledge. While our referent did
show some peculiarities, our technique permits straightforward correction of the data to either account for or correct these
peculiarities. These measures will strengthen the resulting referent and improve its accuracy. This presentation describes
lessons learned from this experiment and proposes changes to the technique that can be applied in future experiments and
eventually to Verification, Validation and Accreditation (VV&A) practice. Our technique has advanced the construction of
referents from SME knowledge over the existing state-of-the-art.


Weapon Effects Analysis and Probability Software (WEAPS)
Greg Wilder
AAC/ENAW
Chief, System Effectiveness Branch
Analysis Division, Engineering Directorate
Air Armament Center
101 West Eglin Blvd, Ste 384
Eglin AFB FL 32542-5499
850-882-3722; Fax: 850-882-9049
greg.wilder@eglin.af.mil

         WEAPS is an easy-to-use software package that calculates the effectiveness (probability of kill and expected kills
per sortie) for many weapon/target/delivery aircraft/delivery profile/weather-state combinations using Joint Munitions
Effectiveness Manuals – Air-to-Surface (JMEM/AS) tri-service approved methods. For targets for which the JMEM/AS
methods aren’t appropriate, engineering level models are used to perform off-line calculations and the results are directly
loaded into the WEAPS database.
         The WEAPS database covers inventory and non-inventory weapons and is under continual update and revision. The
source for most inventory weapon data is the JMEM/AS Weaponeering System (JAWS). There are many sources for non-
inventory weapon data including the Air Force Research Laboratory, Munitions Directorate. WEAPS allows the analyst to
easily make additions to the provided baseline database.
         The output data is most often used as an input for theater-level models such as the Combat Forces Assessment
Model (CFAM), but can also be used as the basis for engagement-level (one-versus-one) analysis. WEAPS has been used for
many studies, and is a key tool in the annual Non-nuclear Consumables Annual Analysis (NCAA) process. The WEAPS
code is unclassified, but uses a classified database. WEAPS is available to all DoD agencies and DoD contractors, but a
subscription is required.




D-116
    Mobility & Transport of Forces                                                                        WG-18
Chair: Dr. David C. Frye, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Co-chairs: Lt Col Diane Breivik Allen, USTRANSCOM
Lt Col Robert Brigantic, AFIT
Larry Ground, Raytheon
Dr. Jean Mahan, USTRANSCOM
James C. Moughon, Army QDR Office
Advisor: Dr. Alan Johnson, AFIT

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


Super Galaxy (C-5M) Aircraft Capabilities in Support of Army Maneuver Concepts
Thomas M. Burwell                                               Dr. William T. Mikolowsky
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics                                     Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Advanced Development Programs                                   Advanced Development Programs
86 South Cobb Drive                                             86 South Cobb Drive
Marietta, Georgia 30063-0674                                    Marietta, Georgia 30063-0660
770-494-9737                                                    770-494-5025
thomas.m.burwell@lmco.com                                       william.t.mikolowsky@lcmo.com

          Given the concern over the growth of the Army’s Stryker vehicle and support equipment, this presentation addresses
available airlift alternatives in the near future to accommodate a possible increase in weight or size. Our study examines the
operational feasibility of the C-5M Super Galaxy, a C-5 aircraft modified by the Avionics Modernization Program and the
Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program, performing in a tactical mode. This study includes a technical capability
comparison of the C-5M with other aircraft in support of the Army’s Operational Maneuver (i.e., tactical airlift) concept in a
scenario employing a Stryker Infantry Battalion. Our comparative analysis considered aircraft performance (payload
capacity, climb, cruise, takeoff and landing distance), runway weight bearing requirements and runway availability. Results
indicate that the C-5M exhibits superior overall performance and delivers more payload per sortie while operating from a
greater number of airfields.


A Technical analysis of ‘speed’ for Expeditionary Naval Forces in the Littoral
Jeffrey R. Cares                         David A. Jarvis                           David R. Garvey
President,                               Vice President, Strategy                  Vice President, Govt. Programs
Alidade Incorporated                     Alidade Incorporated                      Alidade Incorporated
31 Willow Street                         31 Willow Street                          31 Willow Street
Newport, RI 02840                        Newport, RI 02840                         Newport, RI 02840
(401) 367-0040                           (401) 367-0040                            (401) 367-0040
jeff.cares@alidade.net                   david.jarvis@alidade.net                  dave.garvey@alidade.net

         The term “speed” is used excessively in current acquisition requirement documents and concepts of operation for
future Littoral naval forces as a universal good. In fact, many times the authors mean many different things when they say
“speed.” The tactical, operational, and strategic levels of warfare all have different “types” of speed that they are concerned
with. In order to effectively inform decision makers, a thorough treatment of the problem set is required in order to assess
technical trade offs of space, weight, and cost versus buying more “speed.” This study analyzes the tradeoffs involved in
envisioned scenarios from the CONOPS across a broad range of possible future speeds of naval vessels employed as Assured
Access forces in advance of Power Projection forces.




                                                                                                                       D-117
    Mobility & Transport of Forces                                                                       WG-18
Quick Force Closure Estimates Using the Strategic Mobility Model
Phil Collins
Sumaria Systems, Inc
1728 Corporate Crossing, Suite 1
O’Fallon, IL 62269
 (618) 628-7943
pcollins@sumaria.net

         The predominant means of strategic force closure analysis is through the use of large, detailed mobility simulations.
The strength of these simulations is their ability to produce high fidelity results accounting for numerous variables and the
rules governing their interrelationships. Therein also lies their weakness. High fidelity models require large amounts of data
and time-consuming setups, long run times, and extensive analysis to interpret the results. Only a few, highly experienced
analysts can properly use these models and they are in high demand. U.S. Transportation Command identified a need for a
Quick-Look tool that would permit mobility analysts to quickly identify the key issue areas upon which to focus their limited
time while also providing a tool for the non-analyst decision makers and planners. The Mobility Model was designed to be
easy to use, require a minimal amount of data, be quick to setup and run, and produce results that could be understood by
senior decision makers. The Mobility Model accomplishes this through the combination of a well-designed user interface
and the generalization and aggregation of movement requirements, assets, and infrastructure. While not suitable for the finer
nuances of mobility analysis, this tool does provide the proverbial 80% solution.


Analysis of Power Projection Platforms
Andrea L. Drabek                              Dr. Gregory J. Grindey                        Phil Collins
Northrop Grumman Corporation JASP Site        Northrop Grumman Corporation JASP Site        Sumaria Systems, Inc
United States Transportation Command,         United States Transportation Command,         1728 Corporate Crossing, Suite 1
J5-AS                                         J5-AS                                         O’Fallon, IL 62269
Scott Air Force Base, IL 62225                Scott Air Force Base, IL 62225                Phone: (618) 628-7943
Phone: (618) 229-1130                         Phone: (618) 229-1130;                        pcollins@sumaria.net
Andrea.Drabek@hq.transcom.mil                 Gregory.Grindey@hq.transcom.mil

          The United States Army is currently undergoing a transformation in both its force structure and doctrine as rapid
deployment and swift engagement is becoming the way that the Army wants to do business in the 21st century. The Army’s
Forces Command has asked the United States Transportation Command to study the adequacy of the infrastructure to support
rapid deployment of their Immediate Ready Company (IRC) and Deployment Ready Force (DRF) packages from twelve of
the fifteen Army Power Projection Platform (PPP) sites in the U.S. Each PPP has an associated Air Force or Army air base
from which the deployment is launched, and the infrastructure at these bases must be sufficient to support the timelines and
cargo flow that is necessary for the Army’s swiftness goals. Through use of the Airport Simulation Tool (AST), a component
of the APOD tool suite, analysis has been completed on two of the PPP sites with ongoing work on the remaining sites. AST,
a discrete-event airport simulation, provides a detailed representation of airport flightline operations, cargo and passenger
processing, fuel systems, and the Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration (RSO&I) activities. The
simulation models all airport resources and enablers directly impacting throughput and aircraft sortie generation.


Mobility Capability Study (MCS) Q&A Extract
Robert Drash                                                  Laura Williams
Potomac Analysis Corporation                                  OSD PA&E Projection Forces Division
801 Oak Crest Lane                                            1800 Defense, Pentagon, Room 2D272
Farifax Station, VA 22039                                     Washington, DC 20301
(571) 216-2197                                                (703) 695-6732
Robert.Drash.ctr@osd.mil                                      Laura.Williams@osd.mil

        The Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS) is a Strategic Planning Guidance (SPG) directed study to identify and
quantify the mobility assets required to support the current National Military Strategy. This evaluation includes
consideration of Major Combat Operations (MCOs) as well as the demands of ongoing operations, lesser contingencies,

D-118
    Mobility & Transport of Forces                                                                         WG-18
support to forward based troops, and transportation demands in support of Homeland Defense. The study examined
variations in alternative modes (land, air, sea) and sources (military, civilian, foreign) of strategic, CONUS and theater lift,
and variations of forward basing, seabasing, prepositioning (afloat and ashore), aerial refueling, advanced logistics concepts,
and destination theater austerity based on the new global footprint and global presence initiatives. Finally, all aspects of the
end-to-end mobility analysis for each component of the strategy (MCO, Baseline Security Posture (BSP), and Homeland
Defense) were combined to determine the overall risk assessment for the mobility system. The overview briefing will be
presented in the Composite Group D forum, with a question and answer period and additional mobility discussion during the
WG18 time slot immediately following.


Analysis of USFK Noncombatant Evacuation Operations
Brenda Harms                                                    LTC Thomas Slafkosky
Group W, Inc.                                                   USFK CJ35 Plans
PSC 303 Box 38                                                  APO AP 96205-0027
APO AP 96204-3038                                               011-822-7913-8371
011-822-7913-3852                                               SlafkoskyT@korea.army.mil
FAX 822-7913-8244
Brenda.Harms@korea.army.mil

          Per Joint Pub 3-07.5, noncombatant evacuation operations (NEOs) are conducted by combatant commanders to
assist the Department of State in evacuating US noncombatants, nonessential military personnel, selected host-nation
citizens, and third country nationals whose lives are in danger from a foreign nation to an appropriate safe haven and/or the
United States. Successful NEOs are often critical first steps in further contingency operations -- the removal of
noncombatants from harm’s way, including military family members, must be done quickly in the midst of great turmoil.
United States Forces Korea’s Operations Analysis Branch (OAB) recently analyzed NEO planning for South Korea, the
largest noncombatant evacuation ever contemplated. OAB used Arena®, a commercial, off-the-shelf simulation
development toolkit, to simulate the movement of noncombatant evacuees from their arrival at evacuation control centers
through their departure from an air or sea port of embarkation. OAB’s results helped refine the USFK NEO plan’s resource
requirements including: the number of tracking system registration terminals needed at each evacuation control center;
housing requirements at evacuation control and relocation centers; host-nation transportation requirements between
evacuation control centers, relocation centers, and ports of embarkation; and off-peninsula transportation requirements. The
insights from the OAB analysis are guiding the complete revision of the NEO plan.


Improving Military Packing Efficiency: A Fine Grained Objective Function for 2-
Dimensional Packing Problems
LTC John M. Harwig, Ph.D                    Dr. J. Wesley Barnes                          Dr. James T. Moore
Methodology and Analysis Directorate,       Graduate Program in Operations                Department of Operational Sciences
US Army Operational Test Command            Research and Industrial Engineering,          Air Force Institute of Technology
91012 Station Avenue                        The University of Texas                       Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433
Fort Hood TX 76544-5065                     Austin, TX 78712-1063                         (937) 255-3636
254-288-1848 (DSN 738)                      wbarnes@mail.utexas.edu                        James.Moore@afit.edu
john.m.harwig@otc.army.mil

         The research documented in his paper details a fine-grained objective function for use in metaheuristic search
algorithms to solve two-dimensional bin packing proble This objective function allows for differentiation of intermediate
moves which may not change the total number of bins being used. This is achieved based on the concept of potential energy
with three separate components. These components account for moves that progress directly toward reducing the amount of
material in a designated 'excess' bin, intrabin moves that consolidate dead space within bins and interbin moves that
consolidate dead space between bins.
         This objective function was implemented in an adaptive tabu search algorithm with met or exceed all other
techniques presented in the literature for a common test set of 500 proble The techniques described in the paper also have
natural extensions to other bin packing and knapsack problems with numerous applications to military materiel transport.




                                                                                                                        D-119
    Mobility & Transport of Forces                                                                         WG-18
Mobility Capability Study (MCS) Tanker Study
Lt Col Carl “Cal” Lude
J8/Warfighting Analysis Division
8000 Joint Staff Pentagon, Rm 1D940
Washington, DC 20318-8000
(703) 693-3248
carl.lude@js.pentagon.mil

         The Mobility Capability Study (MCS) Tanker Study is one of many sub studies under the MCS. The primary goal
of the tanker study is to assess the tanker demand in support of the Defense strategy. The study uses the Defense Planning
Scenarios (DPS) as the basis for analysis and leverages work accomplished in the ongoing Operational Availability (OA)
Studies. Each doctrinal tanker mission is assessed either through explicit modeling or subject matter expertise evaluation.
Missions are time-phased to meet the demands generated by the DPS scenarios. The study characterizes the risk associated
with various air refueling supply options. Additional analysis is being done on related issues of cargo capability, receptacle-
equipped tankers, crew ratios, and ops tempo.


Adversary Logistics and Transportation Study
Michael L. McCurdy                                               Patricia D. Campbell
HQ USPACOM Analysis and Assessment Div.                          Northrop Grumman Corporation
Box 64028                                                        USPACOM JASP Site, Box 64028
Camp H. M. Smith, HI 96861-4028                                  Camp H. M. Smith, HI 96861-4028
(808) 477-6390 x 2601                                            (808) 477-6390 x 2614
mike.mccurdy@pacom.mil                                           pcampbell@vic-info.org

Thomas Hilliard                                                  MAJ Noel Pratap, USA
Northrop Grumman Corporation                                     USTRANSCOM/TCJ5-AS
USTRANSCOM JASP Site                                             508 Scott Drive
508 Scott Drive                                                  Scott AFB, IL 62225
Scott AFB, IL 62225                                              (618) 229-1491
(618) 229-4109                                                   noel.pratap@hq.transcom.mil
thomas.hilliard@hq.transcom.mil

          This briefing presents emerging results from a USPACOM/USTRANSCOM study to estimate adversary logistics
and transportation capabilities to invade a friendly country. Logistics and transportation requirements were estimated based
on the forces, tactics, and timelines of a postulated invasion scenario, including requirements for combat support/combat
service support forces and sustainment to support combat forces. Infrastructure and transportation assets available to support
these requirements were identified, including those required for garrison-to-port movement. Finally, standard U.S. TPFDD
planning tools were used to develop a “red TPFDD” and simulate its execution. The briefing presents emerging results from
the study as well as lessons learned in application of “blue-centric” logistics and transportation analysis tools to an adversary
logistics and transportation problem.


Army Reserve Transformation Study Deployment Analysis
Amy R. McGrath                                                   Alan R. Cunningham
TRADOC Analysis Center- Fort Lee                                 TRADOC Analysis Center- Fort Lee
401 First Street                                                 401 First Street
Fort Lee, VA 23801                                               Fort Lee, VA 23801
(804) 765-1827                                                   (804) 765-1830
amy.mcgrath@us.army.mil                                          alan.cunningham@us.army.mil

          As part of the Army's overall effort to transform itself into the Future Force, the Chief of the Army Reserve
requested that the TRADOC Analysis Center (TRAC) conduct a deployment analysis to examine how the readiness of
critical Army Reserve enabling capabilities affect the required deployment timelines and early entry capability for the Future

D-120
   Mobility & Transport of Forces                                                                     WG-18
Force, and to determine the impact of improved or degraded USAR unit strengths on warfighting capabilities. The results of
this analysis provided support to the Army Reserve initial resourcing reviews and long term (Total Army Analysis-11)
review processes. The analysis compared alternatives using a Caspian Sea scenario. Alternative 1 was defined as a Combat
Support/Combat Service Support USAR/Active Force mix as defined in Total Army Analysis-11 using current methods of
mobilizing and deploying the Reserves. Alternative 2 was defined as a fully resourced Army Reserve Rotation force (Army
Reserve Expeditionary Package) as defined by USARC using the new method of mobilization which allows the Army
Reserve forces to be deployed much faster. Primary deployment modeling was completed using Arena software with
additional modeling analysis in Microsoft Excel. This presentation will provide an overview of the deployment analysis that
relied upon Excel modeling and the ARENA simulation tool.


Operational Maneuver Analysis - Future Combat System Unit of Action
LTC Brad Pippin                                               Matt Boetig
Joint and Combined Operations Directorate                     Joint and Combined Operations Directorate
TRADOC Analysis Center                                        TRADOC Analysis Center
Attn: ATRC-FJ                                                 Attn: ATRC-FJ
255 Sedgwick Avenue                                           255 Sedgwick Avenue
Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345                                Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345
(913) 684-9226 FAX (913) 684-9191                             (913) 684-9214/ FAX (913) 684-9191
pippinb@trac.army.mil                                         Matt.Boetig@trac.army.mil

         TRADOC Analysis Center (TRAC), in coordination with the Unit of Action Mounted Battle Lab, the Combined
Arms Support Command, and the Future Combat System (FCS) Lead System Integrator, is conducting an assessment of
operational maneuver of a Future Combat System force. The study will assess the ability of the FCS UA to operationally
maneuver a force using C-130 transport to deliver a specific mission-defined capability. The force will employ the January
2005 FCS 24 ton “build to” platform design concept for the FCS which requires transport in packages and assemblage into a
fully combat cabability (FCC) platform upon arrival. A range of relevant, operationally sound vignettes will provide a
foundation for this analysis. TRAC will combine upfront research and data collection with a series of subject matter expert
workshops to define the parameters of operational maneuver. These parameters will be used to model operational maneuver
within a network flow model. TRAC will brief the results in support of the May 2005 FCS Milestone B update. The
presentation to MORS will include the study methods as well as the study results and insights.


Robotics Modeling for Army Combat Simulation
Jason L. Pusey
US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
ATTN: AMSRD-AMS-SC
392 Hopkins Road
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5071
(410) 278-6253
jason.pusey@us.army.mil

          The US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) has recently investigated the representation (portrayal)
of unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) in Army force-on-force combat models such as the Combined Arms and Support Task
Force Evaluation Model (CASTFOREM). AMSAA’s primary goal is to assess the current state of robotics modeling and to
lay the ground work for future robotics implementation in modeling and simulation (M&S). The progress of the study will
be executed in phases. The initial phase will examine how UGVs are currently played in CASTFOREM, identify
deficiencies that may impact results, and recommend corrective actions for these deficiencies. The recommendations for the
initial phase will be focused to impact the Future Combat Systems (FCS) Milestone-B update. Currently there is very little
difference between the UGVs and the manned ground vehicles (MGVs) within combat modeling. The next phase in the study
will include other Army combat models (OneSAF, COMBAT XXI, JANUS, ATCOM, SURVIVE, IWARS, etc.) and
investigate the capabilities to support the higher level simulations with item level performance models. In addition, the
analysis of unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) will be incorporated.




                                                                                                                   D-121
    Mobility & Transport of Forces                                                                           WG-18
Transportation Capacity Planning: Establishing A Five-Day Planning Horizon to the Last
Tactical Mile
Norman L. Reitter
Principal Logistics Engineer
Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Inc.
100 CTC Drive, Johnstown, PA 15904
814-269–2516//reittern@ctc.com

         The Expeditionary Warfighter Logistics Testbed (EWLT), a Web-enabled application for capturing logistics
innovations, allows the United States Marine Corps (USMC) to assess new logistics tools for operating forces. It is a
collaborative initiative of the HQMC Logistics Visibility and Strategy Center (LPV) and Concurrent Technologies
Corporation (CTC), Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
         The first tool developed, a transportation capacity planning tool (TCPT), is an online transportation allocation
application that affords desired transportation effectiveness over the last USMC “last tactical mile.” The TCPT was
developed in response to transportation planning issues identified during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF I). The TCPT
addresses these issues, ensuring optimal capacity planning. The prototype is currently being refined by the 2nd Force Service
Support Group (Forward) and includes Insight, Incorporated’s Optimization Solver that aids planners in determining the best
convoy and equipment allocations required to meet known and anticipated taskers. This presentation will include a discussion
of USMC transportation planning issues addressed, the methodologies used to address them, the TCPT spiral development
process, and application functionality. The EWLT concept demonstrated the value of merging innovation from the
commercial and academic sectors with USMC resources. As the TCPT continues to evolve, this collaborative participation
will continue. Working group participants will learn the parameters for entrance into the EWLT Web portal to contribute to
both the TCPT and future prototypes.


Vehicle Hardening Study
Pamela J. Roberts
MCCDC (Studies & Analysis Div)
3300 Russell Road, Quantico, VA 22134-5130
(703) 784-6015(phone) –3547 (fax)//Pamela.Roberts@usmc.mil

         The Marine Corps’ current family of tactical wheeled vehicles is most suited to the role of resupply and personnel
transport. They were not designed to provide ballistic or fragmentation protection to passengers and cargo. Recent combat
operations have demonstrated the vulnerability of these vehicles to direct and indirect fires. The Marine Corps is
aggressively implementing vehicle hardening solutions and investigating future solutions. The objective of this study is to
evaluate the potential negative impacts that hardening will have on each type of tactical wheeled vehicle. Based upon data
collected during current operations, operational testing, and interviews with subject matter experts, this study addresses
measures of effectiveness such as shortened life expectancy, vehicle RAM, air transportability, and human factors suitability.


C-130 Transportability as a Metric
COL Don Sando                               Robert A. Hobbs                             LTC Macklin
TSM STRYKER                                 TSM STRYKER                                 TSM STRYKER
USAIC                                       USAIC                                       USAIC
ATTN: ATZB-BV                               ATTN: ATZB-BV                               ATTN: ATZB-BV
Fort Benning, GA 31905                      Fort Benning, GA 31905                      Fort Benning, GA 31905
706-545-5364                                706-545-5351                                (706) 545-7356
sandod@benning.army.mil                     hobbsra@benning.army.mil                    macklinj@benning.army.mil

          The Army must continue to use C-130 transportability as a metric for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT)
because it provides the Joint Force Commander with optimal transportability options and maximum operational flexibility
across the theater of operations. Furthermore, this metric keeps Stryker in a category of units that can move quickly via intra-
theatre air vice strategic air. Early entry forces need operational flexibility and deployment to an objective is the first hurdle.
The SBCT is a lethal, mobile, combined arms force. The C130 is reliable, quickly loaded, and can land in much more austere

D-122
    Mobility & Transport of Forces                                                                         WG-18
areas than strategic lift aircraft. Flying Stryker on C130s gives commanders mobile, lethal and survivable infantry delivered
quickly to the battlefield. This analysis was designed to assess the viability and relevance of continuing to use C-130
transportability as a metric for Stryker development and employment. The analysis used two current TRAC scenarios
(classified), and within those scenarios, it war-gamed the use of a Stryker infantry battalion task force as a viable early entry
force. According to the war-gamed scenarios, the C-130 air transportability metric provides greater options to the commander
with 3 immediate things: lodgment expansion, LOC security, and mobile, lethal, survivable force in complex terrain.
          Several recommendations have been made from the analysis. One, retain C-130 deployability as a Stryker
requirement because it provides maximum flexibility to the theater commander. Second, the Mobile Gun System (MGS)
configuration for air movement can and must be adjusted to meet mission profiles. Third, continue the ongoing efforts to
minimize Stryker vehicle weight, as lower weights provide benefits such as compatibility with other air, sea, and ground
transportation.


Mobility Effects on Combat Effectiveness
Mark Stevens
The Boeing Company
2401 E Wardlow Road, MC C076-0665
Long Beach, Ca 90807-5309
562-593-2624//mark.d.stevens@boeing.com

         Mobility analysis recently has concentrated on the familiar and comfortable measures of effectiveness of closure and
throughput. While the analytic audience is comfortable with these measures, the question is often justifiably asked, “Well, so
what? What difference does that make in the battle?” To answer this question requires a mobility model that is able to
reliably move cargo from the fort to the foxhole. War fighting units and equipment must be moved and tracked through the
entire system. Interactions at the nodes must be accurately modeled to study system bottlenecks. Cargo may be required to
be transshipped multiple times before reaching its ultimate destination. Mobility assets themselves may need to be treated as
cargo on larger transports (i.e. helicopter or trucks on large fixed wing airlifters) before being used in their transport role.
The arrival time and location of combat effective units must then be accurately passed to a verified combat outcome model
which “fights the battle” to translate the effects of alternative mobility force structures into measures of battle outcome for
decision makers. The presentation will provide an overview of Boeing’s efforts to date a demonstration of a beta test scenario
and a summary of future challenges to success.


Validation of the Standard Mobility Application Programming Interface, Fidelity 1 and 2
Brendon Webb                                            William Fisher
US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity              US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
ATTN: AMSRD-AMS-SC                                      ATTN: AMSRD-AMS-SC
392 Hopkins Rd., APG, MD 21005                          392 Hopkins Rd., APG, MD 21005
410-278-6482                                            410-278-6464
Brendon.Webb@us.army.mil                                Bill.Fisher@us.army.mil

          The U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity is conducting the verification and validation of the Standard
Mobility Application Programming Interface (StndMob API) as part of the overall verification and validation of the
developmental Combined Arms Analysis Tool for the 21st Century (COMBATXXI) model. The STNDMob API allows
COMBATXXI to effectively simulate mobility. It was determined that a validation of the STNDMob API prior to its
integration with COMBATXXI was appropriate. The STNDMob API is being developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. The STNDMob API will either calculate or lookup ground mobility
speed estimates. These estimates are provided with varying degrees of accuracy depending upon the user’s requirements.
More accurate estimates require increased input data and additional calculations, resulting in potentially longer processing
times. Therefore, the STNDMob API has multiple levels of fidelity with each subsequent level increasing the accuracy, as
well as, the computational demand. Fidelities 1 and 2 (Low Resolution) use speed lookup tables originating from the NATO
Reference Mobility Model (NRMM). Fidelities 3 and 4 (Medium Resolution) use NRMM-based mobility algorithms to
calculate predicted speed for real time applications. This study addresses the verification and validation for Fidelities 1 and
2.


                                                                                                                         D-123
 Logistics, Reliability, & Maintainability WG-19
CHAIR: Sheilah Simberg, US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
CO-CHAIRS: Robert E. McConnell, Center for Army Analysis
T. Scott Kilby, US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
Jennifer Rausch, Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Modeling Simulation & Analysis Center
Norm Reitter, Concurrent Technologies Corporation
ADVISOR: Jane Krolewski, US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


The Transportation System Capability (TRANSCAP) Model
Jay Burke
Argonne National Lab
9700 South Cass Ave
Bldg 900
Argonne, IL 60439
630-252-9009
jay@anl.gov

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Representation of Consumption Based Logistics in an Engagement Level Warfighting
Simulation
Chris K. Burns                                                  Ronald S. Saylor
SAIC, Contractor                                                Operations Research Analyst
U.S. Army AMRDEC                                                U.S. Army AMRDEC
Attn: AMSRD-AMR-SS-AE                                           Attn: AMSRD-AMR-SS-AE
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000                                 Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000
256 876-4502, 256 876-4529                                      256 876-9036, 256 876-9025
Chris.K.Burns@us.army.mil                                       ronald.saylor@us.army.mil

Robert H. Vasse                                                 Charles E. Derrick
SAIC, Contractor                                                SAIC, Contractor
U.S. Army AMRDEC                                                U.S. Army AMRDEC
Attn: AMSRD-AMR-SS-AE                                           Attn: AMSRD-AMR-SS-AE
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000                                 Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000
256 313-8156, 256 876-9025                                      256 876-8153, 256 876-9025
robert.vasse@us.army.mil                                        charles.derrick@rdec.redstone.army.mil

          The need exists for a modeling and simulation capability to analyze entity level consumption based logistics in a
realistic battlefield environment. Many warfighting simulations in use today by Department of Defense agencies model
logistics at the aggregate level, or not at all. The effect of conceptual logistics systems on future forces such as a Unit of
Action (UA) are better done with entity level models that explicitly represent assembly, transport, and distribution of supplies
to the combat forces of the UA. The US Army Aviation and Missile Command Research, Development, and Engineering
Center (AMRDEC) has developed the capability within an engagement level model to represent these concepts in a flexible
framework. The framework allows for rapid variation of both consumables and transport as well as distribution behaviors,
allowing decision makers to study both system performance and system effectiveness of conceptual designs with increased
rigor and confidence in the output. This presentation is a discussion of the capabilities, its current use, and potential
extensions.




D-124
 Logistics, Reliability, & Maintainability WG-19
Synthetic Theater Operations Research Model (STORM)
Capt Eunice Ciskowski
Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency, 1570 Air Force Pentagon, Washington DC 20330-1570
703-588-8606 (DSN 425)//FAX: 703-696-8738 (DSN 426)// eunice.ciskowski@pentagon.af.mil

         This presentation will provide the current status of the STORM program and classified data development as well as
discuss how STORM addresses LOG (RAM) issues at the campaign level. STORM is the U.S. Air Force's next-generation,
campaign analysis system designed to replace THUNDER. It is a stochastic, discrete-event, simulation tool that represents a
new approach in analytic model implementation, featuring maximum use of freeware/GOTS software and multi-platform
compatibility. STORM’s development mission is to provide flexible, credible, and usable representations of air, space, land,
and maritime operations in an information-constrained, C4ISR environment. The Common Analysis Simulation Architecture
(CASA) underpinning STORM is an object-oriented, C++ framework designed to link simulations to database mechanisms,
input interfaces, and output visualization and analysis tools. This highly reconfigurable approach to analytic systems allows
users to define their own custom analysis tool suite and significantly reduce life cycle costs. More detailed information will
be provided during demonstrations of STORM (on-going throughout the symposium).


Marine Corps Bulk Liquid Transportation
Captain Jonathan Drexler, USMC                 Launa Jennings                                 Cortez Stephens
Studies and Analysis Division, MCCDC           Studies and Analysis Division, MCCDC           Studies and Analysis Division,
3300 Russell Road                              3300 Russell Road                              MCCDC, 3300 Russell Road
Quantico, VA 22134                             Quantico, VA 22134                             Quantico, VA 22134
703-784-6011                                   703-784-6010                                   703-784-6029
jonathan.drexler@usmc.mil                      launa.Jennings@usmc.mil                        cortez.stephens@usmc.mil

          Fuel and water transportation can be limiting factors in supporting operating forces. A variety of equipment exists to
provide bulk fuel and water transportation. Some of the equipment is near the end of its useful life and new types of
equipment are on the horizon. The purpose of the Bulk Liquid Transportation Study is to address the Marine Corps capability
to provide bulk fuel and water transportation support for Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) operations. The objective
of this study is twofold. First, the study examines the capability of current equipment and processes to transport bulk fuel and
water. Second, the study examines the capability of other equipment and processes, not currently employed by the Marine
Corps, to transport bulk fuel and water.
          In order to answer the first objective, this report estimates notional Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) fuel and
water consumption in an operational context and examines the capability of current equipment and processes to transport
bulk fuel and water. The report addresses the second objective by investigating several alternatives to the baseline case. The
alternatives include packaging water at Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Units (ROWPU), using an extended hoseline,
the addition of the Flatrack Refueling Capability (FRC), the importance of the SIXCON system, and the impact of fielding
the Expeditionary Fuel System (EFS).


Adaptive (“Sense and Respond”) Logistics
Dave Garvey
Vice President Government Programs, Alidade Incorporated, 31 Bridge Street, Newport, RI, 02840
(401) 367-0040, ext. 123//www.alidade.net
           Sense and Respond Logistics is an adaptive method for maintaining operational availability of units by managing
their end-to-end support network. It is a functionally (as opposed to hierarchical) -organized network, where all units within
the network are potential consumers and providers of supply to and from all other units in the network. Units in the network
dynamically synchronize to satisfy demand in respond to changes in the environment. We postulate that demand is
ultimately unpredictable, so success depends on pattern recognition and response. "Optimal" solutions are, by definition,
"brittle," and therefore unsuitable to fluid modern combat requirements. Units and subunits must be organized into “modular
capabilities” that negotiate with one another analogous to a "peer-to-peer" bidding architecture. Networks “self-synchronize”
via global rule sets (shared objectives or "Commander's Intent"). While there is a significant front end IT investment
required, this is a "necessary but not sufficient" condition, and the real challenge is in the behavioral and cultural changes
required by operators.

                                                                                                                        D-125
 Logistics, Reliability, & Maintainability WG-19
Inventories for Deployed Supply Support Activities
Kenneth Girardini                          Elvira Loredo                               Lisa Colabella
RAND Corporation                           RAND Corporation                            RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street                           1776 Main Street                            1776 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138                Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138                 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
310-393-0411 x7851                         310-393-0411 x7108                          310-393-0411 x6754
FAX 310-260-8149                           FAX 310-260-8149                            FAX 310-260-8149
Kenneth_Girardini@rand.org                 Elvira_Loredo@rand.org                      Lisa_Colabella@rand.org

Candice Riley                              Carol E. Fan                                Aimee Bower
RAND Corporation                           RAND Corporation                            RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street                           1776 Main Street                            1776 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138                Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138                 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
310-393-0411 x6566                         310-393-0411 x6271                          310-393-0411 x6675
FAX 310-260-8146                           FAX 310-260-8149                            FAX 310-260-8146
Candice_Riley@rand.org                     Carol_Fan@rand.org                          Aimee_Bower@rand.org

         Recent operations in Iraq have shown the importance of robust inventories to support the warfighter. The
inventories at the Supply Support Activities (SSAs) must carry a wide range of materiel in order to fill customer demands to
repair deadlined equipment. Yet the depth and breadth of SSA inventories are constrained by the need for SSAs to be
mobile. SSA inventories should focus on materiel that affect unit readiness so RAND has developed tools for integrating
empirical data on deadlining demands into the algorithms used to determine SSA inventory levels.


War Reserve and Contingency Forecasting for Spare Parts
Kenneth Girardini                                               Eric Peltz
RAND Corporation                                                RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street                                                1776 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138                                     Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
310-393-0411 x7851                                              310-393-0411 x7609
FAX 310-260-8149                                                FAX 310-260-8149
Kenneth_Girardini@rand.org                                      Eric_Peltz@rand.org


Elvira Loredo                                                   Aimee Bower
RAND Corporation                                                RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street                                                1776 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138                                     Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
310-393-0411 x7108                                              310-393-0411 x6675
FAX 310-260-8149                                                FAX 310-260-8146
Elvira_Loredo@rand.org                                          Aimee_Bower@rand.org

          A variety of issues, both conceptual and empirical, were raised by OIF with respect to war reserve secondary items
(WRSI) regarding the effectiveness of these requirements. We analyze how well these requirements were resourced, how
readily the stocks were integrated into operations, and how well the stocks supported the demands of OIF. Current methods
for developing wartime parts forecasts are based on part to end item relationships and failure factors along with the density of
end items in theater. These methods require extensive input data that must be maintained to achieve quality forecasts. Some
alternative techniques based on demands during garrison training, for which input data are more easily generated and
maintained, are investigated. Recommendations are presented to better focus future forecasts on critical parts and to improve
the positioning of stocks.




D-126
 Logistics, Reliability, & Maintainability WG-19
Aging Aircraft and Maintenance Man-hours
Lt Col Christopher P. Hauth                                   Dai Q. Tran
Deputy Chief, Infrastructure Branch                           Infrastructure Branch
Infrastructure and Forces Division                            Infrastructure and Forces Division (SAPI)
Resource Analyses Directorate                                 Resource Analyses Directorate
Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency                         Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency
(703) 588-6952/FAX (703) 588-0232                             (703) 696-0779/FAX (703) 588-0232
Christopher.hauth@pentagon.af.mil                             dai.tran@pentagon.af.mil

Dr. Edward Henry Robbins
Frontier Technology Incorporated (FTI)
Investment & Modernization Branch, Infrastructure and Forces Division (SAPI)
Resource Analyses Directorate, Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency
(703) 588-6918/FAX (703) 588-0232// Edward.robbins@pentagon.af.mil

     This study takes an integrated look at one important aspect of the Aging Aircraft problem, namely, whether the
magnitude of man-hours that must be devoted to aircraft field maintenance (so as to stabilize operational performance
characteristics, such as MC rate). We conduct modeling to explore how crucial this issue is to future performance. If
increases in labor are a necessary ingredient to preserving acceptable Mission Capability Rates and other measures of
successful performance then to slim its End Strength the Air Force must be prepared to incorporate these factors into its
moderate-range planning by providing field maintenance forces that are adequate to meet the requirements. In the context of
our model of labor maintenance requirements to achieve desired performance goals, we discuss data analyses for various
important weapons systems within the Air Force.


Development of the Joint Munitions Planning System
Dr. John R. Hummel                                            Mr. Alan L. Winiecki
Decision and Information Sciences Division                    Decision and Information Sciences Division
Argonne National Laboratory                                   Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue/DIS-900, Argonne, IL 60439-4832           9700 S. Cass Avenue/DIS-900, Argonne, IL 60439-4832
Voice (630) 252-7189/Fax (630) 252-6073                       Voice (630) 252-1379/Fax(630) 252-6073
jhummel@anl.gov                                               awiniecki@anl.gov

          The United States Army Joint Munitions Command (JMC) is the executive agent for the Single Manager for
Conventional Ammunition (SMCA). As such, the JMC is responsible for the storage and transportation of all service’s
SMCA as well as non-SMCA munitions. Part of the JMC mission requires that complex depot capacity studies,
transportation capabilities analyses, peacetime re-allocations/redistribution plans and time phased deployment distribution
plans be developed.
          JMC has funded Argonne National Laboratory to develop the Joint Munitions Planning System (JMPS). JMPS was
designed to help ammunition and transportation specialists deal with the complex interdependencies involved in the
distribution of Class V ammunition from the Continental United States (CONUS) depots and production plants to Outside
Continental United States (OCONUS) theaters during mobilization. In this presentation we will describe the capabilities of
JMPS and give examples of how it can be used to support the deliberate planning of Class V material in support of
warfighter operations.


The System-of-Systems Availability Model
Jennifer King
US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
392 Hopkins RD, APG, MD, 21005-5071
410-278-6753 // jen.sara.king@us.army.mil

         The development of the Future Combat System (FCS) Unit of Action (UA) has resulted in new challenges to Army
analysis. FCS/UA is not one new system, but an entire System-of-Systems that needs to be modeled. This requires a

                                                                                                                   D-127
 Logistics, Reliability, & Maintainability WG-19
System-of-Systems approach to analysis.
         The System-of-Systems Availability Model (SoSAM) is based on a model developed by TRADOC (UAMBL) using
Arena simulation software. The original TRADOC model, which met the Increment 1 Objective and depicted one Combined
Arms Battalion (CAB), was expanded by AMSAA to include three CABs and a UA support slice. AMSAA is currently in
the process of further enhancing SoSAM by adding unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and incorporating greater complexity
into the events modeled. SoSAM simulates the failure, recovery, and maintenance activities that are expected to be
conducted in an FCS UA during a three-day combat pulse. SoSAM provides, in addition to various maintenance metrics,
transient operational availability for each system type at various echelons within the UA. SoSAM also provides data that
permits one to calculate the joint probability that a required quantity of systems of each type will be operationally available
when needed at any point during the combat pulse. The next version of SoSAM will represent all ground vehicles, as well as
unmanned aerial vehicles, in the FCS Increment One Threshold URS (Resourced) Organization Design.
         SoSAM analyses have shown reliability to be the biggest driver on operational availability. This presentation will
provide a detailed description of the logic modeled in SoSAM and explain the current and future uses of the model.


Life-Cycle Reliability Analysis at Component and System Levels
Azra Malik                                                       J. Brian Hall
US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity                       US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
392 Hopkins Rd.                                                  392 Hopkins Rd.
ATTN:AMSRD-AMS-LA                                                ATTN:AMSRD-AMS-LA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5071                           Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5071
 (410) 278-5001                                                   (410) 278-9312
azra.malik@us.army.mil                                           brian.hall@us.army.mil

            The Army is currently recapitalizing part of its tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. Recapitalizing part of the fleet will
reduce the average fleet age, along with the associated operating and support costs. To support the recapitalization effort, the
Army is performing life-cycle reliability analysis on field data to identify aging components and recommend them for
potential redesign. Traditionally, component and system level reliability modeling used most widely in the DoD relies
primarily on the one-parameter exponential distribution, which does not address aging. This model has been used because it
is the simplest available model and the analytical procedures are straight forward. Life-cycle reliability requires the use of
more robust models such as the Weibull distribution at the component level, and repairable systems reliability, at the system
level, which assumes a non-homogeneous poisson process. This paper presents the analysis of field data using the three-
parameter Weibull distribution to evaluate component aging. The use of the third parameter is an improvement over
common commercial practices, which use a two-parameter Weibull and do not consider a failure-free period. This paper also
addresses aging at the system level, utilizing repairable systems reliability to identify vehicles aging more rapidly than the
fleet.


Stryker Operation Iraqi Freedom System Usage/Parts Replacement Analysis
Rosalie Mercurio
US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
Attn: Director
392 Hopkins RD, APG, MD 21005-5071
410-278-3446
Rosalie.mercurio@us.army.mil

          The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (ASA/ALT) requested that
AMSAA analyze the Stryker’s cost per mile in OIF. AMSAA analyzed Stryker Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) replacement
parts information from the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), the Defense Management Information System, and the
Integrated Logistics Assistance Program along with usage data gathered from AMSAA’s Sample Data Collection Program to
determine an estimate of the Stryker’s cost per mile in OIF. In addition, Stryker OIF replacement parts were analyzed in
terms of cost and frequency drivers and OIF unique replacement parts were identified.




D-128
 Logistics, Reliability, & Maintainability WG-19
Effects-Based Logistics Operations: A Strategic Supply Chain Approach for the US
Army
Greg H. Parlier, PhD, PE
Colonel, US Army, Retired
Senior Research Scientist
University of Alabama in Huntsville
(256) 824-2743
parlieg@email.uah.edu

         Fully engaged in the Global War on Terrorism, the US Army is also committed to a comprehensive and ambitious
“Transformation” endeavor. Fundamentally, however, without an enabling transformation in logistics there can be no Army-
wide transformation. This paper introduces and presents a systems approach guiding an ongoing project which addresses
many of the significant challenges confronting Logistics Transformation. The focus is on inventory management policy
prescriptions illuminated through the prism of an enterprise-wide supply chain analysis emphasizing Army aviation systems.
Following a summary of recent trends for background and context, a multi-stage conceptual model of the logistics structure is
presented to segment and guide the effort. Supply chain concepts are explained in terms relevant to Logistics Transformation.
A systems approach is then used with major sections focusing on analysis, synthesis and integration, design and evaluation,
and management. The multi-stage model is used to systematically analyze major organizational components of the supply
chain, diagnose structural disorders and prescribe remedies. Integration challenges are addressed using cost-benefit
perspectives which incorporate supply chain objectives of efficiency, resilience, and effectiveness. The design and evaluation
section proposes an “analytical architecture” consisting of an “engine for innovation” and four complementary modeling
approaches, collectively referred to as “dynamic strategic logistics planning”, to guide Logistics Transformation. Finally, a
thematic approach is used to address key strategic management challenges associated with transformation: organizational
design; management information and decision support systems; strategic alignment for a learning organization; and
workforce considerations including human capital investment needs. The paper concludes with a summary of underlying
structural disorders and their consequences, recommendations, expected benefits, and a relevant historical vignette.


The Hydrogen Economy and Its Implication to Military Logistics
Robert A. Pfeffer
USANCA
7150 Heller Loop Suite 101, Springfield VA, 22150
703-806-7862, Fax: 703-806-7900
Pfeffer@usanca-stmp.army.mil

         Present international constraints on the extraction, processing and distribution of petroleum fuels to meet current and
future worldwide energy demands are forcing the Army and private industry to accelerate their search for alternate energy
sources. This presentation updates the work presented at the 71st MORS Symposium on the use of hydrogen as the energy
source of future military vehicles. It identifies the continuing smooth transition from petroleum fuels to hydrogen-based fuels
and cites the remaining technological challenges that must be overcome to make that transition sooner rather than later.


Transportation Capacity Planning: Establishing A Five-Day Planning Horizon to the Last
Tactical Mile
Norman L. Reitter                                               Don Spidahl
Principal Logistics Engineer                                    Senior Logistics Specialist
Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Inc.                       Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Inc.
100 CTC Drive, Johnstown, PA 15904                              100 CTC Drive, Johnstown, PA 15904
814-269–2516 // reittern@ctc.com                                814 269 – 2516 // spidahld@ctc.com

         The Expeditionary Warfighter Logistics Testbed (EWLT), a Web-enabled application for capturing logistics
innovations, allows the United States Marine Corps (USMC) to assess new logistics tools for operating forces. It is a
collaborative initiative of the HQMC Logistics Visibility and Strategy Center (LPV) and Concurrent Technologies
Corporation (CTC), Johnstown, Pennsylvania.

                                                                                                                        D-129
 Logistics, Reliability, & Maintainability WG-19
         The first tool developed, a transportation capacity planning tool (TCPT), is an online transportation allocation
application that affords desired transportation effectiveness over the last USMC “last tactical mile.”
         The TCPT was developed in response to transportation planning issues identified during Operation Iraqi Freedom
(OIF I). The TCPT addresses these issues, ensuring optimal capacity planning. The prototype is currently being refined by
the 2nd Force Service Support Group (Forward) and includes Insight, Incorporated’s Optimization Solver that aids planners in
determining the best convoy and equipment allocations required to meet known and anticipated taskers.
         This presentation will include a discussion of USMC transportation planning issues addressed, the methodologies
used to address them, the TCPT spiral development process, and application functionality.
         The EWLT concept demonstrated the value of merging innovation from the commercial and academic sectors with
USMC resources. As the TCPT continues to evolve, this collaborative participation will continue. Working group
participants will learn the parameters for entrance into the EWLT Web portal to contribute to both the TCPT and future
prototypes.


Support Leader’s Digital Assistant: A Tool for Support Platoon Leaders
MAJ Wiley P. Rittenhouse                   MAJ Holly F. West                           LTC Michael J. Kwinn, Jr., Ph.D.
ORCEN, Dept. of Systems Engineering,       Executive Officer Office of the Dean,       Director, Operations Research Center,
USMA                                       USMA                                        Department of Systems Engineering
646 Swift Rd.                              Bldg 600, Rm 107                            646 Swift Rd.
Bldg 752, Mahan Hall, room 306             West Point, NY 10996                        Bldg 752, Mahan Hall, room 305
West Point, NY 10996                       845-938-6405 Holly.West@usma.edu            West Point, NY 10996
(845)938-5168, Fax (845)938-5665                                                       (845)938-5529, Fax (845)938-5665
Wiley.Rittenhouse@usma.edu                                                             Michael.Kwinn@usma.edu



        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Advanced Transportation Concept: Consumption Based Logistics for the Unit of Action
Ronald S. Saylor                           Charles E. Derrick, SAIC                    Robert H. Vasse, SAIC
U.S. Army AMRDEC                           U.S. Army AMRDEC                            U.S. Army AMRDEC
Attn: AMSRD-AMR-SS-AE                      Attn: AMSRD-AMR-SS-AE                       Attn: AMSRD-AMR-SS-AE
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000            Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000             Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000
256 876-9036, 256 876-9025                 256 876-8153, 256 876-9025                  256 313-8156, 256 876-9025
ronald.saylor@us.army.mil                  charles.derrick@rdec.redstone.army.mil      robert.vasse@us.army.mil

         A need exists for advanced unmanned systems to conduct focused, distributed, consumption based logistics for joint
forces across the spectrum of military operations. Reduced Sustainment Operation and Logistics Response Times coupled
with increased Force Protection are highly desirable during a Unit of Action’s Combat Replenishment Operations. The US
Army Aviation and Missile Command Research, Development, and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) is conducting
engagement level modeling and simulation of combat replenishment operations to explore conceptual design and system
effectiveness of a system comprised of unmanned air and ground platforms. The simulation and analysis team uses
Operational Research techniques and Department of Defense VV&A processes to define the issues and essential elements of
analysis, configure the warfighting simulation and analyze the output. There is potential for increased system effectiveness
with the Advanced Transportation Concept (ATC).




D-130
 Logistics, Reliability, & Maintainability WG-19
Phase-Type Approximations for Wear Processes in a Semi-Markov Environment
Captain Christopher J. Solo, USAF                              Jeffrey P. Kharoufeh, Ph.D.
Headquarters Air Force Space Command                           Air Force Institute of Technology
(Space Analysis Division)                                      (Department of Operational Sciences)
HQ AFSPC/XPY                                                   AFIT/ENS, Building 641
1150 Academy Park Loop Ste 212                                 2950 Hobson Way
Colorado Springs CO 80910-3735                                 Wright Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765
(719) 556-3754                                                 (937) 255-3636 x4603
Fax: (719) 556-3738                                            Fax: (937) 656-4943
christopher.solo@peterson.af.mil                               Jeffrey.Kharoufeh@afit.edu

          The reliability of a single-unit system experiencing degradation (wear) due to the influence of a general, observable
environment process is considered. In particular, the failure time distribution is evaluated using only observations of the
unit's current operating environment which is characterized as a finite semi-Markov process (SMP). In order to impose the
Markov property, generally distributed environment state sojourn times are approximated as phase-type (PH) random
variables using observations of state holding times and transition rates. The use of PH distributions facilitates the use of
existing analytical results for reliability evaluation of units subject to an environment process that evolves as a continuous-
time Markov chain (CTMC). The procedure is illustrated through three numerical examples, and results are compared with
those obtained via Monte Carlo simulation. The maximum absolute deviation in probability for failure time distributions was
on the order of 0.004. The results of this research provide a novel approach to the reliability analysis of units operating in
randomly evolving environments for which degradation or failure time observations are difficult or impossible to obtain.


Need for Improved Coordination of LOGCAP Activities
Steve Sternlieb                             Glenn Furbish                                Carole Coffey
U.S. Government Accountability Office       U.S. Government Accountability Office        U.S. GAO
441 G Street NW                             441 G Street NW                              441 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20548                        Washington, DC 20548                         Washington, DC 20548
202-512-4534                                202-512-8439                                 202-512-5876
FAX 202-512-2501                            FAX 202-512-2501                             FAX 202-512-2501
sternliebs@gao.gov                          furbishg@gao.gov                             coffeyc@gao.gov

          The Army has taken or is in the process of taking a number of actions to improve the management and oversight of
the LOGCAP contract. While improvements have been made a remaining area needing attention is the coordination of
contract activities. While the Army Materiel Command (AMC) is the executive agent for LOGCAP, there are a number of
other DOD components that also have important LOGCAP responsibilities, including the combatant commander, individual
deployed units, DCMA, and DCAA. The effective and efficient use of the LOGCAP contract depends on the coordinated
activities of each of these entities. However, a lack of coordination among the various components has resulted in inadequate
planning for the use of the contract, the last-minute renewal of contract task orders, and the absence of customer involvement
in monitoring contractor performance. This lack of coordination stems from the fact that each DOD component is
independent of the others. While AMC has sought to influence the way in which the other components carry out their roles,
it does not have command authority over the other components and thus its influence is limited. This presentation would
address the roles of the various DOD components involved in the use of the LOGCAP contract, their chains of commands,
and how stove piped organizations result in less effective use of the contract.




                                                                                                                       D-131
 Logistics, Reliability, & Maintainability WG-19
Dynamic Sustainment Modeling in Support of Battle Command Analysis
CPT Aaron J. Van Alstine, USA
TRADOC Analysis Center (TRAC)
ATTN: ATRC-RDM
P.O. Box 8692
Monterey, CA 93943
Commercial: (831) 656-7575
Fax: (831) 656-3084
aaron.vanalstine@trac.nps.navy.mil

          Current sustainment representation for analysis using spreadsheet models and queuing models only indirectly
represent “dynamic” sustainment. This project will produce a maintenance model capable of dynamically modeling future
force sustainment. We are developing an object oriented maintenance model that captures the OPTEMPO data of the blue
forces in a simulation, generates component failures based on system use, represents combat damage to vehicles and
mechanics using Army Research Lab shot-line data, prioritizes which systems are repaired when workload exceeds capacity,
decides which path the maintenance teams take to recover damaged vehicles on an active battlefield, and account for the
delay in return of repaired vehicles whose unit has moved to a new location. The model will be coded in JAVA and will run
either as a stand-alone model or as a module linked to an entity level combat simulation such as COMBAT XXI. This project
supports several of the Logistics Focus Area Collaborative Team (LOG FACT) critical research areas. The LOG FACT
mission is to develop, maintain and administer a coherent research program designed to acquire the knowledge, algorithms,
and data that will enable credible logistics functionality and representation in Army and Joint M&S.


Improving Retrograde Operations
Mark Y.D. Wang                                               Eric Peltz
RAND Corporation                                             RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street                                             1776 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138                                  Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
310-393-0411 x6866                                           310-393-0411 x7609
FAX 310-260-8149                                             FAX 310-260-8149
Mark_Wang@rand.org                                           Eric_Peltz@rand.org

Carol E. Fan                                                 Darlene Blake
RAND Corporation                                             RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street                                             1776 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138                                  Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
310-393-0411 x6271                                           310-393-0411 x7232
FAX 310-260-8149                                             FAX 310-260-8146
Carol_Fan@rand.org                                           Darlene_Blake@rand.org

          The reliable return of unneeded materiel through the supply chain is an important part of Army supply chain
strategy. Serviceable parts may be re-distributed and unserviceable reparables may be repaired and thus serve as their own
source of future serviceable inventory. Furthermore, the success of the move to two-level maintenance will depend on an
efficient retrograde process. Using demand data to estimate the amount of retrograde moving through the pipeline, with a
particular emphasis on operations in OIF, RAND has recommended some policy changes that may improve future retrograde
performance.




D-132
          Manpower And Personnel                                                                          WG-20
CHAIR: David Cashbaugh, NPRST
CO-CHAIRS: Tanja Blackstone, NPRST
Ilia Christman, N-1
MAJ John Keeter, USAAC
MAJ Angela Giddings, OSD
ADVISOR: Dave Kunzman, Northrop Grumman

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


The Army Re-looks Common Task Training Focusing on the Iraq/Afghanistan
Experience
Dr. Elizabeth Brady                           Ronald Stump                                   William Badey
U.S. Army Research Institute                  U.S. Army Research Institute                   U.S. Army Research Institute
DAPE-ARI-OA                                   DAPE-ARI-OA                                    DAPE-ARI-OA
2511 Jefferson Davis Highway                  2511 Jefferson Davis Highway                   2511 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202-3926                      Arlington, VA 22202-3926                       Arlington, VA 22202-3926
703-602-7829                                  703-602-7826                                   703-602-7825
Elizabeth.Brady1@hqda.army.mil                Ronald.Stump@hqda.army.mil                     William.Badey@hqda.army.mil

          From initial entry through the most advanced courses, U.S. Army training includes “Common Tasks” (CT) believed
to be important for successful job performance for a majority of Soldiers. Based on reports from units and individuals
deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan the Deputy Chief of Staff Army G-1 (Personnel) determined that a need existed to incorporate
lessons learned from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom into CT Training. The U.S. Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) was selected to conduct Army-wide surveys of CT performance including
enlisted, officer and warrant officer personnel. The surveys also included the Army National Guard and the U.S. Army
Reserve. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) was the lead agency for determining tasks to be
surveyed. Survey development included input from the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy for enlisted tasks, the Center
for Army Leadership for officer tasks and the Warrant Officer Career Center for warrant officer tasks. Internet survey
administration began on 15 October 2004. By 7 January 2005 nearly 70,000 completed surveys had been obtained. In March
2005 ARI provided TRADOC with preliminary statistical reports.


Shortfall of US Citizen Science and Engineering Specialists in Industry
Alan D. Dunham
Northrop Grumman Information Tech
TASC Independence Center, 15036 Conference Center Drive
Chantilly, VA 20151
571-432-1426 // Alan.Dunham.ctr@osd.mil
         Since the wall came down in 1989, rendering Checkpoint Charlie obsolete, there have been numerous cutbacks in
government sponsorship of scientific research and development. Some argue that the net impact of the resulting layoffs is a
surplus of science and engineering specialists. Others argue that we are in a global economy, and that the supply of science
and engineering specialists flowing into the US meets the demand. Still others contend that if industry had difficulty hiring
science and engineering specialists, then there would be observable, asymmetric upward movement in wages, and
correspondingly lower unemployment rates in that segment of the labor market.
         This presentation provides empirical data collected in 2004 from industry, though the auspices of the National
Defense Industrial Association and the Aerospace Industries Association. These data show that there are persistent shortfalls
in the supply of US citizen scientists and engineers, those shortfalls vary significantly by field of study, and they vary
significantly over time. In addition, the empirical data document the delays in obtaining various types of security clearances,
which have negative labor supply and labor demand effects. This information is unique and indicates that the labor market
for US citizen scientists and engineers should be viewed and studied as a separate, but connected segment of the larger US
and global labor markets.



                                                                                                                       D-133
          Manpower And Personnel                                                                           WG-20
Towards Understanding the Preferences of the Navy’s Target Market—Choice-based
Conjoint (CBC) Survey
Michael Evans                                                     Gary Ton
Navy Recruiting Command                                           Navy Recruiting Command
CNRC N5211, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784                        CNRC N5211, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784
Millington, TN 38054                                              Millington, TN 38054
901-874-7629//evansm@cnrc.navy.mil                                901-874-9322 //tong@cnrc.navy.mil

         Understanding Navy Recruiting’s target market (16 to 24 year olds) preferences, as it relates to the variety of
enlistment contracting options available, is paramount to Commander, Navy Recruiting Command’s (CNRC) mission
success. In July 2004, CNRC contracted with Synovate, to conduct a choice-based conjoint survey (CBC) to investigate the
appeal of Navy enlistment packages to our target market. CNRC staff worked closely with Synovate to craft hypothetical
enlistment packages using a number of attributes that included: job type, length of enlistment contract, cash for training, cash
for college credit or college loan repayment and when they would like to begin boot camp. Each of these attributes contained
multiple levels, which made them more or less appealing to potential recruits. These packages were delivered to the
participants online. This presentation will focus on the development of the enlistment packages, an explanation of the CBC
survey, the demographics of the respondents and key findings identified. It will also demonstrate a contractor-developed
simulation that seeks to model recruit preferences and tradeoffs for potential enlistment packages and how those preferences
may impact other enlistment programs.


Retaining Capabilities While Drastically Reducing the Workforce
Major William Farmer                                              Don Olandese
HQ USAREUR                                                        HQ USAREUR
G3-GR2 Division, APO AE 09014                                     G8 Manpower Division, APO AE 09014
DSN 314-370-3715 // william.k.farmer@us.army.mil                  DSN 314-370-8625//Don.olandese@hq.hqusareur.army.mil

          This presentation is a preliminary report and discusses in detail the challenges of drastically reducing the United
States Army Europe (USAREUR) workforce while maintaining the essential capabilities to support a modularizing Army.
USARUER will decrease its military presence by approximately two thirds within 10 years. The augmentation workforce
(military TDA, civilian, contractor, local national, etc.) must also reduce commensurate with the reduction in troop strength.
Specifically, this presentation defines the problem, states overarching assumptions and their effects, describes the
methodology used, outlines our systematic approach, and examines the coordination requirements.
          This presentation addresses some of the unique problems that accompany planning and performing workforce
reductions in a foreign country. Some unique aspects are the extended announcement times for host nation employees,
multiple civilian unions, host nation agreements, keeping the right personnel informed while maintaining operational
security, and maintaining a ‘proper’ mix of local national and US civilian employees.
          Another factor that this presentation analyzes is geography. Along with troop strength reductions are corresponding
reductions in installations across the USAREUR area of responsibility. The presentation examines the assimilation of these
installation reductions, the extended distances between units, and stationing units in multiple countries into the final planning
product.
          This preliminary report outlines the work USAREUR has performed and captures the lessons learned along the way.


Achieving Strategic Vision by Changing Behavior through Measures
Major Mark Gorak                                                  Candace Laing
HQ USMEPCOM                                                       HQ USMEPCOM
2834 Green Bay Road, North Chicago, IL 60064                      2834 Green Bay Road, North Chicago, IL 60064
847-688-3680 x7247//mgorak@mepcom.army.mil                        847-688-3680 x7247//cliang@mepcom.army.mil

         This presentation focuses on how an organization achieves its strategic vision using measures as a tool to change
individual and group behavior. Specifically, this talk will address Headquarters, United States Military Entrance Processing
Commands (HQ USMEPCOMs) strategic plan implementation and balance scorecard development. This includes


D-134
          Manpower And Personnel                                                                          WG-20
USMEPCOMs mission, vision, values statements, strategic plan, measures, and methods to obtain the vision statement
including individual responsibility in the organization for achieving the vision.
         Particular attention is given to the development of measures for the balanced scorecard. The balanced scorecard is
part of the USMEPCOM Strategy Map, which links resources and measures to Mission and Operational Visions. The
balanced scorecard is a framework that helps USMEPCOM translate strategy into balanced operational objectives that drive
both behavior and performance.
         The premise behind the balance scorecard is that measurement motivates behavior, communicates values, priorities
and provides direction. However, measurement should be used to communicate and caution is emphasized not to use
measures to control.


Army Reserve Transformation Study
Steven K. Herndon                             Steven B. Schorr                               Alan R. Cunningham
Joint and Combined Operations Directorate     Joint and Combined Operations Directorate      TRAC-LEE
TRADOC Analysis Center                        TRADOC Analysis Center                         401 1st Street
Attn: ATRC-FJ                                 Attn: ATRC-FJ                                  Ft. Lee, VA 23801-1511
255 Sedgwick Avenue                           255 Sedgwick Avenue                            804-765-1830
Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345                Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345                 alan.r.cunningham@trac.army.mil
913-684-3251                                  913-684-9219
Steve.herndon@trac.army.mil                   Steven.schorr@trac.army.mil

         The purpose of the study was to inform Army Reserve (AR) resource decisions in support of Army Transformation
by identifying the requirements that the AR must meet to achieve mission capabilities in the future operational environment.
         The AR is developing a new concept, the Army Reserve Expeditionary Force (AREF). The AREF concept proposes
a set of “packaged” AR forces that are placed into a rotational cycle to facilitate a more responsive, expeditionary force
package in support of the full spectrum of Army missions. The U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM), in coordination
with all three Army components (active, reserve, and NG) is evaluating the AREF concept in support of Total Army
requirements. The Army Reserve Transformation Study (ARTS) included both a deployment and operational effectiveness
assessment of the AREF concept.
         Study insights and recommendations conclude that the AR must enter the theater of operations in a timely manner,
providing the Combat Support (CS) and Combat Service Support (CSS) needed to fully enable the combat power of the
force. The results showed that the AREF process provides this by having AR units ready for mobilization and deployment
before the order comes.


Active Duty/ARC Force Rebalancing Study
Major David Herring
AFSAA/SAP
Force Balance Assessment Division
Air Force Studies & Analysis Agency

     As a result of ongoing operations supporting the Global War on Terrorism, Air Reserve Component (ARC) forces appear
heavily tasked, with increasing emphasis on mobilization. Department of Defense leadership is concerned that this is a
problem with significant unfavorable implications for retention and recruitment. The Active Duty/ARC Force Rebalancing
Study is a result of an effort to determine if the Air Force can rebalance the force to minimize ARC mobilization and alleviate
ARC OPTEMPO by adjusting Active Duty and ARC forces to allow heavier reliance on Active Duty assets & manpower.
     This study is based on an analysis of the number of Primary Aircraft Authorizations (PAA) deployed, compared by
component, percentage of PAA, and deployed location. These data were collected and have been used to infer manpower
trends, because equipment data are more accurate and readily available than manpower data. The assumption inherent in this
is that the aircraft deployments closely track manpower deployments. After the equipment data were analyzed, available data
describing the relationship between aircraft and crew ratios were also analyzed to support this inference. The resulting output
provides a basis for determining the efficacy of rebalancing to address the problem of high ARC OPTEMPO.




                                                                                                                       D-135
          Manpower And Personnel                                                                           WG-20
Reducing Attrition and Improving the Recruiting Process through Family Involvement
Sheila Johnson
Navy Recruiting Command
CNRC N5212, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784
Millington, TN 38054
901-874-9300 // johnsons@cnrc.navy.mil

           Navy Recruiting consistently strives to reduce attrition and improve their processes. A pilot program was conducted
where Morale Welfare and Recreation (MWR) hosted seven DEP Family Expositions. These Expositions were designed to
inform DEPpers and their family members about the opportunities, programs, and benefits available in the Navy. This paper
will discuss the effect these expositions had on DEP and RTC attrition. It will also discuss a DEP Parent Survey that was
sent to the seven participating Navy Recruiting Districts’ (NRDs) DEPpers and parents. This is part of a long term project
that will follow DEPpers from the seven participating NRDs through their first term of enlistment to determine if 1)
attendance at these Expositions has an effect on first term attrition and 2) if parental involvement has an effect on first term
attrition.


Predicting Attrition from Specialized Workforces
Jennifer Lindsay
Department of Defense
CANX, ST. 6678, 9800 Savage Rd.
Fort George Meade, MD 20755
301-688-2851 // onpforever@hotmail.com

         In this paper we present a suite of models that produce a probabilistic estimate of attrition from a specialized
workforce of limited size (e.g., high-level management or special operations teams) that must be periodically replenished
when employees depart.
         In order to create a pool of employees eligible for these specialized positions usually a number of training programs
and other resource-draining provisions must be arranged. A critical component of these provisions is the number of people to
admit into the programs, determined, in part, by attrition from the current ranks. Executives or commanding officers have a
vested interest in forecasting expected levels of attrition in a repeatable and justifiable fashion to make projections for
required program size. However, there seldom exists a simple model for projecting attrition from such traditionally small
populations or even for assessing the causes of attrition from these populations.
         To this end, we developed three simulation-based models that address this problem on multiple levels, by
developing a method to measure parameters affecting attrition and forecasting attrition one or several years into the future.
We also developed a fourth closed-form model that provides quarterly attrition forecasts up to one year into the future, given
estimated attrition rates and the current population. Each model gives the user a different perspective on the effects of
various attrition rates and policies of appointment, so that when used jointly they provide a more complete picture of the
population dynamics.


Deployable Manpower Requirements Analysis
LtCol Peter R. Livingston
Chief, Force Balance Assessment Division
Air Force Studies & Analyses Agency
703-696-8359
Peter.livingston@pentagon.af.mil
Peter.livingston@af.pentagon.smil.mil

        In a period of tightening budgets, the Air Force needs to ensure it has sufficient authorized manpower, with
appropriate skills, to meet both its wartime (Strategic Planning Guidance) and rotational (rotating Air and Space
Expeditionary Force (AEF)-postured forces) commitments. The Deployable Manpower Requirements Analysis is the
manpower portion of a Total Force Assessment. This study is currently a proof of concept; a decision-quality study would


D-136
          Manpower And Personnel                                                                         WG-20
require vetted scenarios/postures of engagement and a refresh of Air Force Specialty Code prefixes, suffixes, and special
experience identifiers.
         This study compared manpower supply and demand, using the AEF Library of W-coded Unit Type Codes (UTCs)
for wartime and S-coded UTC for peacetime as the supply. Wartime demand was the April 2003 posture of engagement and
Operational Availability 04. Peacetime demand was based on Spring 2004 deployed forces rotational commitment. The
study looked at UTC fill methodology, unmatched demand and unused supply to determine where the Air Force may need to
realign manpower authorizations to better meet wartime and peacetime commitments.


Army Officer Forecasting Model
LTC Mark W. Lukens
Officer Branch Chief
Strength Analysis and Forecasting
Army G-1
Pentagon 2B453
Washington, DC 20050
703-695-5389
Mark.lukens@us.army.mil

         The senior leadership of the United States Army requires an 84 month forecast of personnel strength for planning
and budgeting purposes. Forecasting anything out seven years is extremely problematic. This is especially true in a time of
transformation and in a wartime environment. This paper outlines an officer forecasting system used to project strength by
rank and branch by month. This model uses the current inventory, historical data and simulation analysis as input. It then
combines a network flow model with several statistical forecasting time series techniques to project officer strength month by
month. The output of this model is used to set promotion timelines, accession numbers and officer strength as part of the $32
billion Army manpower budget. It is also used to determine the impacts of transforming to a modular Army.


Manpower Requirements Determination for New Programs: A Structured Approach-
BAMS UAV
Michael J. McCartin                           William M. Mulholland                         David K. Hegland
Whitney, Bradley & Brown, Inc.                Whitney, Bradley & Brown, Inc.                Whitney, Bradley & Brown, Inc.
1604 Spring Hill Road, Ste 200                1604 Spring Hill Road, Ste 200                1604 Spring Hill Road, Ste 200
Vienna, VA 22182                              Vienna, VA 22182                              Vienna, VA 22182
703-448-6081 x155                             703-448-6081 x337                             703-448-6081 x196
cowboy@wbbinc.com                             wmulholland@wbbinc.com                        dhegland@wbbinc.com

          Estimating manpower requirements for new military acquisition programs presents unique challenges and risk. The
work reported here for the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV N780) and the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR
PMA-263) supporting acquisition of Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
describes a structured, repeatable and defendable template to develop Total Force manpower requirements for a new weapons
system when no baseline comparison system (BCS) is available. The sequence of going from a “blank sheet of paper” to
detailed billet-by billet manning requirements is discussed as a process of applying causal network methodology,
optimization and the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The process starts with identifying variables that drive both
operational capability and manpower cost of the new system. Alternative manpower concepts are then assessed via cost and
operational capability metrics in a collaborative stakeholder setting. An optimal manpower concept emerges which then
serves as the basis for a preliminary manpower requirement. The process continues with creation of a surrogate BCS.
Preliminary manpower requirements are determined from the surrogate BSC and adjusted for differences in operational
employment and specific maintenance, operations and training requirements of the new system. Finally, military essentiality
criteria are applied and manpower lifecycle costs are estimated to determine the least-cost Total Force manpower solution.
When applied to the BAMS UAV program, this approach reduced total program manning by 15 percent and active duty
manning by 80 percent compared with traditional requirements determination methodology.




                                                                                                                      D-137
          Manpower And Personnel                                                                           WG-20
Security Clearance Backlog Analysis
Lynn McClaskey
AFSAA/SAP
Force Balance Assessment Division
Air Force Studies & Analysis Agency

          The Air Force has a backlog of personnel awaiting a Top Secret (TS) security clearance, while for every TS
authorization there is almost an equal number of personnel holding a TS clearance but are not in a TS authorization. The
problem is that an initial Top Secret clearance currently takes about 480 days and a periodic review, required every five
years, now takes over 730 days. This results in personnel being unproductive in the assigned job while awaiting their
clearance. This study looked at the appropriate officer and enlisted Air Force Specialty Codes requiring a TS clearance
where a change to the personnel assignment policy could reduce the number of new clearances requested each year.
Statistical analysis was used to determine if the assignment process currently considered TS clearance status in assigning
personnel to TS authorizations. The study output developed several options to reduce the number of new clearances
requested.


An Experimental Analysis of the Relative Efficiency of Alternative Assignment Auction
Formats
Dr. R. Wesley Nimon                                               Ricky Hall
Navy Personnel Research, Studies, and Technology Office,          Navy Personnel Research, Studies, and Technology Office,
PERS-12, Millington, TN 38055                                     PERS-12, Millington, TN 38055
901-874-2218                                                      901-874-2387
Wesley.nimon@navy.mil                                             ricky.hall1@navy.mil

         For some hard-to-fill positions the Navy awards Assignment Incentive Pay (AIP) using an auction. With respect to
the optimal assignment auction format, however, there is only a very limited academic literature. Furthermore, the literature
that does exist assumes that all bidders are equally qualified and that there is a 100 percent weight placed on the bid in the
objective function. In the Navy assignment context this is not a tenable assumption as other considerations, such as PCS cost
and required training, must be considered when making an assignment. The lower the weight on the bid, the greater the
weight that can be attached to the qualification component in the objective function. The lower the weight, however, the
weaker the incentive to bid near one’s reservation wage. This qualification requirement precludes the implementation of the
incentive-compatible, Vickery-Leonard assignment auction. This paper relaxes the assumption that the bid amounts alone
determine the assignment set and experimentally estimates the efficiency reductions associated with decreased bid weights.
The estimated elasticity (evaluated at the mean values) of payment to changes in the bid weight in a low-contention, first-
price auction is –0.41.


AF Operations Analyst Force Development Initiatives
COL Roxann A. Oyler
Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency
1570 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1570
703-588-6910//Roxann.oyler@pentagon.af.mil

          In the last few years, the Air Force instituted a Force Development program to put the right person in the right place
at the right time to deliver the right capability to the warfighter. The Science and Engineering Career Field Manager began
deliberate management of the S&E workforce in 1999 with the goal of deliberate, connected, career -oriented leadership
development. As the functional advocate for operations analysts, the Director for Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency has
evaluated issues and enablers for advancing force development for the career field while also addressing increasing
requirements and SecAF's mandate to operationalize analysis and functions. This briefing will cover the status of initiatives
to help identify and develop personnel, training and education, required experience, and certification. The presentation will
seek audience input on successful initiatives, programs and potential metrics that can measure progress and continue to
advance our goal of developing operations analysts focused on effective warfighter support.


D-138
           Manpower And Personnel                                                                          WG-20
New Approaches in Army Manpower Modeling and Standardization
Deborah Ray                                                       Herman J. Orgeron
US Army Manpower Analysis Agency                                  US Army Manpower Analysis Agency
9900 Belvoir Road, Bldg 201, Ste 215                              9900 Belvoir Road, Bldg 201, Ste 215
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5589                                       Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5589
703-805-4235//Deborah-ray@us.army.mil                             703-805-1177//Herman.orgeron@us.army.mil

         On December 3, 2004, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA(M&RA))
approved and released a new implementation plan designed to reengineer the Army’s approach to manpower and
organizational analysis. This implementation plan continues to encourage MACOMs to develop and use models, workload-
based templates, and manpower studies in determining current and future requirements. However, these tools must now be
reviewed and approved at the Department-level prior to acceptance in Army force planning. The implementation of this new
methodology is critical in supporting Transformation through the analysis of Generating Force organizations, force structure
and resources, and ensuring their linkage with the Operating Force.
         Centered on the mission and functions of the US Army Manpower Analysis Agency (USAMAA), the
implementation plan establishes a new methodology based on extensive use of modeling, development of workload-based
templates, and a revised manpower study approach. In response to this plan, USAMAA restructured its organization,
incorporating new talents and tools to the agency’s structure through the addition of a new Operations Research “cell”.
         This presentation will identify USAMAA and ASA(M&RA) implementation methods, define the Army’s long-term
goals in this redesign, and present some successes (and failures) in implementing this new strategy across the Army’s major
commands.


The Workforce Planning Model—A Tool to Formulate Hiring Strategy
William Ryder
Department of Defense, CANX CXIN029
9800 Savage Rd., Fort George Meade, MD 20755
whryder@nsa.gov

          This paper describes a simulator that predicts the consequences of civilian hiring policies for a large government
agency.
          Setting the number of vacancies for recruiting represents one of the central policy issues for staffing government
agencies. If too many people are recruited and hired, the agency will exceed its authorized strength. If too few are recruited,
the agency will have a gap in its capability to execute its mission. A major difficulty arises when the authorized strength
level varies over time. Then, systemic inertia caused by delays in the recruiting and hiring process, and uneven age
demographics, caused by past changes in the hiring rate, compound the vacancy setting decision and can lead to uncontrolled
overshoot (hire too many) and undershoot (hire to few) behavior in the staffing process.
          The simulator described here permits the user to examine the effects of unexpectedly high attrition rates, uneven
demographics in age categories, and changes to the capacities of the hiring process. It also tracks promotions in the
workforce and evaluates the effect of hiring policy variations on total pay. The simulator does not calculate the optimal
hiring strategy, but rather provides insight to decision-makers regarding the unavoidable systemic behaviors that are built into
the staffing problem.


Inventory Management for Air Force Advanced Academic Degree Officers
LtCol Raymond W. Staats                                           CAPT Andrew D. Jastrzembski, USAF
AFIT, 2950 Hobson Way, Bldg 641                                   Air Force Institute of Technology
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433                                    2950 Hobson Way, Bldg 641
937-255-3636 x4518//Raymond.staats@afit.edu                       Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

         The Advanced Academic Degree (AAD) Inventory Model (AADIM) employs an inventory management approach
to select, educate, and assign officers to duties that require incumbents possessing advanced education in specialized
technical disciplines. The AADIM offers an alternative approach to the US Air Force’s current billet-based Graduate
Education Management System (GEMS).

                                                                                                                        D-139
          Manpower And Personnel                                                                          WG-20
          The entry model (AADIM-E) generates, via user inputs, a career field specific advanced education profile and then
employs a Markov model to forecast the educational quotas necessary to achieve the desired profile within a prescribed
period of time. The utilization model (AADIM-U) uses an additive multi-attribute value function to ascribe a qualification
score, based on a selected set of weighted criteria, to each officer with respect to each available duty assignment. An integer
programming formulation is then proposed to obtain an optimal matching between officers and assignments that maximizes
the summed qualification scores.
          AADIM-E can be used to evaluate the feasibility and practicality of long-term career field manning policies to
include the proportion and timing of officers requiring advanced education. AADIM-U yields an objective methodology to
manage AAD officers, as long-term inventory assets, to yield substantially greater AAD-position incumbency rates than
historically achieved using GEMS.


Army Force Generation Model
LTC Steven A. Stoddard                                           LTC Mark W. Brantley
Center for Army Analysis                                         Center for Army Analysis
6001 Goethals Road                                               6001 Goethals Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                                           Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
703-806-5681                                                     703-806-5611
Steven.stoddard@caa.army.mil                                     Mark.brantley@caa.army.mil

         The Army continually examines its force structure and its ability to meet strategic requirements. Demand for forces
is driven by national strategy, a force planning construct (e.g., "1-4-2-1"), and on-going operations. Supply of forces is
constrained by unit lifecycles (training, readiness, deployments, and recovery), transformation, AC and RC force levels, and
rotations. The purpose of the Army Force Generation Model (AFGM) is to resolve this supply and demand problem and
determine the appropriate size of the force.
         AFGM includes development of a simulation model called MARATHON. MARATHON allows us to simulate the
flow of active and reserve component units through their respective lifecycles. Each lifecycle begins with a non-available
period (when AC units are reset and RC units are not available for Title 10 operations), followed by periods when units train
until they are ready and available, deploy, recover, and transform (as necessary). MARATHON allows us to examine a
variety of force structure options by illustrating gaps or redundancies in capabilities, as well as associated deployment
tempos. These factors drive the Army’s force structure decisions. The Army has adopted AFGM to analyze its force
structure for the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review and other analytical efforts.


From Swift to Swiss: Tactical Decision Games and their Place in a Reformed Military
Education
Major Donald E. Vandergriff
Assistant Professor of Military Science
Georgetown Army ROTC
37th and O Street, NW
Washington, DC 20057
202-687-7065
vandergriffdonald@usa.net

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING




D-140
    Readiness Assessment and Force                                                                    WG-21
          Management Tools
CHAIR: Maria K. Hughes, OUSD(P&R)
CO-CHAIRS: Dan Cuda, Institute for Defense Analysis
Robert Jordan, Logistics Management Institute
ADVISOR: Joseph Angello, OUSD(P&R)

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.

Medical Material Readiness Metrics
Rick Cocrane
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102
rcocrane@lmi.org//571-633-7843

This presentation discusses a set of metrics that were                  • Asset Visibility
designed to reflect the medical readiness attributable to               • Commonality
the availability of Class VIII materiel. The COCOMs                     • Commercial Availability
recently highlighted the following as their top medical             The working group also noted that additional metrics may
logistics concerns:                                                 be needed to measure the readiness of in-theater medical
     • Improve transportation options and priorities                support. Metrics being considered in that regard include:
     • Maximize standardization                                         • Customer wait time
     • Develop a requirements forecasting tool                          • Zero balance rates
     • Standardize an integrated asset visibility report                • Demand accommodation
     • Further integrate DLA/Service information                        • Demand satisfaction
          systems                                                       • Inventory (in $)
A joint-service working group convened to review                        • Excess inventory
medical readiness from the tactical level to the strategic              • Materiel Release Order Processing Time
view of commercial industry proposed use of the                         • Frustrated Inbound Shipments
following metrics:                                                  The next step for the working group will be development
     • Unit Readiness Reporting                                     of a plan to collect and report relevant readiness data to
     • Essential Items                                              the COCOM Surgeons.
     • Movement Capabilities
     • Program Support

Carrier Strike Group Readiness
Dr. Chris Duquette
Center for Naval Analysis
4825 Mark Center, Alexandria, VA 22311-1850
duquettc@CNA.org//703-824-2224

         At the heart of the US Navy is the Carrier Strike Group (CSG). When there’s a crisis overseas, one of the first
questions that’s asked by the US President is, “where are the carriers”. At present, there’s no metric that depicts the overall
readiness of a CSG. What comes closest, the Status of Resources and Training System (SORTS), is a unit-level metric. It
indicates the readiness of the elements of the CSG – the squadrons comprising the carrier air wing, the surface-ship and
submarine escorts, and the carrier – but not of the CSG as a whole. The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) is
supposed to produce something, but it’s not slated to come on-line for a few years. In the interim, it’s possible to track CSG-
level readiness via a new metric that’s based on existing unit-level SORTS reporting. It’s essentially a new way to collate –
“roll-up” – to the CSG-level what’s already being reported at the unit-level. It wouldn’t add to existing reporting
requirements at the unit-level. Because it’s SORTS-based, its format is familiar to those who are familiar with SORTS.
Sample calculations are presented for two CSG deployments – one from the US Pacific Fleet and one from the US Atlantic
Fleet. Also presented are some alternative calculations involving different weighting schemes. The metric is in the process
of being vetted through the US Navy staff.



                                                                                                                       D-141
    Readiness Assessment and Force                                                                    WG-21
          Management Tools
Operational Availability ’05 Rotation Based Force Capability Assessment
LTC John Duke                   Dick McGarrahan                 Frank Briglia                    LTC Jim Wisnowski
Joint Staff J-8                 Joint Staff J-8                 Teledyne Brown                   Joint Staff J-8
Forces Division                 Forces Division                 Engineering                      Forces Division, Pentagon
Pentagon                        Pentagon                                                         703-697-0799

         The Secretary of Defense tasked the Joint Staff to complete a study to examine how well the programmed 2012
force structure meets defense strategy requirements across the full range of military operations. Units within each Service
were initially screened by a supply and demand analysis that examined unit demand over time compared to its available
inventory. This comparison assesses the “stress” on a wide range of unit types. The Force Structure Screening Tool (FSST)
provided more realistic utilization information by simulating the deployment of forces to meet demands. Unit substitutions,
replacements, and reconstitution time were also simulated where appropriate. FSST was modified for this study to more
accurately source demands and incorporate Service force management rules (e.g. Naval Fleet Response Plan and Air
Expeditionary Force cycles). The study results provided a force management risk assessment of units within a Service and
across the joint force capability areas. Additionally, this study provided a foundation to efficiently and comprehensively
evaluate the force capability mix against alternative futures.


Weapon Safety in Joint Warfighting Environments
Edward Kratovil                                                 James Wilmeth
United States Naval Office of Safety and Security Activity      Force Protection Div, J-8, The Joint Staff
Indianhead, MD 20640                                            Northrop Grumman
301-744-6002                                                    1851 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202
Edward.kratovail@navy.mil                                       703-602-7243 // FAX 703-602-3956
                                                                james.Wilmeth@js.pentagon.mil

          In an age of increased joint and combined military operations; increased joint shipboard operations; the Seabasing
Concept; and emphasis on Insensitive Munitions we find that weapons in such environments may be exposed to hazards
against which they were never adequately tested during the acquisition process. Service weapon safety review processes and
procedures do not necessarily account for the additional and unforeseen risks of the Joint Battlefield.
          To this end the Joint Staff, J-8 Deputy Director for Force Protection (DDFP), RADM Mike Mathis, set about to
leverage the Joint Capabilities Integration and Documentation System (JCIDS) process through proposed changes to
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction and Memorandum 3170.01 that will provide proper joint safety oversight and
certification for new weapons and weapon syste Specifically, the effort will develop a certification process designed to ensure
that weapon capability documents generated within the JCIDS process will lead to materiel solutions that provide for
adequate weapon safety in joint warfighting environments. Central to this process is a recommendation for the establishment
of an advisory council consisting of highly qualified Service safety experts and warfighting professionals to advise the DDFP
and the various weapon program managers and sponsors on safety issues as they lead their respective programs through the
JCIDS and acquisition processes. More importantly, the process will ensure that safety considerations are addressed at a time
when joint warfighting tactics and techniques continue to change, potentially impacting the employment of new weapons and
weapon syste

Better Force Management via Patterns-of-Operations Empirical Perspectives
  George Kuhn
  Logistics Management Institute
  2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, Virginia 22102
  703-917-7246//gkuhn@lmi.org

         A range of functional planning areas have long used limited sets of point-value “planning factors” (from such
sources as FMs, models-simulations, history, studies, etc.) as an important ingredient for both operations planning and to
support budgeting/programming management projections when laid across projected scenarios. A growing body of empirical
research has uncovered persistent, deep patterns of modern ground forces operations. This research suggests that force
operations patterns may be described using empirical data, which permits identifying far more accurately the relationship of a
D-142
    Readiness Assessment and Force                                                                    WG-21
          Management Tools
cumulative functional planning burden along an overall timeline and how that overall burden is composed along the planning
time line in terms of variable “demands” patterns (both as variable averages across a force and as peaks within those
averages). The research suggests that significantly different and better approaches to force management and operations
planning are needed and possible. Two examples are described. The first example is planning related to projections of
personnel casualties (supporting needs for replacements, medical forces, portions of the inter- and intra-theater lift planning
challenge, etc); both the background and current research are described, as well as a new planning tool for casualty estimation
(SABERS). Second, new research is described into evidence that extends patterns-of-operations insights, for the first time, to
Army rotary-wing Class IX spares demands and aircraft usage in peacetime versus wartime settings.


Capabilities-Based Resource Management Framework for the DoD
Dr. Drew Miller
Heartland Management Consulting Group
1904 Barrington Parkway, Papillion, NE 68046
drmiller@drewmiller.com //402-952-5339
          Cost effective, capabilities-based resource management is an achievable goal for the Department of Defense. Many
organizations are working on capabilities-based planning, but we also need a comprehensive process that includes
capabilities-based resourcing (programming and budgeting) and ties the JCIDS-PPBE-Acquisition processes together.
While skepticism over claims of cost effectiveness in DoD are valid, it is very feasible for the department to dramatically
improve cost effectiveness by using Capabilities Return on Investment and some associated changes proposed in this
framework. A key “missing link” is using a new planning/programming/budgeting/reporting construct called “Capability
Delivery Groups” as a consistent “entity” for capabilities-based Planning, Programming, Budgeting—and then operational
Execution/performance reporting. This would enable real accountability and also allow DoD to link performance and
resources back to strategy and goals—all on a capability basis. Other changes needed include instituting a standard, common
“spreadsheet like” Decision Support System. Business benefits greatly not just from a “bottom line”, but a common
format/scorecard for making decisions--the profit and loss statement. DoD can use DynaRank, a multi-attribute scorecard, as
a common spreadsheet-like DSS. This presentation will address nine elements needed for cost effective, capabilities-based
resource management framework and show how many of these elements have been used successfully in DoD and other
government organizations.


Distorted Risk Measures with Applications to Military Capability Shortfalls
Maj Edwin Offutt                           Jeffrey P. Kharoufeh                       Richard F. Deckro
Air Force Institute of Technology          Air Force Institute of Technology          Air Force Institute of Technology
Department of Operational Sciences         Department of Operational Sciences         Department of Operational Sciences
2950 Hobson Way, Building 641              2950 Hobson Way, Building 641              2950 Hobson Way, Building 641
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433             Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433             Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433
edwin.offutt@wpafb.af.mil                  Jeffrey.kharoufeh@afit.edu                 Richard.deckro@afit.edu
937-320-1959                               937-255-3636 x 4603                        937-255-3636 x 4325

          We develop and illustrate a methodology for the selection of probability distributions and distortion functions
associated with risk scenarios resulting from military capability shortfalls. Distorted (or transformed) risk measures are
analyzed and applied to account for loss scenarios that may occur with low frequency but result in catastrophic outcomes.
After reviewing the rudimentary concepts of distortion, we illustrate the means by which our methodology may be used to
affect future systems acquisition through the Capabilities Review and Risk Assessment (CRRA) process of the United States
Air Force.




                                                                                                                       D-143
     Readiness Assessment and Force                                                                     WG-21
           Management Tools
Resurgence of Coast Guard Force Structure Analysis
LCDR James Passarelli
United States Coast Guard, Force Structure Modeling & Simulation
Office of Deepwater Sponsor’s Representative
jpassarelli@comdt.uscg.mil//202-267-6698

          The Coast Guard is the smallest and most fiscally challenged of the armed forces. As such, the service has
traditionally lacked the resources to conduct full-fledged force structure analyses to justify end strength growth or even
sustainment and has had to rely on good Samaritans in Congress for these funds.
          The Coast Guard fleet is sizable and aged in comparison to most navies around the globe. In fact, of the 41 major
Navies/Coast Guards in the world, only Mexico and the Philippines have older fleets. As the U.S. Navy decommissions
TICONDEROGA Class cruisers after 18 years of service, some Coast Guard Cutters, like ACHUSHNET and STORIS
remain in service for more than 50 and 60 years, respectively. Historical acquisition of Coast Guard capital assets, like
cutters and aircraft, have largely occurred on a one-for-one basis and only when the assets being replaced are at the very end
of their service lives. Recently, some of these cutters and aircraft were decommissioned with no replacement due to a lack of
a comprehensive acquisition plan.
          Unlike the other services and because of the Coast Guards tight budgets, the Service additionally lacks an organic
operations analysis/force structure development staff to look at these issues full time. In fact, when the Center for Naval
Analyses (CNA) was asked to study the Coast Guards force structure processes and suggest method for improvement, they
found “the Coast Guard has no force planning framework”. The Coast Guard has its entire future invested in the Integrated
Deepwater System acquisition. This $24 billion dollar program is intended to replace the Coast Guards obsolete Deepwater
fleet of cutters and aircraft before 2022 on an annual budget that would only buy 1/3 of an ARLEIGH BURKE destroyer.
Deepwater is a radical system approach to acquisition in which the government does not develop asset specifications, but
instead a “System Performance Specification” or SPS. This SPS dictates the performance outcomes the Deepwater system
must attain while minimizing the total lifecycle or ownership costs (TOC). This approach put the onus on force structure
determination and asset requirements on the defense industry in the hopes that the expertise therein, coupled with the lack of
a Coast Guard force structure analysis capability would produce the force necessary for the Coast Guard’s future. It did not.
          Since July of 2003, the Coast Guard has been engaged in a comprehensive Deepwater force structure analysis that
has been identified by the MITRE Corporation (an FFRDC) as “like the most complete and comprehensive force structure
campaign analysis conducted by an uniformed service in recent times”. The methodology used has involved a bottom-up
approach to determining the required capabilities - attributes of individual assets as they apply to the system, and capacity -
the force size and force mix to maximize system performance. The Coast Guard developed several force structure tools and
has used comprehensive campaign modeling to project the performance of those forces. This process has led to the wholesale
revision of the Integrated deepwater System acquisition to accommodate the post-9/11 requirements changes for the Coast
Guard Deepwater fleet.


Transitional Planning and Analysis Methodology
Larry J. Pulcher                            Meghan K. Callahan                          Garrett T. Carstens
SAIC, 7100 Columbia Gateway Drive           SAIC, 7100 Columbia Gateway Drive           SAIC, 7100 Columbia Gateway Drive
Columbia MD 21046                           Columbia MD 21046                           Columbia MD 21046
Larry.J.Pulcher@saic.com                    Meghan.K.Callahan@saic.com                  Garrett.T.Carstens@saic.com
410-312-2229                                410-312-2214                                410-312-1354
         TPAM derives acceptable strategies for migrating complex maturing systems through their life cycles by completing
four key tasks. It first creates a roadmap, or vision that helps a program transition from its current state to an intended final
state. Second, it provides for a quantitative assessment of incremental capabilities resulting from Decision Maker’s actions
(choices), and the associated confidence they have in their ability to reach the envisioned goals. Third, TPAM provides a
barometer to not only measure and display progress along the roadmap but to also show, through comparative metrics, any
deviations that exist from the original path. Fourth, TPAM provides a number of performances indicators from which
Decision Makers can assess progress with sufficient lead-time to permit adjustments.
         The presentation will consist of the following three components: 1) discussion of the philosophy used in
development of TPAM; a philosophy of using good/better versus “perfect” solutions 2) live demonstration of an unclassified
version of the TPAM application, and 3) discussion of future enhancements of TPAM, including snapshot optimization using
commercial tools such as Lingo.

D-144
     Readiness Assessment and Force                                                                        WG-21
           Management Tools
Common Risk Management Process
Nona Riley
AMSAM-DSS, US Army Aviation and Missile Command
Building 5308 Room 8440, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898
nona.riley@redstone.army.mil //256-876-2669

          Risk management, until now, has focused only upon acquisition risk. However, if commanders are to meet the
challenges of today’s dynamic environment, the definition of risk management must be broadened, to include operational, as
well as organizational risks. As our nation continues to prosecute the war on terror, it is critical that the Department of
Defense have a comprehensive risk management plan in place. Risk no longer means the cost, schedule and technical
performance risk of a system. Balancing risk now requires not only mitigating risk associated with system acquisition, but
also mitigating other risks, including organizational, operational, situational, and functional risks. The risk commanders faced
today is multifunctional across a wide range of areas from system acquisition to information intrusion risks, facility security
risk, as well as operational risk which includes the current threats to the soldier in the field and civilian support to the soldier;
and it must now also include the risk of resource constraints that must be balanced against the current war environment and
the Army’s push to transform the army. The United States Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) at Redstone
Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, has developed a comprehensive and integrated risk management process to balance risk
within the command. AMCOM’s Command Risk Management process is a rigorous approach which provides the command
with a logical structured process to quantifying uncertainty as well as assists the understanding of complex inherent risks that
face the command.

Measures of Availability
Mike Slay                                                         Brad Silver
Logistics Management Institute                                    LMI, 2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102                            Washington, DC 20330-1570
mslay@lmi.org // 703-917-7362                                     bsilver@lmi.org//571-633-7866

          This paper will review basic principles for the concept of availability and consider some alternate models. The
traditional formulation of Operational Availability (Ao) has some interesting limitations. Since it is a time average, applying
it to a dynamic environment can be difficult. Since it segregates maintenance and supply unavailability, it cannot explicitly
consider the overlap. Furthermore, such a formulation interferes with modeling redundancy. Lastly, average availability
isn’t relevant to all syste For example, in some scenarios stealth aircraft only need to be ready at sundown; a few hours of
post-sortie unavailability during the day shouldn’t count.

Army Force Generation Model
LTC Steven Stoddard                                                LTC Mark Brantley
Center for Army Analysis                                           Center for Army Analysis
601 Goethals Road, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060                    601 Goethals Road, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060
Steven.Stoddard@caa.army.mil//703-806-5681                         mark.brantley@caa.army.mil//703-806-5611

         The Army continually examines its force structure and its ability to meet strategic requirements. Demand for forces
is driven by national strategy, a force planning construct (e.g., "1-4-2-1"), and on-going operations. Supply of forces is
constrained by unit lifecycles (training, readiness, deployments, and recovery), transformation, AC and RC force levels, and
rotations. The purpose of the Army Force Generation Model (AFGM) is to resolve this supply and demand problem and
determine the appropriate size of the force.
         AFGM includes development of a simulation model called MARATHON. MARATHON allows us to simulate the
flow of active and reserve component units through their respective lifecycles. Each lifecycle begins with a non-available
period (when AC units are reset and RC units are not available for Title 10 operations), followed by periods when units train
until they are ready and available, deploy, recover, and transform (as necessary). MARATHON allows us to examine a
variety of force structure options by illustrating gaps or redundancies in capabilities, as well as associated deployment
tempos. These factors drive the Army’s force structure decisions. The Army has adopted AFGM to analyze its force
structure for the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review and other analytical efforts.

                                                                                                                            D-145
     Analytic Support to Training                                                                          WG-22
CHAIR: Bruce A. Harris, Dynamics Research Corporation
CO-CHAIR: Kathi-Ann McLeod, Warrior Preparation Center
ADVISOR: Fred Hartman, FS, Office of the Secretary of Defense

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


Integrated Analysis Tools for Military Operations Other Than War
Curtis Blais                   John Cipparone                      Dr. Dean S. Hartley, III             Wayne Randolph
MOVES Institute                Dynamics Research Corporation       Hartley Consulting                   Dynamics Research
Naval Postgraduate School      MetroPlace 1 Building               106 Windsong Lane                    Corporation
700 Dyer Road RM366            2650 Park Tower Drive, #400         Oak Ridge, TN 37830                  3505 Lake Lynda, #100
Monterey, CA 93943             Vienna, VA 22180                    865-482-3268                         Orlando, FL 32817
831-656-3215                   571-226-2765                        DSHartley3@comcast.net               407-380-1200
FAX 831-656-7599               FAX 571-226-8640                                                         wrandolph@drc.com
clblais@nps.edu                jcipparone@drc.com

          Current military operations are exceedingly complex, reaching far beyond direct combat operations into social,
political, and economic dimensions. The importance of “military operations other than war” (MOOTW) continues to grow.
Military analysts, at home and deployed, require a comprehensive set of modeling, simulation, data base, and other
computational tools to rapidly represent the operational situation and to perform various analyses to assist in planning, course
of action evaluation, decision support, rehearsal, and training.
          In response to documented operational needs for modeling peace support operations as well as non-force-on-force
and stability operations, the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO) continues to explore modeling and simulation
technologies relevant to MOOTW. An initial prototype MOOTW “toolbox” has been developed comprising a collection of
software capabilities loosely integrated to facilitate data and scenario re-use. This presentation will describe the current
operational status of the MOOTW Flexible Asymmetric Simulation Technologies (FAST) toolbox, providing a brief
overview of functional capabilities and proposed additions to the tool set. The presentation will include an example of
employment of the toolbox to represent and analyze an operational situation. Finally, the presentation will describe lessons
learned from application of the toolbox in an instructional setting at the Naval Postgraduate School.


SOCOM Training and Rehearsal System Improvement
Neal Crossland                                                 Steve Broussard
Dynamics Research Corporation                                  Dynamics Research Corporation
60 Frontage Road                                               3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 100
Andover, MA 01810                                              Orlando, FL 32817
978-475-9090, x3020//FAX 978-475-8657                          407-380-1200
ncrossland@drc.com                                             sbroussard@drc.com

          The U. S. military special operations community is found under the command and control of United States Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM), a unique combatant command composed of three Service components, Air Force
Special Operations Command (AFSOC), U S Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), and the U S Navy Special
Warfare Command (USNSWC). Each of the Service component commands provides unique capabilities to the Special
Operation Force (SOF) combat mix.
          As a result of today’s international, asymmetric threat environment, there is a pronounced impetus and urgency to
effectively use high fidelity simulations and simulators for the human performance improvement and support of SOF
aircrews. Unfortunately, optimal delivery of SOF aircrew training has become increasingly problematic. It is a fact of SOF
aviation that both training aircrews and airframes are in critically short supply. USSOCOM components must constantly
balance real-world operational needs against the never-ending requirements for crew training and currency, as well as
mission rehearsal. Moreover, SOF aviation activities are conducted in one of the highest threat and operationally unforgiving
flight environments known. Simulations are in many instances the only truly safe way to accomplish training and mission
rehearsal goals. However, many of the SOF aircrew training devices (ATD) lack the required capabilities to provide a safe
but realistic simulated training environment. Without the use of an optimal number of concurrent ATDs for each SOF MDS

D-146
     Analytic Support to Training                                                                        WG-22
providing the right level of functionality and fidelity for the training outcome required, much of the necessary training and
performance improvement simply cannot be accomplished. SOF use of an effective training and rehearsal system that
balances live and virtual assets to develop and maintain the highest levels of aircrew proficiency is monumentally important
to the successful accomplishment of USSOCOM’s daily operational requirements in the prosecution of the Global War on
Terror (GWOT) and other combat activities.
         This presentation documents steps taken to evaluate the current capabilities of the SOCOM Training and Rehearsal
System and discuss analytical tools and improved processes developed to optimize that capability.


Joint Training System Ad Hoc Study
David J Daly                                                   Steven Fisher
Joint ADL Co-Lab                                               Joint Assessment and Enabling Capability
13501 Ingenuity Dr,                                             1901 N. Beauregard St,
Suite 248                                                      Suite 600
Orlando, FL 32826-3009                                         Alexandria, VA 22311
407-472-2905                                                   703-575-3714
FAX 407-381-7674                                               FAX 703-575-3710
David.Daly@peostri.army.mil                                    steve.fischer@t2jaec.org

         To support Training Transformation and training readiness, the Joint Staff initiated the development of a DOD-wide
Joint Training System (JTS) in 1994. The system integrates both DOD training and exercise requirements at the strategic,
operational, and tactical levels.
         In support of Training Transformation and the evolution of joint training, the Joint Assessment and Enabling
Capability (JAEC) office was directed to review the Joint Training Process and support tools. The goal of the study was to
review the process and its implementation to determine future enhanced capabilities which support training agility and
adaptability.
         This presentation will discuss the JTS organizational and technical challenges associated with incorporating training
agility and adaptability. The study followed a comparative analysis approach combined with survey research. The
presentation will include a review of the JTS process, case studies, and the interview data that led to Observations, Findings
and Recommendations.


OSD Update on Training Transformation
Daniel E. Gardner
Director, Training, Policy and Programs Directorate
DUSD/R (RTPP)
4000 Defense Pentagon, Room 1E537
Washington, DC 20301-4000
703.695.2618
dan.gardner@osd.mil


         An overview of and status report on the Department of Defense program to transform training to better enable joint
operations as it engages to win the fight on the Global War on Terrorism. Gardner will provide context for broader meaning
of “joint” to include operations and training in the interagency, intergovernmental, nongovernmental and multinational
contexts, and perspectives about the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review. He will present opportunities and challenges to
MORS that will better enable the operations research community to assist the Department transform its training progra




                                                                                                                      D-147
     Analytic Support to Training                                                                         WG-22
Army Reserve Expeditionary Forces and Army Force Generation
Mark Gerner
Strategic Plans, G-5
Office of Chief of Army Reserve, G-5 (SIO)
2400 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-2400
703 601-0618
FAX 703-601-0853
mark.gerner.calibre@ocar.army.pentagon.mil

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Training Capabilities Analysis of Alternatives (TC AoA)
Fred Hartman, FS
Director, Joint Assessment and Enabling Capability
ODUSD(R)/RTPP, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Room 1C757
Washington, DC 20301-4000
703-695-6940//FAX 703-693-7382//fred.hartman@osd.mil

          The OSD Program Decision Memorandum 1 (12 December 2002), Joint Simulation System (JSIMS), directed an
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) be conducted to determine cost-effective methods for meeting joint and Service training
requirements. Although directed by the same programmatic document that terminated development of JSIMS after delivery
of Block 1 in September 2003, the AoA reached beyond modeling and simulation (M&S) training systems to include other
innovative training technologies and tools. The TC AoA Final Report was completed on July 30, 2004 and delivered to USD
(AT&L). The report provided a “blended” set of recommendations to meet a list of training “gaps” (needs) coordinated
through the joint training user community. The 35 training gaps described in the TC AoA reflected inputs from each of the
COCOMs, the Services, and Intelligence Agencies.
       The TC AoA report’s findings and observations include some powerful comments regarding the nature of joint
training, that to some were obvious, but not well agreed upon across the community:
       • Management and oversight more than technology has caused failure of many joint training simulation efforts.
       • Current joint training has been largely based on training exercises supported by simulations. Not all training needs
            are cost effective for large-scale simulation applications
       • Intelligence must be part of the training audience vice providing support as a training aid.
       This presentation describes the post – AoA actions being undertaken to enhance the future joint training systems by
implementing the TC AoA recommendations in the areas management, simulations, and other training technologies.


The Research Potential in Data Collected from Instrumented Training Systems
CPT John Horton                                                LTC James Matheson
DISE Operations Officer                                        Deputy Director, Training Support Activity, Europe
7th Army Training Command                                      7th Army Training Command
Grafenwoehr, Germany                                           Grafenwoehr, Germany
CMR 415, Box 3178, APO, AE, 09114                              APO, AE 09114
314-475-8509 (DSN)//FAX 315-475-8344                           314-475-7718 (DSN)//FAX 315-475-8344
john.joseph.horton@graf.eur.army.mil                           james.v.matheson@graf.eur.army.mil

         An inherent problem confronting researchers interested in ground military operations is the lack of good data on
how battles actually unfold at the soldier and vehicle level. In the past researchers have relied upon assumptions, qualitative
descriptions and/or post-combat analyses of second order effects (damage to vehicles, casualty statistics etc.).
         As a by-product of their intended function as a tool for after-action reviews, new instrumented training systems
generate detailed data about player positions, weapons engagements and contextualized casualty data generated during live
training exercises. These data can be used by researchers as an empirical basis for validating or creating combat models,
analyzing bandwidth requirements for situational awareness tools, developing new tactics, techniques and procedures,

D-148
     Analytic Support to Training                                                                           WG-22
developing analytical tools to measure combat effectiveness and a host of other applications.
          In this paper, the authors will outline the methodology of data collection and presentation; propose standards for the
qualitative description of the training event that generated the data; explore potential applications of the data; present sample
data from actual training exercises conducted at the 7th Army Training Command’s Expeditionary Training center, US Army
Europe and present plans for future data collection and dissemination.


Mission and Capabilities Analysis Using Missions and Means Framework to Improve
Joint Training
John Kearley                                                     Ron Smits
Dynamics Research Corp                                           Dynamics Research Corp
1813 Foxhound Lane, Virginia Beach, VA 23454                     60 Frontage Rd, Andover, MA 01810
(757) 836-8305 // Mobile: (617) 306-5562                         (978) 475-9090 ext 1498 // (978) 475-8657 Fax
jkearley@drc.com                                                 rsmits@drc.com

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals and Decentralized Operations
Jeffrey A. Krinock
MountainTop Technologies, Inc.
647 Main Street, Suite 310, Johnstown, PA 15901-2140
814-536-7676 ext 159 // FAX 814-535-6810 // jkrinock@mntntp.com

          Technology-dependent armed forces in decentralized operations need access to reliable technical data and
procedural information under field conditions. As an element in more fully exploiting the effectiveness inherent in the
strategy of “centralized control, decentralized execution,” critical data and procedural information related to field-deployed
devices and equipment must be consistent with the manufacturer’s latest technical specifications. Increasingly,
manufacturers present technical data and procedural information in Interactive Electronic Technical Manual (IETM) format,
as described by the S1000D specification.
     As just-in-time training, refresher training, and other forms of job aids are integrated with IETMs, the reliability of their
instruction will depend upon current and accurate underlying technical data and procedural information.
     To optimize that reliability, IETMs should be:
     • Aware of currency status of technical and procedural data they contain
     • Able to report currency status to users
     • Able to report currency status to manufacturers and periodically request updates to same
     • Able to block delivery of their own data and information when non-current information could endanger life or
          property
     Equipment supported by IETMs with those capabilities can be field deployed with lighter logistics chains and reduced
dependence upon refresher training and can lower required skill levels for equipment operation.


Simulation Modeling of the AETC Flying Training
Capt Susan Lynch
Air Education and Training Command
Studies and Analysis Squadron, Randolph AFB, Texas
210-652-4201 // FAX 210-652-6895 // susan.lynch@randolph.af.mil

         Due to the large numbers of undergraduate pilots Air Education and Training Command (AETC) trains, it is
imperative that the overall training capability of our bases is modeled. AETC Studies and Analysis Squadron (SAS)
developed a versatile model to simulate the training process. This simulation model determines the maximum capacity of six
Undergraduate Flying Training (UPT) bases as well as the flying training resource utilization at these bases.
         AETC SAS modeled the AETC flying training environments to explore the capacity of the pattern airspace at our
UPT bases. The focus of the study was to optimize the current aircraft scheduling of various combinations of T-37, T-6, T-1,
                                                                                                                          D-149
     Analytic Support to Training                                                                        WG-22
T-38A, T-38C, and AT-38B aircraft from FY 05 to FY 08, 1000 times each fiscal year for a total of 4,000 simulated years at
each of the six training squadrons. The team modeled each of the 49 courses (i.e., 11 T-37, 7 T-6, 5 T-1, 10 T-38A, 10 T-
38C, and 6 AT-38B) at their respective bases. The model includes crew rest, weather, sunrise/sunset, scheduled and
unscheduled maintenance, and launch intervals. The team built a capacity model using Rockwell Software’s ARENA ™
Version 8.01 entity-based simulation software. The model expends resources (aircraft, VFR, IFR, low level (LL), and
auxiliary airfield patterns) as each pilot flows through each sortie in the training schedule.


Top Down Function Analysis - HSI Integration into the Training Development Process
Doug Mills                                                    Bob Guptill
Dynamics Research Corp                                        Dynamics Research Corp
60 Frontage Rd, Andover, MA 01810                             60 Frontage Rd, Andover, MA 01810
(978) 475-9090 ext 2766// (978) 475-8657 Fax                  (978) 475-9090 ext 3165//(978) 475-8657 Fax
dmills@drc.com                                                rguptill@drc.com

        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Joint Assessment and Enabling Capability Initiatives
Annie Patenaude                                               Fred Hartman, FS
Deputy Director, JAEC, ODUSD(R)/RTPP                          Director, JAEC, ODUSD(R)/RTPP
4000 Defense Pentagon, Room 1C757                             4000 Defense Pentagon, Room 1C757
Washington, DC 20301-4000 703-695-6857                        Washington, DC 20301-4000
FAX 703-693-7382                                              703-695-6940 // FAX 703-693-7382
annie.patenaude@osd.mil                                       fred.hartman@osd.mil

          The Department of Defense will systematically evaluate the activities and initiatives being implemented by the
Training Transformation (T2) capabilities and assess the impact of these on force training and readiness. The Joint
Assessment and Enabling Capability (JAEC) conducts studies, analyses, and assessments of Department capabilities and
initiatives that support training readiness. As the need for strategic and programmatic changes becomes evident, JAEC
makes recommendations through the T2 Senior Advisory Group (SAG). JAEC supports the integration of Training activities
and make recommendations for capabilities that will enable more effective training readiness.
FY05 Activities:
          JAEC determines metrics and gathers information on Department activities that support T2 and reports via Quarterly
Balanced Scorecard meetings.
          JAEC supports coordination and integration of data and metric activities with T2 initiatives and activities. These
include the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS), the DMDC surveys, and the Institutional Training Readiness
Report (ITRR).
          JAEC will conduct Block Assessments every two years beginning in FY05 to assess the impact of Training
Transformation capabilities on training readiness. As part of the plan, JAEC will develop metrics for each team to gauge the
validation of the T2 initiatives and identify areas of change/improvement.
          This presentation describes the ongoing Block Assessment and other JAEC initiatives in support of the Training
  Transformation effort.


Simulation Modeling of the Altus Assault Landing Zone
Capt June Rodriguez
Air Education Training Command, Studies and Analysis Squadron
Randolph AFB, Texas
210-652-4201
june.rodriguez@randolph.af.mil
         The U.S. Air Force plans to acquire 60 additional C-17 aircraft to bring the total Air Force inventory to 180. Due to
the increase in inventory, the Air Force requires additional C-17 Formal Training Unit (FTU) support in order to meet the
additional aircrew training requirements.


D-150
     Analytic Support to Training                                                                       WG-22
Joint Training Information Management System
LTC Drew P. Sullins
JS J-7/JDETD
The Pentagon, Rm 2B517
7000 Joint Staff, Washington, DC 20318-7000
703-697-3665, drew.sullins@js.pentagon.mil

        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING.


The Use of Tactical Decision Games for Cognitive Development Education
MAJ Don Vandergriff
Deputy Director, Georgetown University Army ROTC
3520 Prospect Street, NW, Suite 305
Washington, D.C. 20057
202-687-7065 // FAX 202-687-1109
vandergriffdonald@usa.net

        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Self-Assessment Framework for Joint Knowledge Development and Distribution
Capability
Jerry West, D. Sc.
Deputy Director, JKDDC JMO
Joint Staff J-7, 1901 N. Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1705
703-575-4336 // FAX 703-575-3715
jerry.west@jkddcjmo.org

       Individual training under the Training Transformation (T2) Initiative is the responsibility of the Joint Knowledge
Development and Distribution Capability (JKDDC). As part of planned T2 Block assessments, the activities of JKDDC in
performing its transformation mission will be assessed by experts in the development and dissemination of individual training
tools as well as team members familiar with the kinds of training needed by COCOMs and other commanders. A range of
metrics captured as part of the formal JKDDC self-assessment framework, reflecting metrics required by the Joint
Assessment and Enabling Capability will be used to assess individual training with indicators such as:

           •   The percentage of educational requirements fulfilled;
           •   The availability of feedback on effective learning;
           •   The time required to adapt training to new content and new audiences;
           •   The ability to provide training to people before they need it;
           •   Verification that training does impart the desired skills and knowledge;
           •   Feedback from trainees and supervisors about the usefulness of training;
           •   The ability to satisfy Combatant Commander training gaps

       This presentation focuses on JKDDC progress in establishing a self-assessment framework encompassing metrics
capturing and reporting in support of on-going T2 assessments of joint individual training. Case examples will be provided
to demonstrate how the framework has impacted JKDDC operations and decision-making. Challenges in achieving T2 Block
I assessment of JKDDC performance will also be addressed.




                                                                                                                     D-151
     Analytic Support to Training                                                                         WG-22
Cross-Domain C4I Tools, Products, and Processes
Paul W. Works, Jr.
TRADOC Analysis Center
Ft. Leavenworth
255 Sedgwick Ave.
Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027
913-684-9198 // FAX 913-684-9191
paul.works@trac.armymy.mil

          The US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC); the US Army Test and Evaluation Center (ATEC); the
Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, & Instrumentation (PEO STRI); and the Program Executive Office for
Command, Control, and Communications Tactical (PEO C3T) are coordinating the implementation of a common set of
command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) tools, products, and processes to support the three
Army functional domains: Research, Development, and Acquisition (RDA); Advanced Concepts and Requirements (ACR);
and Training, Exercises, and Military Operations (TEMO).
           The pressure of continuing military operations increases the need to streamline existing Army resources. This
includes C4I modeling & simulation (M&S), stimulation, test, and training tools and processes. In many cases, several very
similar capabilities exist; common tool development and use and a streamlining of existing, common processes have the
potential to significantly enhance Army acquisition.
          This briefing describes the numerous, associated efforts that are underway to affect this commonality. It describes
the ongoing efforts to link operational architectures, information exchange requirements (IERs), system architectures, and test
and training mission/message threads from the Army Vision documents to what boxes and messages are required and
executed (respectively) within operational units to accomplish their various missions. It also describes a number of
associated scenario generation, simulation, and stimulation tools that are being coordinated to ensure commonality. Finally,
it will describe a number of existing and proposed processes that seek to enable this sharing of common tools and products.




D-152
  Battlefield Performance, Casualty Sustainment,                                                                WG-23
                and Medical Planning
Chair: LTC Bruce Shahbaz, US Army Material Command
Co-Chairs: James Zouris, Naval Health Research Center
Pat McMurry, Center for AMEDD Strategic Studies

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


The Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center’s Comparative Analysis Model of Foreign
Health Care Systems

Todd C. Burwell                       Vincent J. Mennito              Randall Shepard                      Keith Snell
Systems Engineering and               Medical Capabilities            Systems Engineering and              Medical Capabilities
Modeling Department                   Division                        Modeling Department                  Division
Dynetics, Inc.                        Armed Forces Medical            Dynetics, Inc.                       Armed Forces Medical
P.O. Box 5500                         Intelligence Center             P.O. Box 5500                        Intelligence Center
Huntsville, AL 35814                  1607 Porter St                  Huntsville, AL 35814                 1607 Porter St
(256) 964-4654                        Fort Detrick, MD 21702          (256) 964-4703                       Fort Detrick, MD 21702
Todd.Burwell@dynetics.com             (301) 619-3878                                                       (301) 619-3863


          The Armed Forced Medical Intelligence Center (AFMIC) Medical Capabilities Division’s, Global Composite Measure of
Health Care Infrastructure and Medical Capabilities supports the development of products that characterize, compare, and rank
global and regional health care and health care delivery syste Previous analytic methods and efforts to categorize and compare
health care and associated health care delivery systems have relied on subjective analysis of conflicting and incomplete data for
the countries of interest. The Comparative Analysis Model (CAM) of Foreign Health Care Systems is an ongoing database,
geographical information systems (GIS), and modeling program that addresses the subjective nature of the global health care
analysis, uses multivariate statistical analysis to handle missing and incomplete data, and provides tools to rank and categorize
heath care and health care delivery systems based on demographic, economic, educational, and population health data. CAM
provides the AFMIC analyst with a method to rank, compare, and categorize 202 countries/regions of the world based on 42
separate demographic, economic, educational, infectious disease, and population health statistical indicators from over 10 different
public health data sources. CAM integrates ESRI’s GIS software and an Oracle database with the Mathwork’s MATLAB
software to provide the analyst with a user-friendly GUI driven statistical, GIS, and relational database tool. This presentation will
describe the CAM analytic tool, the processes used to rank and categorize global health systems, and provide examples of how
AFMIC uses these products to prepare their assessments of health care and health care delivery systems.


Patient Conditions and Associated ICD-9 Diagnosis Codes

Raymond B. Devore, Jr.                       Catherine R. Stein                            Dr. Barbara E. Wojcik
USA Medical Dept Center and School           USA Medical Dept Center and School            USA Medical Dept Center and School
Center for AMEDD Strategic Studies           Center for AMEDD Strategic Studies            Center for AMEDD Strategic Studies
1608 Stanley Road                            1608 Stanley Road                             1608 Stanley Road
ATTN: MCCS-FHR                               ATTN: MCCS-FHR                                ATTN: MCCS-FHR
Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-5047              Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-5047               Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-5047
210-221-9405/Fax: 210-221-9119               210-221-9135/Fax: 210-221-9119                210-221-9405/Fax: 210-221-9119
ray.devore@amedd.army.mil                    catherine.stein@amedd.army.mil                barbara.wojcik@amedd.army.mil

         We were tasked to analyze the consistency of the assignment of International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision,
Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes to the Deployable Medical System (DEPMEDS) patient conditions. We
analyzed the mapping efforts of three registered health information specialists who had been given the treatment briefs for 389
patient conditions and asked to assign all pertinent ICD-9-CM diagnoses codes to each PC code. Our goal was to evaluate the
agreement of the three sets of codes. To evaluate agreement, we used the kappa statistic. This briefing will discuss the process we
used and the results of this analysis. We will also outline our plan for continuation of this study.



                                                                                                                             D-153
  Battlefield Performance, Casualty Sustainment,                                                               WG-23
                and Medical Planning
Bayesian Casualty Estimation

LTC Larry Fulton
U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School
Center for AMEDD Strategic Studies
1608 Stanley Road, ATTN: MCCS-FHR
Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-5047
210-221-9405/Fax: 210-221-9119
lawrence.fulton@us.army.mil

         Several Bayesian hierarchical casualty estimation models are investigated, and the performance of these models is
compared with the Medical Course of Action Tool (M-COAT) and Benchmark Rate Structure (BRS) models. The Bayesian
models are based on the research of Dupuy, Shahbaz, and Kuhn and may generally be expressed as Casualties(t) = f(X(t), X(t-1),ε(t))
where t is the time index, X is a matrix of the Box-Cox transformed variables, and ε is the error term. Traditional assumptions
regarding the distribution of the error term are relaxed as in ridge and robust regression. To generate coefficient estimates for the
Bayesian models, the casualty dataset is bifurcated into training and validation components, and the estimates for the coefficients
are produced via MCMC sampling of the training subset only. Performance of the models is then compared by using the
validation subset. Finally, all models (including the M-COAT and BRS models) are used to forecast casualties for a different and
previously unevaluated dataset and the variance and bias of the estimators is evaluated. A Java-based estimation program is then
proffered.


1st Army Hurricane Casualty and Medical Workload Estimates

LTC Robert Gray                                              CPT Leon E. Hooten
Office of 1st US Army Command Surgeon                        Office of 1st US Army Command Surgeon
robert.e.gray@us.army.mil                                    leon.e.hooten@us.army.mil

         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

The Research Potential in Data Collected from Instrumented Training Systems

CPT John Horton                                                  LTC James Matheson
DISE Operations Officer                                          Deputy Director, Training Support Activity, Europe
7th Army Training Command                                        7th Army Training Command
Grafenwoehr, Germany                                             Grafenwoehr, Germany
CMR 415, Box 3178                                                APO, AE 09114
APO, AE, 09114                                                   314-475-7718 (DSN)
314-475-8509 (DSN)                                               FAX 315-475-8344
FAX 315-475-8344                                                 james.v.matheson@graf.eur.army.mil
john.joseph.horton@graf.eur.army.mil

          An inherent problem confronting researchers interested in ground military operations is the lack of good data on how
battles actually unfold at the soldier and vehicle level. In the past researchers have relied upon assumptions, qualitative
descriptions and/or post-combat analyses of second order effects (damage to vehicles, casualty statistics etc.).
          As a by-product of their intended function as a tool for after-action reviews, new instrumented training systems generate
detailed data about player positions, weapons engagements and contextualized casualty data generated during live training
exercises. These data can be used by researchers as an empirical basis for validating or creating combat models, analyzing
bandwidth requirements for situational awareness tools, developing new tactics, techniques and procedures, developing analytical
tools to measure combat effectiveness and a host of other applications.
          In this paper, the authors will outline the methodology of data collection and presentation; propose standards for the
qualitative description of the training event that generated the data and explore potential applications of the data; present sample
data from actual training exercises conducted at the 7th Army Training Command’s Expeditionary Training center, US Army
Europe and present plans for future data collection and dissemination.

D-154
  Battlefield Performance, Casualty Sustainment,                                                               WG-23
                and Medical Planning
Navy and Marine Corps Medical Studies using the Tactical Medical Logistics (TML+)
Planning Tool

Dr. Paula Konoske                           Johnny Brock                                Joseph Parker
Naval Health Research Center                Teledyne Brown Engineering                  Teledyne Brown Engineering
P.O. Box 85122                              Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis          Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis
San Diego, CA 92186-5122                    Directorate                                 Directorate
(619) 553-9235                              300 Sparkman Drive, M/S 170                 300 Sparkman Drive, M/S 170
konoske@nhrc.navy.mil                       Huntsville, AL 35805                        Huntsville, AL 35805
                                            (256) 726-3631                              (256) 726-1756
                                            johnny.brock@tbe.com                        joseph.parker@tbe.com

         The Tactical Medical Logistics Planning Tool (TML+) is a software program designed for Navy and Marine Corps
medical planners as a tool that (1) models the patient flow from the point of injury through more definitive care, and (2) supports
systems analysis, operational risk assessment, and field medical services planning. This presentation will provide an overview of
TML+ and describe the findings of various Navy and Marine Corp studies using TML+.
         The Sea Basing study was conducted for the Navy Warfare Development Command (NWDC). Sea-based operations will
diminish the logistical footprint of medical support ashore and require combat casualty care be provided from a seabase. TML+
was used to determine the medical capabilities required to support the Seabasing CONOPs. It is a joint Navy/Marine Corps
scenario with casualties flowing from the shore through the Navy Sea Base. Transportation assets including the High Speed Vessel
(HSV) were evaluated for their ability to “clear the seabase” and move casualties to an air point of departure. This scenario helped
to understand the issues associated with en-route care provisions related to long evacuation times covering great distances.
         TML+ was also used to determine the Ship to Objective Maneuver (STOM) emergency stabilizing surgical capability
requirements for Marines deployed in a Distributed Operations (DO) concept of operations. The limited footprint ashore combined
with an extended time for casualty evacuation poses special concerns for survivability. This study was conducted for the Marine
Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL) to evaluate varying medical capabilities ashore in a STOM/DO scenario.
         The two studies show that TML+ provides a comprehensive means to study competing medical configurations and
provides better metrics to use in analyzing various CONOPS and medical capability requirements of interest to commanders and
medical planners.


Patterns-of-Operations Research and New Casualty Estimation Tool

George Kuhn
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703) 917-9800 • (800) 213-4817
GKUHN@lmi.org

           This presentation will address both broad and specific questions of casualty estimation, and will demonstrate a new
automated estimation tool, SABERS (System to Automate the Benchmark Rate Structure). Many functional planning areas have
long used limited sets of point-value planning factors as the basis for estimates. Sources have included FMs, studies, limited
examples from actual operations, and the output of campaign or tactical models/simulations reduced to point-value factors as
planning aids. The challenge has been how to apply these numbers (to whom, for how long, in what circumstances) and whether,
after all, a given set of rates is adequate to a force and setting. Extensive empirical research years ago uncovered persistent, deep
patterns of modern ground forces operations and associated patterns of battle casualty rates (originally focused mainly on corps
divisional forces). The research has permitted identifying with high confidence a reasonable planning projection of the rate
character and shape of a force’s battle casualty stream. The stream’s character includes its cumulative size and composition, but
also and critically its size/composition along the planning time line as both the force average varies and peak rates vary within the
average. Patterns-of-operations research—sponsored over time by OSD, The Joint Staff, USTRANSCOM, the U.S. Army, and
NATO—has defined a growing structure of empirically demonstrated rate patterns: the Benchmark Rate Structure (BRS)
addresses force-on-force operations for ground forces (now including urban settings, with brigade/battalion rates being added), and
stability operations for the overall force (service, joint or combined) deployed in an AO. The Army has used the BRS for field
forces and other planning since 1997. After a brief overview of the original research, focus will shift to more recent research
results, to the BRS’s applicability to OIF & OEF, and to a demonstration of current SABERS software.


                                                                                                                            D-155
  Battlefield Performance, Casualty Sustainment,                                                               WG-23
                and Medical Planning
Developing a Patient Stream from Combat Simulation Battle Damage Assessment

Pat McMurry
Center for AMEDD Strategic Studies
ATTN: MCCS-FHR
1608 Stanley Road, Ste 47, Bldg 2268
Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-5047
 (210) 221-9404, fax: (210) 291-9119
pat.mcmurry@amedd.army.mil

         Developing a patient stream is one of the most critical aspects of conducting Combat Health Support analysis. Utilizing a
casualty estimation model or method is the most common technique used to develop a patient stream. However, casualty
estimations do not necessarily correlate with the output from a combat simulation. There are numerous combat models that
generate battle damage assessment to platforms but do not assess the extent of injury to the occupants (i.e. killed, wounded or not
injured). This presentation describes some of the methods used by the Center for AMEDD Strategic Studies to develop patient
streams based on battle damage assessment from combat simulations and how these methods are going to be used to integrate
Combat Health Support into combat models.


Contagious Disease Modeling in a Theater Environment

MAJ Tom Rothwell                                   Timothy Germann                         Debbie Lott
Center for Army Analysis                           X-7 (Materials Science)                 Center for Army Analysis
6001 Goethals Rd                                   Los Alamos National Laboratory          6001 Goethals Rd
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                             Los Alamos, NM 87545                    Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
703-806-5173                                       505-665-9772                            703-806-5405
FAX 703 806-5725                                   tcg@lanl.gov                            FAX 703 806-5725
thomas.rothwell@caa.army.mil                                                               Deborah.lott@caa.army.mil

          The modeling of contagious diseases and the spread of secondary infections through military forces is an emerging area
of study. There is a proliferation of models and techniques provide to tackle the problem, however there are few comparable
studies available. This study examines the effects that vaccination programs and quarantine intervention have on the populations
affected and the casualties generated by a smallpox attack on US Forces in a foreign theater. It was conducted with a multi-patch
theater level model using individual interactions hosted on a government-sponsored supercomputer. The results bring a number of
issues to the forefront including the need to determine if interaction rates among civilian populations approximate those of military
forces. The questions will be the focus of future work.


Chemical Warfare Agent Toxicity Estimates for the General Population

Douglas R. Sommerville                       John J. Bray                                 Ronald B. Crosier
US Army Edgewood CB Center                   Optimetrics, Inc.                            US Army Edgewood CB Center
5183 Blackhawk Road                          2107 Laurel Bush Road                        5183 Blackhawk Road
ATTN: AMSRD-ECB-RT-IM                        Bel Air, MD 21015                            ATTN: AMSRD-ECB-RT-DD
APG, MD 21010-5424                           phone: (410) 569-6081, ext 113               APG, MD 21010-5424
phone: (410) 436-4253; FAX: (410)            FAX: (410) 569-6083                          phone: (410) 436-6702
436-2742                                     jbray@optimetrics.org                        ronald.crosier@us.army.mil
douglas.sommerville@us.army.mil




D-156
  Battlefield Performance, Casualty Sustainment,                                                               WG-23
                and Medical Planning
Sharon A. Reutter                            Erin E. Shockley
US Army Edgewood CB Center                   US Army Edgewood CB Center
5183 Blackhawk Road                          5183 Blackhawk Road
ATTN: AMSRD-ECB-RT-TT                        ATTN: AMSRD-ECB-RT-IM
APG, MD 21010-5424                           APG, MD 21010-5424
phone: (410) 436-2682                        phone: (410) 436-1937
FAX: (410) 436-7129                          FAX: (410) 436-2742
sharon.reutter@us.army.mil                   erin.shockley@us.army.mil


          Current acute chemical warfare agent toxicity estimates for the general public are limited to estimates of the lower end of
the dose-response curve for a particular effect. However, many applications require a description of the whole curve. Two methods
were used to calculate estimates for the general population from previously defined military curves. The maximumratio method
produces the largest differences between the median effective dosages of military personnel and those for the general population.
These conservative estimates are useful for setting more protective levels. The centroid method produces estimates without
intentional conservatism; these estimates may be suitable for casualty estimation and resource-planning purposes. Median effective
dosages and probit slopes for mild, severe and lethal effects, from inhalation or percutaneous vapor exposure to GA (tabun), GB
(sarin), GD (soman), GF (cyclosarin), VX, and H (sulfur mustard) are given. The toxic load model is used to extend the two-
minute exposure estimates to estimates for exposures of 10 through 360 minutes. Median effective dosages and probit slopes are
given for severe and lethal effects from percutaneous exposure to liquid agent. For hydrogen cyanide (AC), a probit slope and
median effective dosages for inhalation lethality for exposures of 2 to 30 minutes are provided.


Preliminary Results from the Navy-Marine Corps Combat Trauma Registry During
Operation Iraqi Freedom

G. Jay Walker                                                      Mike Galarneau
Naval Health Research Center                                       Naval Health Research Center
P.O. Box 85122                                                     P.O. Box 85122
San Diego, CA 92186-5122                                           San Diego, CA 92186-5122
walker@nhrc.navy.mil                                               galarneau@nhrc.navy.mil

          The U.S. military services, drawing upon the experiences of civilian trauma systems in monitoring trauma care delivery,
have begun to implement their own registries recording details on injury incidence and severity in a combat environment. The
Navy-Marine Corps Combat Trauma Registry (CTR) is a large-scale data repository designed to capture information surrounding
combat-related injuries such as use of protective equipment, mechanism causing the injury, treatments and surgeries performed,
and patient evacuation status. Longer term research envisions analyses of vital sign data, medications administered and
rehabilitative outcomes. Using data sets from the Navy-Marine CTR, this presentation will discuss preliminary results of combat
injury patterns and casualty management within the medical chain of evacuation during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
          Much of the focus will be on the major combat phase in Iraq and the types of injuries incurred, the agents causing those
injuries and the resulting diagnoses. Particular focus will be on the in-theater surgical companies and the daily patient census,
surgeries performed and the lengths of stay for various patient types. Selected data from the stability operations stage will also be
reviewed including data on protective gear worn by casualties, the anatomical location of extremity wounds, and eye and ear
injuries. A short review of ongoing and future data collection efforts for the Navy-Marine Corps CTR will also be included.


Air Ambulance Analysis – Iraq (AAA-Iraq)

LTC John F. Zeto
Center for Army Analysis
6001 Goethals Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5230
703-806-5475
703-806-5743 (fax)
zeto@caa.army.mil

         In March 2004, Forces Command (FORSCOM) projected difficulty in continuing to source air ambulance units at the
                                                                                                                            D-157
  Battlefield Performance, Casualty Sustainment,                                                           WG-23
                and Medical Planning
status quo level for continued Phase IV stability and support operations (SASO) in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). FORSCOM,
in concert with the Joint Staff, therefore mandated Combined & Joint Task Force- 7 (CJTF-7, later re-designated Multinational
Corps–Iraq [MNC-I]) validate their requirement for air ambulance helicopters at the individual platform level.
         Lacking a doctrinal method to produce the estimate, the CJTF-7 Surgeon’s Office requested reachback support through
the CAA forward-deployed analysts to provide an analytical solution to FORSCOM’s mandate. AAA-Iraq is the methodology the
CAA study director, LTC John Zeto, developed and used over the subsequent four months to quantify the requirement; first in
support of CJTF-7 later in support of MNC-I.


Wounding Patterns of United States Marines and Sailors During Operation Iraqi
Freedom: Major Combat Phase

James Zouris                             Michael Galarneau                            Jay Walker
Naval Health Research Center             Naval Health Research Center                 Naval Health Research Center
P.O. Box 85122                           P.O. Box 85122                               P.O. Box 85122
San Diego, CA 92186-5122                 San Diego, CA 92186-5122                     San Diego, CA 92186-5122
619 553-8389                             619 553-8411                                 619 553-8389
zouris@nhrc.navy.mil                     galarneau@nhrc.navy.mil                      walker@nhrc.navy.mil

          This investigation examined the wounds incurred by 279 U.S. Navy–Marine personnel (97% Marines and 3% Sailors)
identified as wounded in action during Operation Iraqi Freedom from March 23 through April 30, 2003. The goal was to assess the
potential impact of each causative agent by comparing the differences in anatomical locations, types of injuries caused, and the
medical specialists needed to treat the casualties. The overall average number of diagnoses per patient was 2.2, and the overall
average number of anatomical locations was 1.6. The causative agents category were classified into 7 major categories: small
arms, explosive munitions, motor vehicle accidents, falls, weaponry accidents, and other/unknown. Explosive munitions and small
arms accounted for approximately 3 out of 4 combat-related injuries. Upper and lower extremities accounted for approximately
70% of all injuries, a percentage consistent for battlefield injuries since World War II.




D-158
                              Measures of Merit                                                            WG-24
Chair: Rochelle Anderson, TRADOC Analysis Center, Fort Leavenworth
Co-chair: MAJ Joseph S. Anderson, TRADOC Analysis Center, Fort Leavenworth
Advisor: LTC Stephen R. Riese, USSTRATCOM

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by first author’s last name.


New Metrics and MOEs for Unmanned, Distributed Combat Forces

Jeff Cares                                           David Garvey
Alidade Incorporated                                 Alidade Incorporated
31 Bridge Street                                     31 Bridge Street
Newport, RI, 02840                                   Newport, RI, 02840
(401) 367-0040                                       (401) 367-0040
FAX (401) 633-6420                                   FAX (401) 633-6420
Jeff.cares@alidade.net                               Dave.garvey@alidade.net

         Defense community innovators have proposed concepts that use cutting-edge technologies to solve long standing
military challenges, including destruction of time-critical targets, theater-wide surveillance and power projection and access
to contested littorals. These concepts assume great benefit from networking of unmanned, distributed force, but a useful
definition of networked forces does not yet exist and the advantages of networking have not been fully and convincingly
expressed. Since the definitions are lacking and sources of advantage are unclear, the Measures of Effectiveness for
Information Age Warfare are also poorly articulated. This presentation defines "New Metrics" and offers some force-wide
Measures of Effectiveness to describe how Distributed Forces provide Information Age advantage.


Linking Performance Metrics to Capabilities Based Planning
Ray Chapman
AF Studies and Analyses Agency (AFSAA)
1570 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1570
703-588-6931
FAX 703-588-0232
Raymond.chapman@pentagon.af.mil

          Part of the Capabilities Based Planning and Programming (CBP&P) process is the Capabilities Risk and Review
Assessment (CRRA) that uses measures of proficiency, sufficiency and severity to identify AF capability shortfalls and
tradespace. Fundamental to the CRRA process for proficiency and sufficiency is a robust set of metrics for each capability.
These metrics consider current measures, programmed measures, and planned measures. The AF is also required to provide,
under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, a series of performance measures reflecting how well
the AF is progressing towards achieving its goals. This briefing will explore the potential linkages between metrics used for
the CRRA process and current performance measures as defined by the GPRA. Within the overarching umbrella of
Capabilities Based Planning and Programming, we believe, where applicable, performance measures can and should be
similar to the capabilities metrics used for the CRRA process. This would allow the AF to monitor the health of its
capabilities while complying with the GPRA and linking two important concepts.




                                                                                                                      D-159
                               Measures of Merit                                                             WG-24
Assessing Effects-Based Operations (EBO)
Lt Col Dave Denhard
AFIT/ENS, 2950 Hobson Way
WPAFB, OH 45433-7765
Phone: 937-255-3355 Ext 3325
(DSN: 785-3355 Ext 3325)
Fax: 937-986-4943
David.Denhard@afit.edu

          In recent years, effects-based planning and assessment has moved from doctrinal debate to operational
implementation. Although EBO implementation strategies vary among the combat commands and services, each faces the
difficult task of assessing their EBO plans. Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM demonstrated the
challenges associated with assessing military operations in a real-time environment. The presentation will provide you with
an overview of current EBO implementation, how to approach the assessment of EBO, and specific assessment approaches
including measures of effectiveness.


Architecture-based Operations Analysis – An Extension of Classical Operational
Analysis – “Assessing Net-Centric Enabled Mission Capabilities”
Dr. Charles E. Dickerson                                        Samuel R. Peppers
System Engineering and Integration                              SE&I COE CFT
(SE&I) Center of Excellence (COE)                               BAE Systems
Center for Transformation (CFT)                                 11487 Sunset Hills Road
BAE Systems                                                     Reston, VA 20190
11487 Sunset Hills Road                                         703.668.4240
Reston, VA 20190                                                703.668.4241
703.668.4021                                                    samuel.peppers@baesystems.com
charles.dickerson@baesystems.com

Bryan Cordell                                                   Michael Canterbury
SE&I COE CFT                                                    SE&I COE CFT
BAE systems                                                     BAE Systems
11487 Sunset Hills Rd                                           16250 Technology Drive
Reston, VA 20190                                                San Diego, CA 92127
703-668-4377                                                    858.592.1050
bryan.cordell@baesystems.com                                    michael.canterbury@baesystems.com

          How can industry transform the traditional acquisition of systems into the spiral acquisition of new capabilities that
are responsive to an ever changing asymmetric threat? BAE Systems has undertaken several initiatives to develop methods
for applying operations analysis in innovative ways to address specific challenges in the National Security domain. One such
initiative is the application of an architecture-based operations analysis methodology that uses mission capabilities models,
executed for specific mission threads within a given operational environment.
          This methodology is applied in a series of foundational trade studies that use the GIG and NCOW Reference Models
as the point of departure. Each trade study is focused on a particular operational problem set related to theater warfighting in
an asymmetrical operational environment. This presentation will focus on one study - a Precision Engagement (PE) scenario
with a Time Sensitive Targeting mission thread. The scenario thread is further decomposed to support an architecture-based
analysis of mission capabilities as impacted by specific trades of ISR Reach-back vs ISR Reach-in (net-centric),
Reconnaissance vs Surveillance, and Kinetic vs Non-kinetic effects. This presentation summarizes the PE trade study results
and the architecture-based operations analysis methods applied as part of the PE study.




D-160
                              Measures of Merit                                                            WG-24
Planning Effects-Based Operations (EBO) with Value-Focused Thinking (VFT)
Dr. Mark A. Gallagher, Karen K. Phipps, LT Jeremy Keltner
Analysis Management Division (J82)
United States Strategic Command
901 SAC Blvd, STE 2F16
Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6500
(402) 294-1938 (DSN 271-6148)
Fax: (402) 294-6148 (DSN 217-6148)
gallaghm@stratcom.mil

         We apply Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) to evaluate potential Courses of Action (COAs) for Political, Military,
Economic, Social, Information, and Infrastructure (PMESII) impacts to the United States, coalition partners, neutral nations,
adversaries, terrorists, and international organizations (United Nations, European Union, World Trade Organization, religious
denominations,…). The VFT hierarchy provides an organizing structure for our planning system. The structure is useful in
four ways: 1) assists the commander in articulating his guidance in any situation, 2) provides a consistent framework to
evaluate COAs as a plan develops, 3) indicates critical areas requiring more detailed analysis, and 4) organizes supporting
analyses developed in a network-centric approach. In addition, the modularity of VFT enables incremental development and
implementation, combination of objective and subjective assessments, easier dynamic updating, and isolation of impacts for
risk analysis. In other words, Value-Focused Thinking helps us implement Effects-Based Operations by defining the
importance and fidelity of information required for various aspects while providing an organizing structure for this
information. This presentation summarizes Strategic Command’s intended implementation of VFT in our new planning
system.


Effects Assessments
Dr. Mark A. Gallagher                     Marc Warburton                             Wesley D. True
Analysis Management Division (J82)        6825 Pine Street, MS B10                   Analysis Management Division (J82)
United States Strategic Command           Omaha NE 68106                             United States Strategic Command
901 SAC Blvd, STE 2F16                    402-554-4745                               901 SAC Blvd, STE 2F16
Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6500                 FX 402-554-4759                            Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6500
(402) 294-1938 (DSN 271-6148              warburtonm@saic.com                         (402) 292-5347 (DSN 272-5347)
Fax: 402-294-6148 (DSN 217-6148)                                                     Fax: 402-294-6148 (DSN 217-6148)
gallaghm@stratcom.mil                                                                truew@stratcom.mil

          The Department of Defense is rapidly proceeding toward implementing effects-based operations (EBO), which
considers the impacts of various military actions. We define an effect for any single functional capability or behavior by
specifying four criteria:
          1) Range – which specifies the group of facilities or individuals considered
          2) Extent – which specifies the bound (upper or lower as appropriate) of the capability or behavior
          3) Start time – when the extent is achieved on the specified range
          4) End time – the minimum time that the effect remains
Actions that achieved the effects on greater than the range or longer duration still achieve the effect. Some objectives, such
as temporary or covert, require specifying multiple effects. This definition is broad enough that any combination of
Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic (DIME) actions could be used to evaluate the Political, Military, Economic,
Social, Information, and Infrastructure (PMESII) impacts. In addition, the definition is precise in that the outcome space is
completely specified so that we can apply a modeling approach such as probability theory.
          Actions may result in multiple effects. Actions and or effects can combine to “cause” other effects. This definition
lays the foundation to build a comprehensive dynamic system to analysis effects and states (multiple effects). We present a
systems engineering approach that decomposes functions into components upon which we can evaluate military actions. For
example, the various functions of a command post are decomposed to determine redundancy and attack vulnerability so
weapon damage can be translated to functional impact.




                                                                                                                      D-161
                              Measures of Merit                                                            WG-24
Investigation into Performance Scoring for Arrays of CB Sensors

George Gunn, Ph. D.                                       Keith Gardner
Northrop Grumman IT                                       Northrop Grumman IT
6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                             5695 King Centre Dr., suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22310                                      Alexandria, VA 22315
703-971-3108                                              703-325-6521
FAX 703-325-6591                                          FAX 703-325-6591
george.gunn@ngc.com                                       kgardner@cnttr.dtra.mil

Jim Gerding                                               Jae Han
Defense Threat Reduction Agency TDOA                      Northrop Grumman IT
8725 John J Kingman Road, MSC 6201                        5695 King Centre Dr., suite 310
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                                    Alexandria, VA 22315
703-325-1138                                              703-325-6520
FAX 703-325-7054                                          FAX 703-325-6591
jgerding@cnttr.dtra.mil                                   jhan@cnttr.dtra.mil

Eugene Visco, FS                                          Trey DeLaPena
OR Consultant                                             DTRA/TDOA, DTRA/DTOA 5695 King Centre Dr., suite 310
gvisco@bellatlantic.net                                   Alexandria, VA 22315 // 703-325-6503

         Numerous studies have been conducted that address the issues associated with fixed site chemical-biological (CB)
agent protection via the use of a collection of point detection equipment, and, thereby, offer quantitative assessments of the
effectiveness of various sensor layout strategies. Additionally, software tools and products are under development, which
seek to “optimize” placement of CB sensors for defending generic or specific facilities. However, both of these analyses
depend upon the metric used to gauge aggregate performance. Quantization of hypothetical sensor placement geometries
requires the use of a performance scoring algorithm that reflects the expected operational viability of an actual alert. The
metrics used as performance scores has not examined in such a context.
         As part of a broader sensor performance study, the issues of identifying useful performance scoring metrics have
been examined and a comparison of an assortment of metrics has been made. Using a simplified, high-level Monte Carlo
simulation, several performance scoring metrics were tested against a number of ‘standard’ sensor array geometries. Both
analytic forms and weight-based scoring algorithms were examined. The meaningfulness of three operational situations was
considered in developing and interpreting scoring metrics: zero sensor hits, single sensor hit, and multiple hits.


Draft Operations Assessment Construct
Captain David Koewler
Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency
1570 Air Force Pentagon
Washington DC, 20330-1570
Phone: (703)-931-1177
FAX: (703) 696-8738
David.Koewler@pentagon.af.mil

         The AF Assessment Task Force (AFATF) was created to answer lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom that
indicated that the current assessment processes did not consistently provide commanders with timely, accurate assessments or
recommendations for future actions. The task force addresses problems with, and solutions to, battle damage assessment,
combat assessment, and operational assessment. The task force’s long-term vision is to instill effects-based approaches
throughout the operational cycle of planning, executing, and assessing force employment.
         The main focus of the presentation is a draft operations assessment construct. The main focus of the construct is the
levels that the Air Force is typically tasked with, the Operational and Tactical levels of assessment. The construct provides
an overview of what types of information should be considered at the operational and tactical levels, as well as possible
sources.



D-162
                              Measures of Merit                                                             WG-24
New Applications for the Damage Expectancy (DE) Framework
Edward Kraska                              Michael S. King                            Dr. Christopher E. Degni
Office of Information Operations           SAIC                                       SAIC
Department of Defense                      7100 Columbia Gateway Drive                7100 Columbia Gateway Drive
9800 Savage Road Suite 6432                Columbia, MD 21046                         Columbia, MD 21046
Ft Meade, MD 20755-6432                    (301) 688-2479//FAX (301) 688-2803         (301) 688-2479//FAX (301) 688-2803
(301) 688-2475//FAX (301) 688-2803         kingmicha@saic.com                         decgnic@saic.com

         The defense community uses the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manual (JMEM) to evaluate effects by kinetic
means. The Information Operations (IO) community had adopted the Damage Expectancy (DE) methodology as a non-
kinetic JMEM-like framework for evaluating effects. In their 2004 MORS presentation titled “Probability Distribution
Function for Damage Expectancy,” Dr. Mark Gallager (United States Strategic Command, USSTRATCOM) and Mr. Philip
Whiteman (Booz Allen Hamilton) define DE as “the probability of damaging a target to a specified criterion.” The purpose of
this presentation is to describe several potential additions to the DE framework, allowing it to be used in a wider range of
non-kinetic scenarios. Specifically, we propose the following additions:
     1. Employ fault trees to evaluate the DE for a network of target entities as opposed to a single target entity.
     2. Incorporate statistical blocks into the Measures and Reliability Evaluator (MAR-E) for predicting the degradation of
         the target network entities.
     3. Use multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) in conjunction with a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) to estimate the DE
         for systems for which we have limited knowledge.
We will discuss the methodologies used to provide these three capabilities as well as demonstrate sample scenarios where
these methodologies would be applicable.


Effects Matrix for Computer Network Operations (CNO) Planning
Edward Kraska                              Michael S. King                            Chad S. Quill
Office of Information Operations           SAIC                                       SAIC
Department of Defense                      7100 Columbia Gateway Drive                7100 Columbia Gateway Drive
9800 Savage Road Suite 6432                Columbia, MD 21046                         Columbia, MD 21046
Ft Meade, MD 20755-6432                    (301) 688-2479                             (301) 688-2479
(301) 688-2475                             FAX (301) 688-2803                         FAX (301) 688-2803
FAX (301) 688-2803                         kingmicha@saic.com                         quillc@saic.com

         The Effects Matrix provides a framework to view the seven significant elements that comprise the Computer
Network Operations (CNO) environment: Objectives, Effects, Capabilities, Tools, Accesses, Vulnerabilities, and
Platform/Technology. For example, telecommunications technology will exhibit vulnerabilities that we want to access by
building tools that have capabilities that produce certain effects to satisfy the Combatant Commander’s (CC’s) objectives.
From the decision maker’s perspective (i.e. in effects-based planning) the same seven elements are relevant to the decision,
but in the reverse order. In other words, “to satisfy specific CC objectives, we must produce certain effects on the system. To
produce these effects, we need various capabilities which are derived from the tools we apply through accesses that exploit
vulnerabilities and technology.” This framework of chained dependencies allows us to view the CNO environment from the
perspective of both the physical world and the decision maker’s point of view. We will present the Effects Matrix
methodology and describe sample applications.


The Transitional Planning and Analysis Methodology (TPAM): A Decision Support
Application used to support a Decision Maker’s strategy for migrating large programs
through their lifecycles.
Larry J. Pulcher                           Meghan K. Callahan                         Garrett T. Carstens
SAIC, 7100 Columbia Gateway Drive          SAIC, 7100 Columbia Gateway Drive          SAIC, 7100 Columbia Gateway Drive
Columbia, MD 21046                         Columbia, MD 21046                         Columbia, MD 21046
(410) 312-2229//FAX (410) 872-1355         (410) 312-2214//FAX (410) 872-1355         (410) 872-1354//FAX (410) 872-1355
Larry.j.pulcher@saic.com                   Meghan.k.Callahan@saic.com                 Garrett.T.Carstens@saic.com


                                                                                                                       D-163
                               Measures of Merit                                                              WG-24
         TPAM derives acceptable strategies for migrating complex maturing systems through their life cycles by completing
four key tasks. It first creates a roadmap, or vision that helps a program transition from its current state to an intended final
state. Second, it provides for a quantitative assessment of incremental capabilities resulting from Decision Maker’s actions
(choices), and the associated confidence they have in their ability to reach the envisioned goals. Third, TPAM provides a
barometer to not only measure and display progress along the roadmap but to also show, through comparative metrics, any
deviations that exist from the original path. Fourth, TPAM provides a number of performances indicators from which
Decision Makers can assess progress with sufficient lead-time to permit adjustments.
         The presentation will consist of the following three components: 1) discussion of the philosophy used in
development of TPAM; a philosophy of using good/bettor versus “perfect” solutions 2) live demonstration of an unclassified
version of the TPAM application, and 3) discussion of future enhancements of TPAM, including snapshot optimization using
commercial tools such as Lingo.


Application of a Model Integration Strategy (MIS) to a Large Intelligence Transformation
program
Larry Pulcher                              Bob Liebfried, Jr.                          Kristy J. Ryan
SAIC, 7080 Columbia Gateway Drive          SAIC, 7080 Columbia Gateway Drive           SAIC, 7080 Columbia Gateway Drive
Columbia, MD 21046                         Columbia, MD 21046                          Columbia, MD 21046
(410) 312 – 2229                           (410) 312 – 2047                            (410) 312 – 2247
Larry.J.Pulcher@saic.com                   robert.l.liebried@saic.com                  Kristy.J.Ryan@saic.com

         The Decision Support and Analysis Center (DSAC) was asked to support a billion dollar program intended to
transform capabilities in one element of the intelligence community. Because of the complexity and technological basis of the
program, a series of quantitative models were being developed to support the decision process as the program matured from
early development to full operational capability. The DSAC was asked to provide a Model Integration Strategy (MIS) that
would harmonize model developments and synchronize their predictive capabilities with the scheduled deliverables of the
program. The MIS consisted of over twenty initiatives, to include

         •   A mapping between the models and the decisions they are intended to support
         •   A data taxonomy to classify all required data elements, and the linkage between the inputs and outputs of all
             models
         •   A plan for establishing a common repository of validated data
         •   Issues to be addressed for the design to accurately depict real world operations
         •   A mapping between the developmental phases of the program and which design characteristics will be built into
             each architectural snapshot
         •   A series of process definition statements that identify how key portions of the system are envisioned to work
             and how they will be modeled


Defining a Tiered Multivariate Index for Measuring Situation Awareness
Reta Morgan Reynolds                       Dr. Elizabeth S. Redden                     Albert A. Sciarretta
Human Systems Integration ORSA             Chief, ARLHRED Field Element                President, CNS Technologies, Inc.
Future Force Office                        Attn: AMSRD-ARL-HR-MW                       7201 Hidden Ridge Court
U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center             Room 332, Bldg 4                            Springfield, VA 22152
Ph: 410-278-4139                           Fort Benning, CA 31905-5400                 703-517-2143
Fax: 410-278-4964                          706-545-5201//FAX706-545-7414               Fax: 703-866-9832
reta.reynolds@atc.army.mil                 Elizabeth.redden@benning.army.mil           asciarretta@cnsti.com

         Many in the military analysis and test communities continue to be perplexed with the problem of measuring
situational awareness of individual Warfighters and units, especially within a systems-of-systems environment. All agree
situational awareness is dependent on many variables – friendly locations, friendly capabilities, enemy locations, enemy
intentions, non-combatants, the physical landscape, etc. To address a situational awareness metric which is composed of
many variables and provides a synergistic measure, a measure of performance or effectiveness (MOP or MOE) can be
designed to be quite complex. This presentation will provide an approach for defining a synergistic MOE as a multivariate
situational awareness index. The metric is a weighted sum of a human’s situational awareness performance in relation to

D-164
                               Measures of Merit                                                              WG-24
stated requirements. Input data for the metric are the requirements (R1 . . . Rn), the relative weights of each requirement (W1 .
. . Wn), and the performance (P1 . . . Pn) observed for each requirement. Examples will be given on the use of the metric.
          Within a systems-of-systems environment, measures of performance, effectiveness, and operational utility are
intertwined. For example, a MOE for an individual Warfighter may be a MOP for his small unit. The development of the
index will also attempt to show these types of relationships.


Developing Metrics for the War on Terrorism
LTC Stephen R. Riese
U.S. Strategic Command / J82
901 SAC Blvd
Offutt AFB, NE 68113
Phone: COM (402) 294-1658
DSN 271
Email: stephen.riese@us.army.mil

         Twice each year, combatant commands, services and combat support agencies formally assess their progress in the
War on Terrorism (WOT). The Joint Staff J5 establishes a metrics framework that participants use to further develop
detailed measures of effectiveness and thereby gauge their performance. Shortcomings identified through the assessment
process are raised to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) so that he might better allocate resources to help fight
the WOT.
         This presentation will begin with a description of the WOT metrics framework provided by the Joint Staff and the
process of identifying issues for the CJCS. After this introduction, the development of detailed metrics by USSTRATCOM,
their assessment against those metrics and the resulting shortcomings are presented. The emphasis of the talk is on the
methods used to develop metrics that capture the full range of USSTRATCOM missions in the WOT and meet the
requirements to be useful, measurable and understandable.


Defense Against Small Boat Attacks – Single DDG and Surface Action Group Transits
Richard C. Rigazio
Operations Research Analyst
Navy Warfare Development Command
401-841-3104
FAX: 401-841-7022
rigazior@nwdc.navy.mil

         To support NWDC’s Concept of Operations, Defense against Small Boat Attacks, matrices of simulated scenarios
were analyzed for single DDG and Surface Action Group (2 DDG, 1 FFG, 2 attack helicopters) transits. Since the study
considered individual and group small boat behaviors, ship tactics, weapons employment, and environment, NWDC chose
Joint Semi-Automated Forces (JSAF) for simulations.
         A DDG or SAG must satisfy three requirements to counter large numbers of boats:

             1.   Identifying the threat (behavior) at sufficient range (not less than 10,000 yards)
             2.   Maneuvering to decrease closure rate, maintaining weapons arcs open
             3.   Employing high volumes of fire with accurate weapons (HE-ET, KE-ET, CIWS-1B 20 mm)

         We use Kills Prior to First Leaker as our primary MOE, where a leaker is any small boat approaching within 1000
yards of any ship. A SAG helicopter has ample opportunity to kill, but is limited by its weapons allocation (4 Hellfire
missiles). Incorporating Fire-and-Forget rockets (LOGIR - 38 rockets per helo, high P-hit) makes the helicopter the primary
defense platform.
         Results for a tactical scenario where a DDG (SAG) escorts a tanker in a restricted waterway shows the DDG cannot
prevent close-range attack, while the SAG, when equipped with near-term weapons, adequately defends the vessel.




                                                                                                                         D-165
                               Measures of Merit                                                               WG-24
C-130 Transportability as a Metric

COL Donald Sando                                                 Mr. Hobbs
TSM STRYKER                                                      TSM STRYKER
Commander USAIC                                                  Commander USAIC
ATTN: ATZB-BV                                                    ATTN: ATZB-BV
Fort Benning, GA 31905                                           Fort Benning, GA 31905
703-545-5364                                                     703-545-5351
FAX 703-545-5355                                                 FAX 703-545-5355
sandod@benning.army.mil                                          hobbsra@benning.army.mil

          The Army must continue to use C-130 transportability as a metric for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT)
because it provides the Joint Force Commander with optimal transportability options and maximum operational flexibility
across the theater of operations. Furthermore, this metric keeps Stryker in a category of units that can move quickly via intra-
theatre air vice strategic air. Early entry forces need operational flexibility and deployment to an objective is the first hurdle.
The SBCT is a lethal, mobile, combined arms force. The C130 is reliable, quickly loaded, and can land in much more austere
areas than strategic lift aircraft. Flying Stryker on C130s gives commanders mobile, lethal and survivable infantry delivered
quickly to the battlefield.
          This analysis was designed to assess the viability and relevance of continuing to use C-130 transportability as a
metric for Stryker development and employment. The analysis used two current TRAC scenarios (classified), and within
those scenarios, it war-gamed the use of a Stryker infantry battalion task force as a viable early entry force. According to the
war-gamed scenarios, the C-130 air transportability metric provides greater options to the commander with 3 immediate
things: lodgment expansion, LOC security, and mobile, lethal, survivable force in complex terrain.
          Several recommendations have been made from the analysis. One, retain C-130 deployability as a Stryker
requirement because it provides maximum flexibility to the theater commander. Second, the Mobile Gun System (MGS)
configuration for air movement can and must be adjusted to meet mission profiles. Third, continue the ongoing efforts to
minimize Stryker vehicle weight, as lower weights provide benefits such as compatibility with other air, sea, and ground
transportation.


Dynamic Incident Display and Change Point Detection in Counterinsurgency Operations
Capt Paul Schneider                         Dr. David H. Olwell                          Dr. Gordon Bradley
Joint and External Analysis Branch          Department of Systems Engineering            Department of Operations Research
Studies and Analysis Division               Naval Postgraduate School                    Naval Postgraduate School
MCCDC                                       Monterey, California 93943                   Monterey, California 93943
Quantico, VA 22134-5130                     (831) 656-3583 DSN 756-3583                  Phone: (831) 656-2359 DSN: 756-2359
(703) 784-6005 DSN 278-6005                 Fax: (831) 656-2595                          Fax: (831) 656-2595
Fax: (703) 784-3547 DSN 278-3547            Email: dholwell@nps.navy.mil                 Email: bradley@nps.navy.mil
NIPR: paul.schneider@usmc.mil

         Counterinsurgency is among the most challenging types of military operations because battlefield events appear to
occur randomly. Insurgents can increase or decrease the scale, type, and number of attacks while still achieving their
objective of discrediting the current government and gaining support of the population. Identifying change points in
insurgent behavior is critical to effective counterinsurgency. In order to help gain an understanding of insurgent attacks, an
existing map-based Java program was modified to support the data collection, display, and statistical analysis of situation
reports from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Each report was converted to an XML document that
allowed for input, validation, and display of the data. The map display can be animated so the incidents appear in their
proper place in space and time. A timeline is used to track civil, political, economic events. Network tools were added for
analysis or to dynamically plot insurgent escape routes after an attack. Due to the continuous nature of the battle, univariate
and multivariate statistical process control techniques were utilized to signal changes in insurgent tactics. The dynamic
display, timeline, and statistical analysis help to paint a picture of the battlefield for analysts, civilian leaders, and
commanders.




D-166
                               Measures of Merit                                                              WG-24
A Risk Assessment Methodology for OPSEC Analysis
Philip S. (“Bud”) Whiteman
USSTRATCOM/J88(O)
901 SAC Blvd
Offutt AFB, NE 68113
402-294-6340
Fax: 402-232-6641
whitemab@stratcom.mil

           There has been much effort given to study and development of Operations Security (OPSEC) methods and practices
to better assure the integrity of sensitive but unclassified information. While some OPSEC “countermeasures” appear to have
shown some degree of success, rigorous measurement and analysis of such measures has not generally been conducted. As a
result, it is not always clear whether the OPSEC benefit of employed countermeasures are consistent with the degree of threat
to the mission or whether the benefits outweigh the loss of efficiency and effectiveness that may accompany their
implementation. An OPSEC Working Group was recently established as part of the Joint Technical Coordinating Group for
Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME) Information Operations (IO) initiative. This group is charged to establish quantitative
measures to support rigorous analysis of OPSEC practices. The Mission Risk Assessment Tool (MRAT) is a notional
application that is intended to guide OPSEC planners and practitioners through a quantitative analytical process. The general
concept of MRAT is to employ standard risk assessment techniques to the existing OPSEC planning process. The result
would be a logical application of OPSEC countermeasures, consistent with, and targeted toward assessed threat axis.
Additionally, it would provide a structured consideration of the benefits in mission risk reduction versus the potential costs in
resources and mission schedule. This briefing will walk through the proposed risk assessment analysis methodology and
illustrate how an application like MRAT might be implemented.

Evaluating the Usefulness of Alternative Attrition MOEs

Dr. Steve Wilcox                                                         Kevin M. King
Northrop Grumman IT                                                      Northrop Grumman IT
2100 Washington BLVD                                                     2100 Washington BLVD
Arlington, VA 22204                                                      Arlington, VA 22204
703 312 2511//703-312-2780                                               Kevin.M.King@ngc.com
steve.wilcox@ngc.com

         What are the implications for decision accuracy when aggregate attrition-based measures of effectiveness computed
using different force scoring methodologies are employed? Looking at the measures as proxies for the probability of win, we
investigate the merits of several alternatives through a meta-simulation methodology to gain insight into the probability of
winning the war.


Precision Munitions Mix Analysis

Major Guy Younger and Dr. Tony Quinzi
US Army TRADOC Analysis Center
ATTN: ATRC-WB
Bldg 1400, Martin Luther King Drive
White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002-5502
Phone: COMM: (505) 678-2339//DSN: 258-2339
FAX: (505) 678-6887
Email: youngergc@trac.wsmr.army.mil

         There are numerous precision munitions proposed to support current and future forces. These encompass both
Army specific and Joint precision munitions. Realistically only a few of these precision munitions can be funded and fielded
to the force. The purpose of the Precision Munitions Mix Analysis (PMMA) is to examine unique combinations of these
precision munitions in a holistic manner and subsequently provide recommendations for future precision munition
investment.

                                                                                                                         D-167
                             Measures of Merit                                                           WG-24
         PMMA is structured in three phases, each building upon the other, in order to provide recommendations with a
sound analytic foundation. Phase I screening identifies the most versatile Army and Joint alternatives employed against a
representative target set in two major regional contingencies. Phase II mix development establishes unique combinations
(mixes) of Army precision alternatives for examination in combat simulation. Phase III mix analysis determines the
preferred mixes to support both the current and future force utilizing both force level and mix specific criteria.
         This presentation will discuss precision munition screening, development of precision munitions mixes, insights on
the importance of enabling systems to precision munition employment and the impact of mixes to support both the current
and future force.


Estimation of Marine Infantry Rifle Squad Load Weight
Christopher Zaffram               Launa Jennings              Major Paul Landry                  Major Darrin Whaley
Studies and Analysis Division     3300 Russell Road           Commandant of the MC               3300 Russell Road
MCCDC, Quantico, VA 22134         Quantico, VA 22134          Washington, D.C. 20350-3000        Quantico, VA 22134
703-432-8085                      (703) 784-5989              DSN: 222-4316
ZafframCD@mccdc.usmc.mil          launa.Jennings@usmc.mil     LandryPC@hqmc.usmc.mil

         Requirements documents for transport platforms typically specify the number of combat loaded infantry Marines
that must be transported. Unfortunately, there is no commonly held definition of the weight of the infantry combat load or
the weight of the combat loaded infantry Marine. To more clearly state requirements, the combat loaded infantry Marine
should be clearly defined in terms of weight. Similarly, the emergence of the Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad (MERS) and
Distributed Operations concepts reinforces the need to define the weight limits for the infantry combat load and combat
loaded Marine.
         This brief discusses estimates of load weight for the infantry rifle squad combat load and combat loaded group, in
addition to individual billets within the squad. These estimates were calculated using weight data from Marine forces
conducting combat and peacekeeping operations in OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM and OPERATION IRAQI
FREEDOM in Afghanistan and Iraq during the spring and summer of 2004. This brief also discusses a tool that was
developed for determining individual and group squad member weight for any billet combination desired.




D-168
                     Test & Evaluation                                                                WG-25
CHAIR: Gregory T. Hutto, 53d Test Management Group (USAF)
CO-CHAIRS: Joy A. Gibbon, Joint Test Support Cell, JT&E Program Office
Edward R. Blankenship, Marine Corps Operational Test & Eval Activity
R. John Anderson, Joint CAS Joint Test Team
Kathy Callahan, US Army Test & Eval Command
Kelly J. Cormican, LCDR, US Navy COMOPTEVFOR
ADVISOR: Dr. Frank Gray, HQ AFOTEC/CAD


The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


Capability Based Evaluations
MAJ Michael Armstrong
Army Test and Evaluation Center, ATTN:
CSTE-AEC-AMED, 4501 Ford Ave,
Alexandria, VA 22150
703 681 9295
michael.a.armstrong2@atec.army.mil

        APPROVE ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Testing with the Weapons Set-to-Hit Threat Torpedo Target (WSTTT)
Steve Boothe
Undersea Warfare Division, COMOPTEVFOR
7970 Diven Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23505-1498
(757) 282-5546, ext 3040//Fax (757)-282-5558
boothes@cotf.navy.mil

         The testing of anti-submarine torpedoes has historically been challenged due to limitations imposed by the use of
manned U.S. nuclear submarines as surrogate targets. Primary among these limitations is the restriction that the target
submarine should not actually be impacted by the incoming torpedo. A new test platform, the Weapons Set-to-Hit Threat
Torpedo Target (WSTTT), recent enabled operational testing of the Mk54 Mod 0 Lightweight Torpedo. Developed with
extensive modeling and simulation support, the WSTTT can be lowered and raised from a surface support platform and
allows unarmed anti-submarine torpedoes to run to impact, providing test results more representative of actual weapon
performance.


The Perfect Test. Combined DT/OT at its Finest.
Bridget Brooks                                                Mary Vaughn
28th Test Squadron                                            28th Test Squadron
203 West D Avenue, Suite 406                                  203 West D Avenue, Suite 406
Eglin AFB FL 32542-6867                                       Eglin AFB FL 32542-6867
(850) 882-6266                                                (850) 882-6266
Fax (850) 882-5689//872 DSN prefix                            Fax (850) 882-5689
bridget.brooks@eglin.af.mil                                   872 DSN prefix


        APPROVE ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING



                                                                                                                  D-169
                      Test & Evaluation                                                                  WG-25
Innovative T&E That Balances Risk for Future Army Training
Sean Buck                                              Frank Rhinesmith
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command                  U.S. Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and
4120 Susquehanna Avenue                                Instrumentation
APG, MD 21005-3013                                     12350 Research Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826
Phone: (410) 278-0753//Fax: (410) 306-1493             Phone: (407) 384-3634//Fax: (410) 384-3660
sean.buck@atec.army.mil                                frank.rhinesmith1@peostri.army.mil

Timothy Metivier                                       Jose Pagan
National Simulation Center                             U.S. Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and
410 Kearney Avenue, Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027         Instrumentation
Phone: (913) 684-8160                                  12350 Research Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826
timothy.metivier@leavenworth.army.mil                  (407) 384-3849//Fax: (407) 384-3660//jose.pagan@peostri.army.mil

LTC Clayton Daughtry                                   Lana McGlynn
National Simulation Center                             McGlynn Consulting Group
410 Kearney Avenue, Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027         1805 Crystal Drive Suite 406, Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: (913) 684-8492                                  Phone: (703) 980-8546//lana.mcglynn@comcast.net
Clayton.daughtry@leavenworth.army.mil

         New DoD guidance for Test and Evaluation (T&E) emphasizes the execution of cost-effective T&E while reducing
risk. The T&E strategy of the Army Constructive Training Federation (ACTF) program attempts to balance the need for
sufficient T&E with the pressing need to field an operationally valid product that meets Army Title X requirements for
training. DoD is also increasingly emphasizing the concept of planning and executing T&E as an integrated test team. The
ACTF T&EIPT has begun implementing an innovative T&E strategy that requires combined test events and integrated effort
to support the user's validation requirement, the developer's verification requirement and the tester's operational test
requirement. The ACTF T&E strategy has eliminated traditionally separate test events into single integrated test events
between the user, developer and tester. The program has recognized the potential increased risk in T&E and has aggressively
created an environment that mitigates risk and the potential for errors. This paper discusses an innovative T&E strategy that:
reduces test risk; reduces test costs; improves test efficiency; and enhances the T&E Integrated Product Team (T&EIPT) into
a seamless process to produce a simulation that meets a critical need for Army training.


Design of Experiments (DOE)—Its Role in Validation of STORM Based on THUNDER
Tom Chwastyk
AFSAA/SAA
1777 N. Kent St., Rosslyn VA 22209
703-588-8672 (DSN 425-8672)
FAX 703-696-8738 (DSN 426-8738)
Thomas.Chwastyk@pentagon.af.mil

          THUNDER, the Air Force’s accepted campaign level model, will be replaced by STORM to update software
technology and use the current campaign model’s next generation. This next generation model is among differences
enhancing capability and removing THUNDER limitations that are no longer necessary.
          A new simulation can be validated by “comparison” with an accepted simulation. STORM will be validated using
THUNDER results for a scenario set of interest. However, complexity of both input and output for these simulations makes
“comparison” impractical except by statistical tools.
          To explore relationships between STORM and THUNDER, DOE will be used to screen for significant input
variables (input dimension reduction), to assess significance of output differences (output dimension reduction), and to
produce multivariate residuals from modeled relationship(s) between the simulations. Exploration of residuals through data
mining techniques should confirm completeness of the modeled relationships, or may reveal unexpected additional
relationships. Such unexpected relationships would be impossible to find except by mining balanced residuals.
          DOE will allow systematic exploration of inputs and assessment of output differences over scenarios of agreed
interest. DOE thus has the potential to demonstrate to THUNDER users the valid relationship of STORM to THUNDER,
thereby gaining acceptance for the new standard.
D-170
                      Test & Evaluation                                                                 WG-25
Mk 48 ADCAP Testing
LCDR Kelly J. Cormican
Undersea Warfare Division, COMOPTEVFOR
7970 Diven Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23505-1498
(757) 282-5546, ext 3040 // Fax (757)-282-5558
cormicak@cotf.navy.mil

         Due to hardware obsolescence issues, the guidance and control system of the current production torpedo is being
replaced. This requires re-hosting the existing software to operate the new hardware. This change is needed to continue
torpedo construction and as a step towards the next version of the torpedo. The Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation
Force (COMOPTEVFOR), has a testing plan to take full advantage of modeling and simulation tools while analyzing the
resulting data with objective statistical tools. We use a combination of in-water and simulation runs to determine if the
torpedo with the new guidance and control system operates at least as well as the previous version. To analyze these runs, we
employ McNemar’s and the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks statistical tests and present results.


Error Measurement – And the Collective Mantra of CEP
Alan Davis
Army Test and Evaluation Command
4501 Ford Ave. St. 620, Alexandria, VA 22302
703-681-0793//al.davis2@atec.army.mil

          This presentation highlights definitions of error measurement, probable error, circular error probable, and some
equations that are often used as rote by analysts who may not consider the conditions under which the equations apply...and
when they do not. The CEP mantra, and associated rote equations, is based on the assumption of bivariate normal
distributions (A Gaussian process) centered over the point of measurement (usually a target). The briefing shows when these
conditions and equations can be used, and when they should not. The presentation also shows some non-parametric methods
that may be used when the data does not fit the normal distribution.


Balancing Risks in Quick Reaction Testing
Major Sean M. Fox
605th Test and Evaluation Squadron/505th Command and Control Wing (ACC)
248 Hartson Street, Hurlburt Field, Florida 32544
850-884-9121 DSN 579-9121//(FAX) 850-884-4001//sean.fox@hurlburt.af.mil

    APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

A New Process for Operationally Testing Electronic Countermeasures Against Modern
Surface-to-Air Missile Systems
Dr. Frank Gray                         Nicholas Corea                         Jeff Cheney
Deputy Technical Director              Effectiveness Analyst                  Deputy Director
Air Force Operational Test and         Air Force Operational Test and         Air Force Electronic Warfare Evaluation
Evaluation Center                      Evaluation Center                      Simulator
HQ AFOTEC/CAD                          HQ AFOTEC/TSE                          412TW/OL-AB,
8500 Gibson Blvd SE                    8500 Gibson Blvd SE                    Box 371 MZ1100, AF Plant 4
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5558            Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5558            Ft. Worth, TX 76101
505-846-9828//FAX 505-853-3404         505-846-6571//FAX 505-853-3404         817-763-4783, FAX 817-777-4911
Frank.Gray@afotec.af.mil               Nicholas.Corea@afotec.af.mil           jcheney@dcmdw.dcma.mil

       This presentation describes results from a FY 2004 project funded by the Threat Simulator Investment Working
Group. Open-air-range (live simulation) and hardware-in-the-loop (virtual simulation) assets were integrated into a process

                                                                                                                     D-171
                       Test & Evaluation                                                                    WG-25
for operationally testing countermeasures against modern surface-to-air missile syste The concept was motivated by modern,
jam-resistant surface-to-air missile systems that use seeker-aided ground guidance schemes. Seeker-aided ground guidance
combines engagement radar and semi-active missile seeker inputs within the tracking loop. The tracking loop is closed on
the ground and guidance commands are sent to the missile. Because both missile seeker and engagement radar inputs can be
used in a guidance solution, the effect of a countermeasure is difficult to observe without actually shooting a missile. An
alternative that does not restrict open-air-range scenarios is to fly against an engagement radar in a live simulation, record the
results, and use those results in a virtual hardware-in-the-loop simulation that adds a missile seeker. During the first part of
this project, the Air Force Electronic Warfare Evaluation Simulator was modified to permit a virtual hardware-in-the-loop
simulation of live captive seeker flight test events, thus creating common live and virtual events. Methods were developed
for comparing live and virtual captive-seeker results. During the second part of the project, the combined live-virtual test
process was executed end-to-end. Results clearly indicate that failure to use this integrated test process—by conducting only
live tests or only hardware-in-the-loop tests—can frequently lead to incorrect conclusions about countermeasure
effectiveness.


Reducing Risk While Improving Protection of Tactical Wheeled Vehicles
Stephanie Halcisak
US Army Evaluation Center
4120 Susquehanna Avenue, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 21005-3013
PHONE: 410-306-1443//FAX: 410-306-0467

    APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

DOE or DOA-Simplifying Electronic Warfare Testing
Maj Daniel P. Harbowy
28 Test Squadron, 53 Wing (ACC)
203 W. D Ave., Suite 507, Eglin AFB Florida 32542
850 882 6270 DSN 872 6270//850 882 5689
Daniel.harbowy@eglin.af.mil

          I have conducted electronic warfare system testing for 4 years now and in that time I learned a lot about operational
test design. Before I took a class called “Design of Experiments” I testing by just following the crowd and doing it “the way
we’ve always done it”…by running several operationally realistic scenarios. Now, however, I’ve concluded a much more
powerful test was and is possible. To keep this simple I will address only the most difficult measure we tested, but from this,
ground is broken for evaluating all other measures of performance. I will begin with a brief description of what we tested
(the jamming effectiveness of the aircraft) and how we used to test it. I will then describe the process for producing factorial
designs and computing the results through analysis of variance (ANOVA). Next, I will describe what new information can
be derived from this method. Finally, I will counter a few common arguments against these test methods.


Down with OPP-Dealing with the People Factor in Testing
Maj Daniel P. Harbowy
28 Test Squadron, 53 Wing (ACC), 203 W. D Ave., Suite 507, Eglin AFB Florida 32542
850 882 6270 DSN 872 6270//850 882 5689//Daniel.harbowy@eglin.af.mil

          The problem testers seem to run into over and over with tests that involve personnel as a factor is, how many
personnel are a large enough sample of the population? I ran into this problem in a particular test I conducted on an aircrew
contamination control area processing line. In my test, our objective was to find out how many people can be processed
through the line in an hour. The line consisted of 10 processors and a line of subjects waiting in a queue to be
decontaminated. Several factors were varied including equipment used, time of day, procedures, and process design. The
last factor, people, is a very difficulty one to get our arms around. Through some logical methodologies we were not only
able to get our arms around the issue, we were able to model the system so well, we were able to interpolate the optimal
performance parameters, even though those particular conditions hadn’t been tested yet.


D-172
                       Test & Evaluation                                                                   WG-25
Future Combat Systems (FCS) Real Time Casualty Assessment (RTCA) Methodology
Development
LTC John M. Harwig, Ph.D,                  Vicente Gonzales, Jr.                       Todd Campbell
Methodology and Analysis Directorate,      Transformation Technology Directorate       Transformation Technology Directorate
US Army Operational Test Command           US Army Operational Test Command            US Army Operational Test Command
91012 Station Avenue                       91012 Station Avenue                        91012 Station Avenue
Fort Hood TX 76544-5065                    Fort Hood TX 76544-5065                     Fort Hood TX 76544-5065
254-288-1848 (DSN 738)                     254-288-1620 (DSN 738)                      254-288-1802 (DSN 738)
FAX 254-288-1844                           FAX 254-288-1649                            FAX 254-288-1263
john.m.harwig@otc.army.mil                 vicente.gonzalesjr@otc.army.mil             todd.campbell@otc.army.mil

          This presentation addresses approaches the United States Army Operational Test Command is researching to
minimize risks associated with simulating Future Combat Systems (FCS) operations during live force-on-force operational
testing. It details the overall methodology and specific techniques to be used to accurately simulate weapon performance.
Methodology considerations for FCS include line-of-sight and non-line-of-sight weapons, remote sensors, network effects,
terrain effects to include urban, and thinking/adaptive threats. This presentation also addresses steps being taken to integrate
RTCA across live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) environments. The goal of this research is to develop FCS RTCA
methodologies that portray battlefield conditions for both operational testing and training the future force.


Battle Control Center-Experimental: Analysis of Tactical C2 at the Joint Expeditionary
Force Experiment 2004
Lt Col Robin A. Hosch                  Major Matthew R. Webb                     Major Kevin P Smith
Commander, 133d Test Squadron          Ground Systems Branch                     PM, Battle Management Systems
1649 Nelson Ave                        ACC/DOYG                                  ESC/ACMG
Ft. Dodge, IA 50501                    205 Dodd Blvd, Suite 101                  11 Barksdale St, bldg 1614
Com: 515- 574-3246                     Langley AFB, VA 23665-2789                Hanscom AFB, MA 01731
FAX: 515- 574-3228                     757-764-8380//FAX 757-764-8460            781- 266-9217//FAX: 781- 271-3366
robin.hosch@iasiou.ang.af.mil          Matthew.webb@langley.af.mil               Kevin.psmith@hanscom.af.mil

Lt Danyawn M. “D” Miles                SMSgt Robert A. Steffes                   Michael W. Garrambone
PM for Battle Control Center           133d Test Squadron                        General Dynamics
ESC/ACMG                               1649 Nelson Ave                           5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200
11 Barksdale St, bldg 1614             Ft. Dodge, IA 50501                       Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255
Hanscom AFB, MA 01731                  Com: 515- 574-3246                        Com: 937-476-2516
781- 266-9217//FAX781- 271-3366        FAX: 515- 574-3228                        FAX: 937-476-2900
Danyawn.Miles@hanscom.af.mil           bob.steffes@iasiou.ang.af.mil             Mike.garrambone@gd-ais.com

Michael S. Goodman                     Carl J. “CJ” Jensen                       Jason S. Hamblen
General Dynamics                       Ground Systems Branch                     ESC/ACMG
5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200       ACC/DOYG                                  11 Barksdale St, bldg 1614
Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255                205 Dodd Blvd, Suite 101                  Hanscom AFB, MA 01731
Com: 937-476-2527                      Langley AFB, VA 23665-2789                Com: 781- 266-9083
FAX: 937-476-2900                      757-764-8380//FAX 757-764-8460            FAX: 781- 266-9470
Mike.goodman@gd-ais.com                Carl.jensen@langley.af.mil                Jason.hamblen@hanscom.af.mil

          A major factor in the success of the 1940 Battle of Britain was Air Chief Marshal Dowding’s operations center’s
ability to see the unfolding of the air battle and to conserve limited warfighter resources-using timely information. His use of
radar and OR provided a new form of battle management to control airspace and airborne weapon syste If you were able to
attend the Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment 2004 (JEFX 04) at Nellis AFB this past summer, you would have observed
the full picture of this endeavor by watching the 133d Test Squadron (formally the 133d Air Control Squadron) match up to a
similar battle in live flight, virtual, and constructive simulation. The 133d TS deployed to Nellis with the mission of serving
the Combined Air and Space Operations Center as the tactical ground element of the Theater Air Control System. The unit
took with them three vital items to make the experiment a unique experience. The first was an array of their own Aerospace
Control and Warning System Technicians, Air Battle Managers, and maintenance personnel along with operators from ten

                                                                                                                        D-173
                      Test & Evaluation                                                                  WG-25
different active duty and guard sister units. The second was an array of experimental equipment provided by the Battle
Control System Program Managers at the Electronic Systems Center. The third element of this mix was a small slice of
assessors from the JEFX 04 Air Combat Command/Air Force Experimentation Office Assessment Team. Based on the
133d’s mission to support and test new equipment, the unit had been designated the host unit and the principal developers of
the Battle Control Center-Experimental (BCC-X). They came to Nellis (and Black Mountain) to perform tactical command
and control and to shake out their prototype systems while devising new tactics, techniques and procedures during this “Air
War.” While actively engaged every day in combat support, offensive and defensive missions, these warfighters subjected
themselves and their equipment to endless periodic assessments, operator on-position interviews, over-the shoulder data
collection, technical equipment tests, operational evaluations, mission debriefings, and “down-in-the-dirt” after-action
reviews. The experience was exhilarating for the military ops researchers and operations analysts of the assessment team, but
moreover, the information garnered from 21 days of tactical command and control in Nevada was priceless. If you are
interested in Theater Air Defense, battle management and command and control, Theater Missile Defense, Combat
Identification, Air Battle Execution, or Data Link Management, then you want to hear this Ops talk. If you are analytically
bent and enjoy operational discussions, then you too will definitely enjoy this interesting and informative tactical and
technical presentation


What Else Can Go Wrong???
Lt Rob Koo                                                     Lt Jill Schofield
28 Test Squadron, 53 Wing (ACC)                                28 Test Squadron, 53 Wing (ACC)
203 W. D Ave., Suite 507, Eglin AFB Florida 32542              203 W. D Ave., Suite 507, Eglin AFB Florida 32542
850 882 6270 DSN 872 6270//850 882 5689                        850 882 6138 DSN 872 6138//850 882 5689
Robert.koo@eglin.af.mil                                        Jill.schofield@eglin.af.mil

    APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Beta Error in Action – the MAU-209B/B Laser Guided Bomb Test
2Lt Matthew Kowalski                                           2Lt Aaron Drenth
28 Test Squadron, 53 Wing (ACC)                                28 Test Squadron, 53 Wing (ACC)
203 W. D Ave., Suite 507, Eglin AFB Florida 32542              203 W. D Ave., Suite 507, Eglin AFB Florida 32542
850 882 6270 DSN 872 6270//850 882 5689                        850 882 6138 DSN 872 6138//850 882 5689



    APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

A Test-Based Approach to EM Protection
Robert A. Pfeffer
USANCA, 7150 Heller Loop Suite 101
Springfield, VA 22150-3164
703-806-7862//FAX 703-809-7900
pfeffer@usanca-smtp.army.mil
         In this presentation, unified protection methodology is applied to a typical mobile C4I platform subjected to several
human-generated and nature-generated EM environments and effects including self-induced electromagnetic interference
(EMI), electrostatic discharge (ESD), near-strike lightning, and HEMP characteristics stated in MIL-STD-464 and several
commercial standards. The ME protection requirements were estimated to be 70 dB shield integrity for frequencies between
100 MHz and 5 GHz, and 80 dB penetration protection on the phone line port for frequencies dependant on the length of the
phone line used. This strategy to EM protection is both useful and cost-effective, since validation testing and
maintenance/surveillance testing often reduce to simple low-cost shield and penetration protection tests that can be conducted
anywhere, even with the system operating. The application of this protection approach in the original system circuit design
also reduces the number of breadboard and brass board tests. In addition, such protection allows component replacement
within the shield, once the new component immunity level has been measured.

D-174
                       Test & Evaluation                                                                       WG-25
Statistical Inferences on HITL Hit Point Prediction

Joseph Robenson
Guided Weapons Evaluations Facility
46th Test Wing,
Eglin AFB Florida 32542
DSN 872-9939
Comm 850-882-9939
joseph.robenson@eglin.af.mil

          Design of experiment (DOE) methods are used to infer aircraft vulnerability to Man Portable Air Defense Systems
(MANPADS) threats based on simulated missile engagements. An expert simulation team from Guided Weapons Evaluation
Facility (GWEF) conducted several thousand Hardware-In-The-Loop (HITL) missile engagement simulations to collect
aircraft hit point data for specific threats. These are hi-fidelity simulations with strong correlation to test data and intelligence
from real-world attacks. Proper statistical analysis is the key to understanding the effects of the independent engagement
variables.
          The methodology used to collect and document all data involved in this effort will be demonstrated as part of the
presentation.


Resource Showdown: Having an Analytical Weapon
1st Lt Ed Russell
53d Test Management Group
203 West D Avenue
Eglin AFB, FL 32542
850-882-6356
DSN 872-6356
FAX: DSN 872-5644
edward.russell@eglin.af.mil


    APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING


Predator Moving Target Operational Utility Evaluation: You Can’t Run and You Can’t
Hide

Lt. Bryan Sparkman                                      H. Cliff Gornto
53d Test Management Group                               JE Sverdrup
203 West D Avenue                                       308 West D. Avenue
Eglin AFB, FL 32542                                     Eglin AFB, FL 32542
850-883-2893 (Commercial)                               850-882-2008 (Commercial)
DSN 875-2893                                            DSN 872-2008
FAX: DSN 872-5644                                       FAX: 729-6377
Bryan.sparkman@eglin.af.mil                             harry.gornto@eglin.af.mil



    APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING




                                                                                                                            D-175
                      Test & Evaluation                                                                   WG-25
Missions And Means Framework Application
Paul J. Tanenbaum, Ph.D.                   Jack Sheehan                               Britt E. Bray, LTC (R), U.S. Army
Chief Ballistics and NBC Division          Chief Engineer                             Dynamics Research Corporation
Army Research Laboratory                   Future Combat Systems Consolidated         Training and Performance Analysis
Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD               Testing Organization                       Division, Leavenworth Field Office
Phone: (410) 278-6282                      Alexandria, VA                             106 S. 5th St., Leavenworth, KS 66048
Email: paul.tanenbaum@us.army.mil                                                      (913) 684-9142//DSN: 552-9142
                                                                                      Email: bbray@drc.com

         The Missions and Means Framework (MMF) is a conceptual structure for specifying military missions and
quantitatively evaluating the mission utility of alternative Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel,
and Facilities (DOTMLPF) solutions for fulfilling them. It captures causal linkes between military operations and the
resources they require, enhancing collaboration between Warfighter representative communities such as JFCOM and
TRADOC and Warfighter support communities such as Army Materiel Command, Army Test and Evaluation Command and
the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office. We present our recent work done on behalf of Hollis, (DUSA OR)
demonstrating its feasibility and applicability.

Applications of the One Semi-Automated Forces (OneSAF) Physical Models Verification
Test Tool

 John G. Thomas                                                 Joseph B. Kelly
 US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity                     US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
 Attn: AMSRD-AMS-CS                                             Attn: AMSRD-AMS-CS
 392 Hopkins Road                                               392 Hopkins Road
 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5071                         Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5071
 410-278-4066                                                   410-278-4066
 John.g.thomas@us.army.mil                                      Joseph.b.Kelly@us.army.mil

 Abby Yoder                                                     Andrew Barnett
 US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity                     US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
 Attn: AMSRD-AMS-CS                                             Attn: AMSRD-AMS-CS
 392 Hopkins Road                                               392 Hopkins Road
 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5071                         Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5071
 410-278-4066// Abby.Yoder@us.army.mil                          410-278-4066// Andrew.Barnett2@us.army.mil

         OneSAF is a next generation Computer Generated Forces that can represent a full range of operations, systems, and
control process (TTP) from entity up to battalion level. OneSAF will be used by all three Modeling and Simulation (M&S)
domains: Advanced Concepts and Requirements (ACR), Research Development and Acquisition (RDA) and Training,
Exercise and Military Operation (TEMO). In support of continuous OneSAF Verification and Validation efforts, the US
Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) conducted a series of combat physical model verification tests utilizing
key OneSAF tools, Models Verification Test Tool and Data Collection Specification Tool. These efforts were conducted in
parallel with the OneSAF Block B and C Baseline Release Testing efforts.


Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS) Acceptable Risk: Experimental
Pilots and Aircraft in Operational Testing
 Bruce H. Wardlow
 US Army Operational Test Command
 Aviation Test Directorate, 91012 Station Ave, Fort Hood, TX 76544
 254-288-6281//bruce.wardlow@otc.army.mil

         This presentation evaluates the risk of using experimental pilots and aircraft for the Limited User Test for APKWS
(2.75 inch laser guided rocket). The number of rotary wing aircraft available for operational testing has steadily diminished
over the last three years due to commitments in three active theaters: Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Because many aviation

D-176
                       Test & Evaluation                                                                     WG-25
assets (aircraft and pilots) are fully committed to these active theaters, the remaining non-deployed aviation assets are usually
committed to training up for a rotation (tight schedule/limited slack), flying proficiency flights, VIP transport flights, and/or
aircraft scheduled maintenance requirements (run-ups and flights). Additional reasons for unavailable aviation assets include
aircraft upgrades or the commitment for new equipment train-up for the digitizing of the Army and pilots helping the Army
transition to modularity. The unavailability of operational aviation assets has led the operational testing community to
explore the use of experimental pilots and aircraft for operational testing. The concern in using experimental pilots for
operational testing is that these pilots are not typical users but rather the “best of the best,” also known as “golden crews,” for
each type of airframe. The experimental aircraft are typically not exactly the same as operational aircraft. The advantages
associated with the use of this pool of pilots and aircraft include more flexible availability of pilots and aircraft for tests,
pilots disciplined in creating and maintaining conditions for data collection, and aircraft with existing instrumentation along
with mechanisms in place to update/modify instrumentation. Disadvantages include data disciplined pilots creating too
tightly structured scenarios not reflecting the operational world or enhanced aircraft performance not available in the
operational world. Aircraft can be reconfigured to an operational state and as long as both operational pilots and
experimental pilots are used together, the chance of type III error should be mitigated. Just using experimental pilots justifies
research into methods to ensure the experience of the experimental test pilot does not overshadow the new pilot’s limited
skill and failing to explore a key operational aspect, the use of a “golden crew” make it even more imperative.


Testing, Verifying, and Validating COMBATXXI
Dr. Robert L. Welo                                                Barbara Borchardt
Advanced Systems Technology in support of                         US Army TRADOC Analysis Center
US Army TRADOC Analysis Center                                    TRAC-WSMR
TRAC-WSMR                                                         ATTN: ATRC-WEC
ATTN: ATRC-WEC                                                    White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002                               (505) 678-2046//DSN: 258-2046
(505) 678-1457//DSN: 258-1457//Fax: (505) 678-8379                Fax: (505) 678-8379
Email: welor.contractor@trac.wsmr.army.mil                        Email: borchardtb@trac.wsmr.army.mil

         Too often verification and validation of a combat model is done as an afterthought in the final process of
accreditation and acceptance. COMBATXXI is an entity level model under development at TRAC-WSMR in partnership with
the US Marine Corps for use in studies and analysis. To insure the model is usable, credible, and accepted for studies and
analysis, the development team has formed a subgroup dedicated solely to testing and evaluating the model. The testing team
prepares the groundwork for external agencies to conduct the critical review prior to model acceptance.
         The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the process of testing, verifying, and validating COMBATXXI
concurrently with the development of the model. The process involves both a top-down and bottom-up evaluation. The
bottom-up evaluation involves data verification and access, algorithm verification, structured walk through of code, and
stand-alone comparisons for each specific methodology. COMBATXXI contains software tools that facilitate these testing
procedures by allowing the model to be automatically and continually tested throughout the development phase. High level
or top-down testing involves both integration testing and model execution. Module interaction is verified by using realistic
scenarios. Validating that the model does indeed accurately represent the effects of real world parameters is achieved by
performing a side-by-side comparison of results from COMBATXXI with results from field trials or another accredited model,
such as CASTFOREM.


Using Combined Test Teams in Acquisition
Richard M. West, Jr.
US Army Operational Test Command,
Aviation Test Directorate,
91012 Station Ave, Fort Hood, TX 76544
254-288-1874//richard.m.west@otc.army.mil

        Approximately a year ago, Army aviation restructured its acquisition plan to accommodate the decreasing life
expectancy of the fleet due in part to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Comanche was to replace the aging Kiowa
Warrior. However, the cost to develop Comanche was too great. Those dollars were required to refit the fleet and to
purchase a less expensive reconnaissance aircraft, the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH).
        Recent world military commitments have precipitated the need to rapidly supply our forces with equipment and
                                                                                                                           D-177
                      Test & Evaluation                                                                   WG-25
systems to counter emerging threats. To meet the needs of our soldiers, the acquisition process has had to adapt by
leveraging off-the-shelf systems and by assuming greater risks.
          The ARH program is based on a modified off-the-shelf acquisition strategy. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was
submitted to industry to obtain bids that could meet the ARH requirements. It is anticipated that the winning proposal will
include an existing aircraft that will require some adaptation to meet military requirements. Due to the compressed
acquisition timeline, a well coordinated effort between the contractor, PM system engineers, developmental government
testers, operational testers, and system evaluators will be critical. The Test and Evaluation Working Integrated Product Team
(T&E WIPT) has adopted the concept of the Combined Test Team (CTT) as a framework to succeed in the acquisition
process. This discussion will focus on the contribution that the operational tester will make within the CTT.
          Normally, the operational tester conducts an operational test (OT) after the system has been developed. Sometimes
operational insights are realized too late in the acquisition process thereby delaying system fielding. In order to reduce this
program risk, the OT community will be introduced early in the development and integration cycle to provide data to the
evaluator on system operational potential and to expose any operational design deficiencies early enough in the development
and integration program to influence change.
          This presentation will discuss the expectations of the U.S. Army Operational Test Command (OTC) within the CTT,
the current ARH schedule, expected OTC participation within program development testing opportunities, methodology, and
the operational test reporting mechanism OTC will adopt to provide data to the system evaluator. The discussion will present
previous usage of the CTT concept within the Comanche program and lessons-learned. Although operational tester
involvement in the developmental process will not replace mandated OT, it is expected that the experience and insight gained
by actively participating in the CTT will allow the tester and evaluator to tailor operational test design and evaluation data
requirements to focus on specific areas yet to be demonstrated. This benefit should result in more efficient and effective
operational tests thereby reducing redundancies, duration, and program costs.




D-178
             Analysis of Alternatives                                                                   WG-26
CHAIR: Jeff R. Erikson, Air Force Material Command, Office of Aerospace Studies
CO-CHAIRS: LTC Robert J. Portigue, US Army, Dep Under Sec Army (Operations Research)
Kevan L. Barton, National Security Agency
Robert H. “Chris” Chisholm, Support Systems Associates Inc
Paul R. Caster, Air Force Material Command, Office of Aerospace Studies
ADVISORS: Joseph F. Auletta, Air Force Materiel Command, Office of Aerospace Studies
Charles Werchado; Director, Naval Forces Division, Office of Secretary of Defense, PA&E

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


Addressing JCIDS Capability and Solutions Analysis: An AoA Process for Materiel and
Non-Materiel Information Technology Activities
Kevan L. Barton                                                  Dr. Charles H. Sinex
National Security Agency                                         Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
9800 Savage Road                                                 11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Ft. Meade, MD 20755                                              Laurel, MD 20723
443-479-5816//703-325-6521                                       240-228-6517
klbart1@nsa.gov                                                  chuck.sinex@jhuapl.edu

         AoAs have changed significantly under the DoD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS).
The changes include an increased emphasis on analysis of conceptual designs in the earliest stages of project definition, and
routine and regular updating of the AoA throughout the program life cycle. Traditional AoA analysis tools and
methodologies require update and modification to work in this new environment, especially for AoA dealing with
Information Technology (IT) systems. Responding to those changes, an AoA process was matured and documented that
provides guidance for conducting AoAs under JCIDS, with strong focus on AoAs of IT systems. The newly developed AoA
manual includes an overview of JCIDS, an accessed set of specific tools techniques, AoA guidance consistent with JCIDS,
and specific examples for use with IT systems. This paper presents the AoA manual, highlighting its utility as an anchor in
the ever-flowing tidal surge of capability and solution analysis, underpinning the emerging capability based decision process.


Missions And Means Framework Application
LTC (R) Britt E. Bray                                            Dr. Paul J. Tanenbaum
Dynamics Research Corporation                                    Army Research Laboratory
Northrop Grumman IT                                              Northrop Grumman IT
106 S. 5th Street5695 King Centre Dr., suite 310                 5695 King Centre Dr., #310
Leavenworth, KS 66048Alexandria, VA 22315                        Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD
913-684-9142                                                     410-278-6282
703-325-6521                                                     paul.tanenbaum@us.army.mil
bbray@drc.com

         The Missions and Means Framework (MMF) is a conceptual structure for specifying military missions and
quantitatively evaluating the mission utility of alternative Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel,
and Facilities (DOTMLPF) solutions for fulfilling them. It captures causal links between military operations and the
resources they require, enhancing collaboration between Warfighter representative communities such as JFCOM and
TRADOC and Warfighter support communities such as Army Materiel Command, Army Test and Evaluation Command and
the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office. We present our recent work done on behalf of Hollis, (DUSA OR)
demonstrating its feasibility and applicability.




                                                                                                                       D-179
             Analysis of Alternatives                                                                   WG-26
Warfighter Information Network – Tactical (WIN-T)

 Andrew L. Buchholz                      Steven K. Herndon                       Bernd Ingram
 TRADOC Analysis Center                  TRADOC Analysis Center                  ESP
 255 Sedgwick Avenue                     255 Sedgwick Avenue                     255 Sedgwick Avenue
 Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345          Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345          Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345
 913-684-9218                            913-684-3251/                           913-684-9160
 Andrew.Buchholz@trac.army.mil           Steve.Herndon@trac.army.mil             Bernd.Ingram.Contractor@trac.army.mil

         The purpose of the Warfighter Information Network – Tactical (WIN-T) study was to conduct an Analysis of
Alternatives to inform the Army Milestone B decision and identify the preferred alternative to support the Future Force
warfighting requirements. Key study elements of the AoA included network performance, operational effectiveness, cost,
affordability, logistical support, and training.
         To best support the study questions and provide a consistent, tightly bound analysis, the study was executed
sequentially with each step supporting the work of the subsequent steps. The primary steps in the analysis included:
development of a robust, comprehensive set of Information Exchange Requirements (IERs), the development and vetting of
the alternative network architectures, performance analysis results providing comparing the alternative’s capabilities,
development of the communications inputs into the combat modeling based upon the performance modeling, and an
operational assessment of the capabilities associated for each alternative network.


Inducing Stochastic Behavior in a Deterministic Mode
Pete Bulanow                                        Dr. Steve Wilcox
Northrop Grumman IT                                 Northrop Grumman IT
2100 Washington Blvd                                2100 Washington Blvd
Arlington, VA 22204                                 Arlington, VA 22204
703-325-2394                                        703-312-2511
pete.bulanow@ngc.com                                steve.wilcox@ngc.com

          When assessing the relative performance of different equipment alternatives, it is helpful to be able to create
statistical replications in order to assess campaign risk and develop statistical estimates of the effect of weapon systems on
overall results. Analysis of trades using Vector-In-Commander (VIC), a deterministic model, is enhanced by bringing out
some of the stochastic aspects.


Architecture-based Operations Analysis – An Extension of Classical Operational
Analysis – “Assessing Net-Centric Enabled Mission Capabilities”
Michael Canterbury                                          Bryan Cordell
BAE Systems                                                 BAE Systems
16250 Technology Drive                                      11487 Sunset Hill Road
San Diego, CA 92127                                         Reston, VA 20190
858-592-1050                                                703-668-4377
michael.canterbury@baesystems.com                           bryan.cordell@baesystems.com

Dr. Charles E. Dickerson                                    Samuel R. Peppers
BAE Systems                                                 BAE Systems
11487 Sunset Hill Road                                      11487 Sunset Hill Road
Reston, VA 20190                                            Reston, VA 20190
703-668-4021                                                703-668-44240
charles.dickerson@baesystems.com                            samuel.peppers@baesystems.com

         How can industry transform the traditional acquisition of systems into the spiral acquisition of new capabilities that
are responsive to an ever changing asymmetric threat? BAE Systems has undertaken several initiatives to develop methods
for applying operations analysis in innovative ways to address specific challenges in the National Security domain. One such
D-180
             Analysis of Alternatives                                                                    WG-26
initiative is the application of an architecture-based operations analysis methodology that uses mission capabilities models,
executed for specific mission threads within a given operational environment.
          This methodology is applied in a series of foundational trade studies that use the GIG and NCOW Reference Models
as the point of departure. Each trade study is focused on a particular operational problem set related to theater warfighting in
an asymmetrical operational environment. This presentation will focus on one study - a Precision Engagement (PE) scenario
with a Time Sensitive Targeting mission thread. The scenario thread is further decomposed to support an architecture-based
analysis of mission capabilities as impacted by specific trades of ISR Reach-back vs ISR Reach-in (net-centric),
Reconnaissance vs Surveillance, and Kinetic vs Non-kinetic effects. This presentation summarizes the PE trade study results
and the architecture-based operations analysis methods applied as part of the PE study.


Determining KPPs Through Joint Capabilities Integrated Development System Analysis
MAJ D. Glenn Cox
TRADOC Analysis Center-WSMR
Bldg 1401 Martin Luther King Drive
White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
505-678-4631// 703-325-6521
darrel.cox@us.army.mil

          The implementation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), and the recent changes
in the DODD 5000.1 and DODI 5000.2 have significantly changed analysis in support of acquisition. One key element in the
acquisition process is the analysis of key performance parameters (KPP), which is conducted in support of the development
of a capabilities development document (CDD) prior to Milestone B.
          In the past, combat developers developing KPP have relied on the capabilities of emerging technologies and a broad
understanding of an operational concept for identifying the KPP and developing their threshold and objective values.
Development of the KPP, however, should be linked back to the tasks, conditions, and standards that result from JCIDS
analysis.
          This presentation illustrates the linkage from the early component analyses of JCIDS to KPP development. It
describes the development of tasks, conditions, and standards during the functional area analysis, their relation to other
components of JCIDS analysis, and their importance to the analysis that supports development of KPP.


Analytical Procedures Implemented During the Conduct of Two Quick-Reaction U.S.
Army Aviation Analyses of Alternatives (AoAs)
 Frank L. Decker                                         MAJ Joseph S. Anderson
 TRADOC Analysis Center                                  TRADOC Analysis Center
 255 Sedgwick Avenue                                     255 Sedgwick Avenue
 Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345                          Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027
 913-684-9220//Frank-Decker@trac.army.mil                913-684-9197//Joseph.Anderson@trac.army.mil

 Jennifer Casto                                          Dr. Michael R. Anderson
 TRADOC Analysis Center                                 TRADOC Analysis Center
 255 Sedgwick Avenue                                    255 Sedgwick Avenue
 Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027                              Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027
 913-684-9221// Jennifer.Casto@trac.army.mil            913-684-9192// Michael.Anderson@trac.army.mil

          Following the termination of the Comanche helicopter program, the U.S. Army embarked on a realignment of its
aviation investment program. This presentation describes the analytical procedures used to address the reconnaissance
helicopter and attack fleet helicopter decisions facing the U.S. Army. TRADOC Analysis Center was tasked to conduct two
separate Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) studies, one for armed reconnaissance helicopters and the other for the attack
helicopter fleet issue. The results of these two AoAs were derived through subject matter participation in multiple war game
events in conjunction with the use of recognized decision support techniques. The presentation will focus on explaining how
these two AoAs were planned, organized, and conducted concurrently to produce AoA results within a 6-month period.
Illustrative examples and results associated with the specific analytical procedures utilized during these AoAs will be
discussed. The presentation will also discuss how the sequential analytical procedures were pieced together to produce the

                                                                                                                        D-181
             Analysis of Alternatives                                                                      WG-26
AoA insights and conclusions.


Comparison of CB Sensor Array Configurations
Dr. George Gunn                                Keith Gardner                                   Jim Gerding
Northrop Grumman IT                            Northrop Grumman IT                             DTRA/TDOA
6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                  6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                   8725 John J Kingman Rd. MSC
Alexandria, VA 22310                           Alexandria, VA 22310                            6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
703-971-3108                                   703-325-6521                                    703-325-1138
george.gunn@ngc.com                            kgardner@cnttr.dtra.mil                         jgerding@cnttr.dtra.mil

Dr. Jae Han                                    James Hurd                                      Eugene Visco, FS
Northrop Grumman IT                            Northrop Grumman IT                             OR Consultant
6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                  6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                   DTRA/TDOA
Alexandria, VA 22310                           Alexandria, VA 22310                            gvisco@bellatlantic.net
703-971-6520                                   703-325-3108
jhan@cnttr.dtra.mil                            james.hurd@ngc.com

         A Monte Carlo simulation has been used to investigate a number of standard arrangements of Chemical-Biological
(CB) sensors to develop an understanding of the relative detection performance of each. The current study is part of an initial
exercising of the model to understand the limits of its use and usefulness and to develop a conceptual understanding of sensor
array variations, significant factors in scenario definition, and identification of major factors that drive results. Emphasis was
on examining the systematics and differences among various sensor arrays. Examined CB sensor configurations are defined
by using standard configurations (uniform rows and columns, “dice 5” pattern, perimeter, circle, ellipse, and random
placement). Variations in size of defended array, number of sensors available, and plume geometries were made.


Investigation into Performance Scoring for Arrays of CB Sensors
Dr. George Gunn                                Trey DeLaPena                                   Keith Gardner
Northrop Grumman IT                            Northrop Grumman IT                             Northrop Grumman IT
6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                  6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                   6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22310                           Alexandria, VA 22310                            Alexandria, VA 22310
703-971-3108                                   703-325-6503                                    703-325-6521
george.gunn@ngc.com                                                                            kgardner@cnttr.dtra.mil

Jim Gerding                                    Dr. Jae Han                                     Eugene Visco
DTRA/TDOA                                      Northrop Grumman IT                             OR Consultant, DTRA/TDOA
8725 John J Kingman Rd. MSC 6201, Fort         6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                   3752 Capulet Terrace, Silver
Belvoir, VA 22060                              Alexandria, VA 22310                            Spring, MD 20906
703-325-1138                                   703-971-6520                                    301-213-8047
jgerding@cnttr.dtra.mil                        jhan@cnttr.dtra.mil                             gvisco@bellatlantic.net

         Numerous studies have been conducted that address the issues associated with fixed site chemical-biological (CB)
agent protection via the use of a collection of point detection equipment, and, thereby, offer quantitative assessments of the
effectiveness of various sensor layout strategies. Additionally, software tools and products are under development, which
seek to “optimize” placement of CB sensors for defending generic or specific facilities. However, both of these analyses
depend upon the metric used to gauge aggregate performance. Quantization of hypothetical sensor placement geometries
requires the use of a performance scoring algorithm that reflects the expected operational viability of an actual alert. The
metrics used as performance scores has not examined in such a context.
         As part of a broader sensor performance study, the issues of identifying useful performance scoring metrics have
been examined and a comparison of an assortment of metrics has been made. Using a simplified, high-level Monte Carlo
simulation, several performance scoring metrics were tested against a number of ‘standard’ sensor array geometries. Both
analytic forms and weight-based scoring algorithms were examined. The meaningfulness of three operational situations was
considered in developing and interpreting scoring metrics: zero sensor hits, single sensor hit, and multiple hits.


D-182
             Analysis of Alternatives                                                                     WG-26

Supporting USJFCOM’s Need for Global Visibility of the Joint Force
Ms. Kiki Michelli
Unisys Corporation
8000 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, DC 20318-8000
(703) 697-7824
Sheila.michelli@js.pentagon.mil


         APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

Architectures for Decision Analysis
Mark Pleimann                                        Robyn Kane
The MITRE Corporation                                The MITRE Corporation
1155 Academy Park Loop                               1155 Academy Park Loop
Colorado Springs, CO 80910                           Colorado Springs, CO 80910
719-572-8244                                         719-572-8409
mpleimann@mitre.org                                  rkane@mitre.org

Donald McCandless                                    Phillip Kerchner
The MITRE Corporation                                The MITRE Corporation
1155 Academy Park Loop                               1155 Academy Park Loop
Colorado Springs, CO 80910                           Colorado Springs, CO 80910
719-572-8485                                         719-572-8358
mccandless@mitre.org                                 pkerchner@mitre.org

          Net-centric operations span the entire scope of an enterprise (i.e. business/corporate, warfighter operations, support,
and info structure). Uncertain future environments, resource constraints, and political constraints facing our military demand
that all participants within an enterprise be aware of the impacts their decisions have on the warfighter’s ability to conduct
operations effectively. The key to this awareness is not only an established, common semantic construct, but also the
willingness of professional engineering and analysis communities to integrate their vocabularies and methodologies. This
paper addresses three key methodologies (DoD Architecture Frameworks, Decision Analysis Framework, and Work
Breakdown Structures) from the system engineering, operations research, and cost analysis communities to show how these
methodologies can be integrated (via a common taxonomy) to facilitate more informed decision making.


Evaluating Statistical Assumptions When Analyzing Deterministic Simulation Results
Using a Design of Experiments
Dr. Steve Wilcox                                   Pete Bulanow
Northrop Grumman IT                                Northrop Grumman IT
2100 Washington Blvd                               2100 Washington Blvd
Arlington, VA 22204                                Arlington, VA 22204
703-312-2511                                       703-325-2394
steve.wilcox@ngc.com                               pete.bulanow@ngc.com

         A useful approach to analyzing the results of large-scale combat simulations is to generate the results according to
an experimental design such as fractional factorial. Then the results are analyzed using methodologies such as analysis of
variance (ANOVA), which, in turn, is based on a statistical description of the data that incorporates a number of assumptions.
When the simulation is deterministic, however, one might ask whether the ANOVA assumptions apply. Through

                                                                                                                         D-183
            Analysis of Alternatives                                                                  WG-26
perturbation analysis, an empirical assessment of these assumptions is possible and results are presented for a notional
experimental design using the VIC model.



Precision Munitions Mix Analysis
MAJ Guy Younger                                Dr. Anthony Quinzi
TRADOC Analysis Center-WSMR                    TRADOC Analysis Center-WSMR
Bldg 1400 Martin Luther King Drive             Bldg 1400 Martin Luther King Drive
White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002            White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
505-678-2339                                   505-678-8074
youngergc@trac.wsmr.army.mil                   quinzit@trac.wsmr.army.mil

         There are numerous precision munitions proposed to support current and future forces. These encompass both
Army specific and Joint precision munitions. Realistically only a few of these precision munitions can be funded and fielded
to the force. The purpose of the Precision Munitions Mix Analysis (PMMA) is to examine unique combinations of these
precision munitions in a holistic manner and subsequently provide recommendations for future precision munition
investment.
         PMMA is structured in three phases, each building upon the other, in order to provide recommendations with a
sound analytic foundation. Phase I screening identifies the most versatile Army and Joint alternatives employed against a
representative target set in two major regional contingencies. Phase II mix development establishes unique combinations
(mixes) of Army precision alternatives for examination in combat simulation. Phase III mix analysis determines the
preferred mixes to support both the current and future force utilizing both force level and mix specific criteria.
         This presentation will discuss precision munition screening, development of precision munitions mixes, insights on
the importance of enabling systems to precision munition employment and the impact of mixes to support both the current
and future force.




D-184
                                         Cost Analysis                                                       WG-27
CHAIR: Carolyn A. Kahn, The MITRE Corporation
CO-CHAIRS: Bruce Brown, GAO
Will Jarvis, OSD-PA&E
Robyn Kane, The MITRE Corporation
Conrad Strack, CSCI Inc.
ADVISOR: Justin Moul, IT Division, Air Force Cost Analysis Agency

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.

Estimating Correlations for Use in Cost-Risk Analysis
Stephen A. Book
Chief Technical Officer
MCR, LLC, 390 No. Sepulveda Blvd.
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 640-0005 x244//sbook@mcri.com

           Uncertainty and risk make it useful for project managers to represent total project cost as a random variable rather
than as a deterministic number. Furthermore, risks of different work-breakdown structure (WBS) elements tend to be
correlated, and this complicates the situation. For example, if a satellite bus proves to be more expensive than anticipated,
i.e., its cost turns out to be near the high end of its probability distribution, more likely than not the costs of the power and
attitude-control subsystems will also turn out to be near the high ends of their probability distributions. Such costs are said to
be “positively correlated.” It could also be imagined that a large expenditure of funds on one WBS element, e.g., to
miniaturize the thermal subsystem, will make building the attitude-control subsystem less expensive because of the reduction
in thermal weight. Costs related in this way are said to be “negatively correlated.” Inter-element correlations impact the
total-cost probability distribution through their explicit appearance in the formula for the variance (“sigma squared”).
Furthermore, because most inter-element correlations are positive, ignoring correlation makes the “spread” of a cost
distribution narrower than it should be and therefore deceives the analyst by making his or her estimate appear less uncertain.
How to estimate the numerical values of these inter-element correlations has recently become a topic of serious research
interest.
           We propose here a method of estimating those numerical values. After the usual methods of cost estimating lead to
a “best-estimate” cost and an estimate of cost-estimating error (expressed as a percentage of the best estimate) for each
element of the WBS, a technical evaluation of each WBS element identifies the percentage of “new technology” required for
its successful implementation. With the cost of each WBS element represented as a sum of three components: (1) the
nonrandom best-estimate cost, (2) a random component representing a normally distributed error of estimation, and (3) a
second random component representing cost uncertainty due to the necessity of developing and/or applying new technology,
inter-element correlation is modeled by positing the assumption that the correlation between each pair of new technology
components is 1.00, while correlations between all pairs of other components are set to zero. The actual magnitude of the
correlation between any two WBS elements depends on how much new technology there is in each of them. The correlation
matrix thereby generated can be fed into standard cost-modeling tools, so that the total-project-cost probability distribution
can be derived.

Investment Analysis of DoD Systems
Sam Boykin                                     Ron Shroder                                Donald "DC" Conroy
Frontier Technology, Inc.                      Frontier Technology, Inc.                  Frontier Technology, Inc.
4141 Colonel Glenn Hwy. (Suite 140)            4141 Colonel Glenn Hwy. (Suite 140)        4141 Colonel Glenn Hwy. (Suite 140)
Beavercreek, OH 45431                          Beavercreek, OH 45431                      Beavercreek, OH 45431
937-429-3302 x18//fax 937-429-3704             937-429-3302 x22//fax 937-429-3704         937-429-3302 x27//fax 937-429-3704
sboykin@fti-net.com                            rshroder@fti-net.com                       dconroy@fti-net.com


    APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING


                                                                                                                          D-185
                                         Cost Analysis                                                      WG-27
Real Options
Jeffrey R. Cares                                                    Dave Garvey
Alidade Incorporated                                                Alidade Incorporated
31 Willow Street, Newport, RI 02840                                 31 Bridge Street, Newport, RI, 02840
(401) 367-0040//jeff.cares@alidade.net                              (401) 367-0040, ext. 123//dave.garvey@alidade.net

         The defense acquisition community attempts to optimize future capability packages against some projected threat in
much the same way financial portfolio managers try to optimize their holdings for the best “value” in a projected future
financial environment. There some correlations with the economic concept of “Real Options” theory in economics, but a
correct analogy requires the right Information Age quantification of future capabilities in order to properly assess decisions
whether to pursue given purchase decisions or not. This paper outlines how Information Age military capabilities must be
valued in order to apply real options valuation theory to them.”

Linking Cost to Capabilities Based Planning & Programming
Ray Chapman                                                       Nancy Cribb
AF Studies and Analysis Agency (AFSAA)                            AF Studies and Analysis Agency (AFSAA)
1570 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1570                1570 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1570
703-588-6931//FAX 703-588-0232                                    703-696-8143//FAX 703-588-0232
Raymond.chapman@pentagon.af.mil                                   Nancy.cribb@pentagon.af.mil

         The Capabilities Risk and Review Assessment (CRRA) is part of a Capabilities Based Planning and Programming
(CBP&P) concept where AF capabilities are assessed though the lenses of proficiency, sufficiency, and severity. The
culmination of this assessment results in identified capability shortfalls and tradespace. A next step in the capabilities based
planning and programming process is to identify the relationship between capabilities and the costs associated with providing
a capability. This relationship is fundamental to understanding how funding levels impact capabilities and would provide
decision-makers with a stronger basis for resource allocation decisions during the planning, programming, budgeting, and
execution (PPBE) process.

Intelligence in Force Modernization Cost Estimating
Timothy Edem, CDFM                                               Randy Bradley
OAS OL-AB                                                        Intelligence Costing Working Group Co-Chair
(Air Force Materiel Command Intelligence Detachment)             HQ Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC)/FMPC
4170 Hebble Creek Road                                           4375 Chidlaw Road
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-5633                              Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433
(937) 656-0606//Fax: (937) 522-2529                              (937) 257-6436 // Fax: (937) 656-1137
E-mail: Timothy.Edem@wpafb.af.mil                                Randall.Bradley@wpafb.af.mil

          Air Force weapon systems have become increasingly dependant on integrated intelligence information/data. Without
it, some systems cannot execute their mission. Intelligence cost estimating has been a long identified need within Air Force
acquisition organizations.
          Under the direction of HQ AFMC/XRI, the Intelligence Costing Working Group (ICWG) was recently established
to develop an Air Force framework for identifying and costing intelligence requirements. The ICWG is jointly chaired by
Air Force Materiel Command’s newly formed Intelligence detachment (OAS OL-AB) and the AFMC Cost Studies and
Analysis Branch (HQ AFMC/FMPC).
          The ICWG goals are to 1) Develop an Air Force process and methodology for costing intelligence requirements
associated with force modernization (to include development, testing, fielding, operations and support, and disposal) and 2)
Institutionalize this process and methodology through inclusion in appropriate Air Force policies and/or guidance and the
Program Objective Memorandum (POM) process.
          As future systems become more intelligence –dependant, the cost of omitting intelligence integration will increase.
It is the intent of the ICWG to reduce and/or remove weapon system program delays and additional costs caused by poor
planning for intelligence needs by institutionalizing the processes identified through the team’s efforts.



D-186
                                        Cost Analysis                                                     WG-27
TASC Ground Risk and Cost Modeling Tool
Laura J. Guffey              Janelle N. Davis                  Kevin J. Snyder               Gregory A. Hogan
Northrop Grumman             Northrop Grumman IT/TASC          Northrop Grumman              Northrop Grumman IT/TASC
IT/TASC                      15036 Conference Center           IT/TASC                       15036 Conference Center Drive
15036 Conference Center      Drive                             15036 Conference Center       Chantilly, VA 20121
Drive                        Chantilly, VA 20121               Drive                         703-961-3594
Chantilly, VA 20121          703-961-3429                      Chantilly, VA 20121           FAX 703-961-0939
703-961-3440                 FAX 703-961-0939                  703-961-3454                  gregory.hogan@ngc.com
FAX 703-961-0939             janelle.davis@ngc.com             FAX 703-961-0939
laura.guffey@ngc.com                                           kevin.snyder@ngc.com

Richard L. Coleman           Jessica R. Summerville            Fred K. Blackburn
Northrop Grumman             Northrop Grumman IT/TASC          Northrop Grumman
IT/TASC                      15036 Conference Center           IT/TASC
15036 Conference Center      Drive                             15036 Conference Center
Drive                        Chantilly, VA 20121               Drive
Chantilly, VA 20121          703-961-3407                      Chantilly, VA 20121
703-961-3403                 FAX 703-961-0939                  703-961-3405
FAX 703-961-0939             jessica.summerville@ngc.com       FAX 703-961-0939
richard.coleman@ngc.com                                        fred.blackburn@ngc.com

        APPROVED ABSTRACT UNAVAILABLE AT PRINTING

The Economic Importance of Adequate Aeronautical Telemetry (ATM) Spectrum
Carolyn A. Kahn
The MITRE Corporation, 202 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730-1420
312-828-9196//ckahn@mitre.org

         We are experiencing a shortfall of aeronautical telemetry (ATM) spectrum today, and this problem worsens in the
future with the expected rise in ATM spectrum demand. This paper shows the vital economic importance of having adequate
accessibility to ATM spectrum, and the costs associated with insufficient ATM spectrum access. Economic considerations
are important to the proposal currently before the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), as Agenda Item 1.5 of the
2007 World Radio Conference (WRC), which calls for the allocation of additional spectrum for wideband ATM in the 3-30
Gigahertz (GHz) band. The sponsor for this task is the Defense Test Resource Management Center (DTRMC).

Regret Analysis
Robyn A. Kane
The MITRE Corporation
1155 Academy Park Loop, Colorado Springs, CO 80910-3704
Phone: (719) 572-8409//Fax: (719) 572-8477
E-mail: rkane@mitre.org


         The cost of a system can be significantly affected by uncertainty. Thus, any estimate or prediction of the cost of a
system is accompanied by a range of other potential costs. Experience shows that it may not be overly pessimistic to assign a
confidence level of 30 percent or less to a cost estimate of a complex system to account for significant technical and program
uncertainties, as well as the estimation uncertainty itself. A decision-maker choosing among alternative system investments
to provide a capability (or achieve a set of objectives) is faced with the need to understand the uncertainties and their
potential impact to the outcome of his decision. In addition, the decision-maker must weigh these uncertainties against their
cost and his resource constraints. For example, “What if System A, the lower-cost option at the 50-percent confidence level,
faces uncertainties that make its 70th-percentile cost higher than that of System B?” Techniques of decision analysis can be
applied to address such questions and illuminate the sensitivity of choices to key decision variables and assumptions.

                                                                                                                      D-187
                                        Cost Analysis                                                      WG-27
          Decision analysis provides a structured approach for thinking about and selecting a course of action to achieve an
objective where the choices and outcomes are characterized by uncertainty as well as the value tradeoffs of the decision-
maker. For difficult decisions with careful analysis and hard choices, it is human nature to still wonder if you made the right
decision. The old adage “Hindsight is 20-20” was coined many years ago for a reason. Regret analysis is a subset of decision
analysis and is a basic operations research technique used to determine how much may be lost if a different decision were
chosen. Typically, regret occurs when the selected alternative is not the most preferred outcome (e.g. the least expensive) of
alternative choices within a given set of assumptions or conditions. To illustrate the application of regret analysis in this
paper, HQ Air Force Space Command’s recent Operationally Responsive Spacelift Analysis of Alternatives (ORS AoA) will
be presented as a case study.

Integrating Program Risk into Cost and Schedule Estimates
Michael Lopez                             W. David Featherman                       Marek Zadrozny
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Suite 3300      Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Suite 220       Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Suite 330
101 California Street                     1615 Murray Canyon Road                   101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111                   San Diego, CA 92108                       San Francisco, CA 94111
408-857-0483//408-742-8660 (fax)          619-680-4755//619-725-6572 (fax)          408-482-4774//408-742-8660 (fax)
lopez_michael@bah.com                     featherman_david@bah.com                  zadrozny_marek@bah.com

Jeffrey Clish                             Maya Vidich                               Anthony Fife
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Suite 900       Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Suite 3300      Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.
121 South Tejon Street                    101 California Street                     One Dulles Center
Colorado Springs, CO 80903                San Francisco, CA 94111                   13200 Woodland Park Drive
719-387-3706 (phone)                      415-281-5026 (phone)                      Herndon, VA 20171
719-387-2020 (fax)                        415-627-4283 (fax)                        703-984-3057 // 703-984-2450 (fax)
clish_jeffrey@bah.com                     vidich_maya@bah.com                       fife_anthony@bah.com

          Over the past several decades, many Defense acquisition programs have experienced significant cost growth and
schedule slip due to unanticipated impacts of program risk. The variety of definitions and techniques for incorporating risk
into cost and schedule estimates complicate a program’s ability to adequately capture these potential impacts. The historical
practice of independently managing program cost, schedule and risk has further hindered the ability to proactively manage
their interactions. One new approach for addressing these concerns is Risk Integrated with Schedule and Cost – Intelligent
Quantification (RISC-IQ). RISC-IQ combines quantitative risk management methods with best practice cost and schedule
estimating techniques into an analytic process that supports more effective decision making with regard to program budget,
schedule and risk mitigation. The process begins with the quantitative scoring of individual risks and the mapping of those
risks throughout the program work breakdown structure in order to allocate their effects. Once mapped, each risk’s
probability of occurrence is used along with cost and schedule impact assessments to develop risk-adjusted cost and schedule
estimates. Program cost and schedule baselines are then compared to these new risk-adjusted estimates in order to assess the
program’s overall risk profile and the effectiveness of candidate risk mitigation activities

Cost Estimating in DOD: Current Status, Trends, and What the Future Holds
Dr. Daniel A. Nussbaum
Naval Postgraduate School
(831) 656-2387
dnussbaum@nps.edu

     This presentation provides a fundamental look at the DoD cost estimating community and profession. Topics covered
include:
     • A baseline analysis of the current cost estimating community, including which organizations are responsible for
          developing and reviewing cost estimates, how many personnel there are, what their longevity in the profession is,
          and what their current professional skillsets are.
     • Circumstances which are causing an explosion in Cost Estimating Requirements across the DoD in particular, but
          also across the full spectrum of US Government activities
     • A estimation of the skillsets that will be needed by the next generation of cost estimators, and where they are likely
          to gain these skillsets.

D-188
                                        Cost Analysis                                                      WG-27
System Performance Operational Risk Assessment Tool (SPORAT)
Nona Riley
US Army Aviation and Missile Command
5308 Martin Road
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898
256-876-2669
nona.riley@redstone.army.mil

         The trend toward multi-service and multi-national systems acquisition has made the defense weapon system
decision environment increasingly complex. Competition has increased, resources are scarce and the impact of decision sis
far reaching, multiplying program risk exponentially. The System Performance Operational Risk Assessment Tool
(SPORAT) was developed to simultaneously simulate program cost, schedule and performance parameters allowing decision
makers to gain managerial insight into potential program risks, perform programmatic based “what if” exercises, respond to
budget or technical dilemmas, and provide a database of future performance based activity. SPORAT was deisgned for use
throughout a system’s entire life cycle. SPORAT is flexible enough to adapt to various project office business methods, as
well as to the different stages in a project’s life cycle. As decision management system, SPORAT provides the project
manager with a pro-active capability for identifying and managing risk. SPORAT is a rigorous, structured, documented and
quantitative risk analysis approach incorporating the planning, identification/assessment, analysis and handling of risk. This
paper discusses the SPORAT concept, the computer model and database management system used to implement the concept.
The theoretical concept of Operational Threat Uncertainty Assessment, as well as how to model the uncertainty of system
performance on the battlefield will also be discussed. No longer can the Department of Defense (DOD) focus solely upon
acquisition risk. Focus must now turn to the uncertainty of system performance in an unknown threat environment.

Effects of the Global War on Terrorism on Army Equipment Fleets
Major Dave Sanders
Army PA&E
703-695-3785

          This work examines the effects of the increased usage of equipment in the harsh environments of Iraq and
Afghanistan. We examine the relationship of fleet age and operational readiness and makes recommendations, which were
submitted to Congress by the DoD, on what should be done to counteract those effects. Requirements are identified to begin
restoring the Army's equipment fleets to pre-GWOT condition. Significant increases are required to the Army's
recapitalization and investment programs, resulting in increased FY05 supplemental funding requirements.

Briefing on: Global War on Terrorism Funding and Practice
Steve Sternlieb                                                 Bruce Brown
U.S. Government Accountability Office                           U.S. Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC                                                  Washington, DC
Phone: (202) 512-4534                                           Phone: (202) 512-8606
FAX: (202) 512-2501                                             FAX: (202) 512-2501
Email: sternliebs@gao.gov                                       Email: brownrb@gao.gov

         About $201.2 billion in emergency supplemental funding has been received by the Department of Defense (DOD)
for the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT) since the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 2001. Combining the
anticipated supplemental request for fiscal year 2005, $75 billion, the total will increase to $276.2 billion. Based on current
GAO work, we will describe DOD reporting on the use of GWOT funding; discuss data reliability; describe cost controls;
address how current GWOT spending may affect future annual defense budgets; and identify areas for further research by the
MORS community.




                                                                                                                       D-189
                     Decision Analysis                                                                     WG-28
CHAIR: Freeman Marvin, Innovative Decisions, Inc.
CO-CHAIRS: Jessica Sato, Boeing
Stephen Fought, Air War College
LTC Jerry Kobylski, United States Military Academy
Nisha Shah, Boeing
Richard Tepel, Mitre Corp.
ADVISOR: Christopher Zaffram, MCCDC

The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.


NRO Integrated Technical Investment Process
Capt Chris Cullenbine                                          Maj Steve Chambal
National Reconnaissance Office                                 National Reconnaissance Office
14675 Lee Road                                                 14675 Lee Road
Chantilly, VA 21051                                            Chantilly, VA 21051
Phone: 703-808-6480//Fax: 703-808-1310                         Phone: 703-808-6507//Fax: 703-808-1310
christopher.cullenbine@pentagon.af.mil                         stephen.chambal@nro.mil

          In 1999, the NRO initiated an effort to link its budget, space architecture vision, and acquisition plan. The goal was
to develop a rigorous and repeatable methodology that directly connected national priorities and information needs of the
Defense and Intelligence Communities to the NRO budget process. Thus was born the Integrated Technical Investment
Process (ITIP). The ITIP has matured over the last 5 years and continues to drive NRO investment decisions using Value
Focused Thinking (VFT) as its foundation. The core principles of VFT align perfectly with the NRO goal: identify what we
(the nation) value in terms of space intelligence assets and then fund the best set of NRO programs. The ITIP value hierarchy
begins with the nation’s intelligence topics (ITs) and priorities identified within the National Security Presidential Directive
(NSPD-26). The ITs are then linked to a set of Core Information Needs, which capture the elements of information required
to respond to each IT. The final step in the value hierarchy is to identify performance metrics, or Critical Capabilities, that
articulate platform-based capabilities. The overall value hierarchy connects ITs to satellite features by mapping from
Intelligence Topics to Core Information Needs, to Critical Capabilities. Contributors: Buddy Wood (SAIC), Terry Bresnick
(IDI), Roy Mattson (TASC), Lt. Col. Harry Newton (NRO).


Scoring the Scored Systems
Stephen O. Fought
Professor, Warfighting Department, Air War College (DFW)
Building 1401, Room 1101, Maxwell AFB, AL 36xxx
Phone: (334) 953-7113//FAX (334) 953-1988// stephen.fought@maxwell.af.mil

          Decision Analysis is a branch of operations research that models complex, uncertain, decision situations by
decomposing the situations into smaller, more manageable pieces, and then quantifying and evaluating the possible
outcomes, as well as the multiple, often competing, objectives that military leaders and decision makers must consider. This
paper examines the use of “scoring,” and what are loosely called “Scored Systems,” in Decision Analysis from two
perspectives. First, the paper questions whether or not the major simplifying assumptions of many scored systems (e.g.,
transitivity in rank-order-preference or independence of major variables) are so abstract that they cause the results to be
irrelevant. Second, the paper asks whether or not the results produced by scored systems, even if they are concrete and
relevant with respect to the individual “decision maker,” are actually useful in an environment where decisions are inherently
“political” – meaning made through a process of colliding interests, values, and relative power rather than on the basis of
economic (cost-benefit) measures. In the end, the paper will propose that scored systems might be more useful if they
focused on exposing the sources of the differences in the scored outcomes of alternatives rather than the absolute differences
in the scores -- the former being far more appropriate for generating negotiated or collaborative solutions to complex
problems.



D-190
                     Decision Analysis                                                                      WG-28
Comparison of CB Sensor Array Configurations
George Gunn                                                                         Jim Gerding
                                           Keith Gardner
Northrop Grumman IT                                                                 Defense Threat Reduction Agency TDOA
                                           Northrop Grumman IT
6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                                                       8725 John J Kingman Road, MSC 6201
                                           5695 King Centre Dr., Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22310                                                                Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
                                           Alexandria, VA 22315
Phone: 703-971-3108                                                                 Phone: 703-325-1138
                                           Phone: 703-325-6521
FAX 703-325-6591                                                                    FAX 703-325-7054
                                           FAX 703-325-6591
george.gunn@ngc.com                                                                 jgerding@cnttr.dtra.mil
                                           kgardner@cnttr.dtra.mil
Jae Han                                    James Hurd                               Eugene Visco, FS
Northrop Grumman IT                        Northrop Grumman IT                      OR Consultant
5695 King Centre Dr., Suite 310            6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210            DTRA/DTOA
Alexandria, VA 22315                       Alexandria, VA 22310                     gvisco@bellatlantic.net
703-325-6520//FAX 703-325-6591             703-971-3108//FAX 703-971-6370
jhan@cnttr.dtra.mil                        james.hurd@ngc.com

         A Monte Carlo simulation has been used to investigate a number of standard arrangements of Chemical-Biological
(CB) sensors to develop an understanding of the relative detection performance of each. The current study is part of an initial
exercising of the model to understand the limits of its use and usefulness and to develop a conceptual understanding of sensor
array variations, significant factors in scenario definition, and identification of major factors that drive results. Emphasis was
on examining the systematics and differences among various sensor arrays. Examined CB sensor configurations are defined
by using standard configurations (uniform rows and columns, “dice 5” pattern, perimeter, circle, ellipse, and random
placement). Variations in size of defended array, number of sensors available, and plume geometries were made.


Investigation into Performance Scoring for Arrays of CB Sensors
George Gunn                                    Trey DeLaPena                                   Keith Gardner
Northrop Grumman IT                             DTRA/TDOA                                      Northrop Grumman IT
6940 S. Kings Hwy., Suite 210                  5695 King Centre Dr., Suite 310                 5695 King Centre Dr., Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22310                           Alexandria, VA 22315                            Alexandria, VA 22315
Phone: 703-971-3108                            Phone: 703-325-6503                             Phone: 703-325-6521
FAX 703-325-6591                                                                               FAX 703-325-6591
george.gunn@ngc.com                                                                            kgardner@cnttr.dtra.mil

Jim Gerding                                    Jae Han                                         Eugene Visco, FS
Defense Threat Reduction Agency TDOA           Northrop Grumman IT                             OR Consultant
8725 John J Kingman Road, MSC 6201             5695 King Centre Dr., Suite 310                 DTRA/DTOA
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060                         Alexandria, VA 22315                            gvisco@bellatlantic.net
Phone: 703-325-1138//FAX 703-325-7054          Phone: 703-325-6520//FAX 703-325-6591
jgerding@cnttr.dtra.mil                        jhan@cnttr.dtra.mil

         Numerous studies have been conducted that address the issues associated with fixed site chemical-biological (CB)
agent protection via the use of a collection of point detection equipment, and, thereby, offer quantitative assessments of the
effectiveness of various sensor layout strategies. Additionally, software tools and products are under development, which
seek to “optimize” placement of CB sensors for defending generic or specific facilities. However, both of these analyses
depend upon the metric used to gauge aggregate performance. Quantization of hypothetical sensor placement geometries
requires the use of a performance scoring algorithm that reflects the expected operational viability of an actual alert. The
metrics used as performance scores has not examined in such a context. . As part of a broader sensor performance study, the
issues of identifying useful performance scoring metrics have been examined and a comparison of an assortment of metrics
has been made. Using a simplified, high-level Monte Carlo simulation, several performance scoring metrics were tested
against a number of ‘standard’ sensor array geometries. Both analytic forms and weight-based scoring algorithms were
examined. The meaningfulness of three operational situations was considered in developing and interpreting scoring metrics:
zero sensor hits, single sensor hit, and multiple hits.



                                                                                                                          D-191
                     Decision Analysis                                                                     WG-28
Analytical Support to the Headquarters & Support Activities Joint Cross Service Group
Christopher M. Hill
Center for Army Analysis
6001 Goethals Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
Phone: 703-806-5649//FAX: 703-806-5732
christopher.hill@caa.army.mil

          BRAC 2005 is unique from former rounds in that Joint Cross Service Groups (JCSG) played a pivotal role in the
realignment and transformation of the Department of Defense. This brief details the analytical support given to one of the
JCSGs—the Headquarters and Support JCSG (HSA JCSG). HSA JCSG was chartered with a review of major administrative
and headquarters functions, reserve and recruiting headquarters, Combatant Commands, common support functions,
communications and information technology, mobilization, financial management, military personnel, civilian personnel,
correctional facilities, installation management, and defense agencies. An ad hoc joint analytical team was formed to provide
quantitative analysis through the BRAC process. The team included representatives of the Center for Army Analysis (CAA),
Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency, and the Center for Naval Analyses. The team supported with statistical and data
analysis to determine capacity and requirements, multi attribute value theory to determine military, optimization models to
generate scenarios, econometric analysis to assess cost of alternatives, and expert systems to analyze impact of quality of life
and environmental factors. These analytical efforts were instrumental in the success of the HSA JCSG, even though it was
first time many of the functions were studied in a joint context.


The Requirements Prioritization System (REPS): A Decision Support Application Used
to Prioritize Computer Network Operations (CNO) Requirements
Mary Aurelia Horejs                            Christopher Degni                              Chad S. Quill
Office of Information Operations               SAIC                                           SAIC
Department of Defense                          7100 Columbia Gateway Drive                    7100 Columbia Gateway Drive
9800 Savage Road Suite 6432                    Columbia, MD 21046                             Columbia, MD 21046
Ft Meade, MD 20755-6432                        Phone: (301) 688-2479                          Phone: (301) 688-2479
Phone: (301) 688-2475                          FAX (301) 688-2803                             FAX (301) 688-2803
FAX (301) 688-2803                             degnic@saic.com                                chad.s.quill@saic.com
mahorej@nsa.gov

         The National Security Agency’s Office of Information Operations supporting United States Strategic Command’s
(USSTRATCOM’s) Computer Network Operations (CNO) requirements planning process through the development and
implementation of the Requirements Prioritization System – Extended Tool (REPS-ET). REPS-ET is a web-enabled,
platform independent decision support application utilizing multi-criteria decision analysis techniques to develop a
quantitative, tractable method of prioritizing requirements. REPS-ET allows USSTRATCOM to manage the processes
associated with CNO requirements capture, validation, revision, prioritization, resource allocation, and historical tracking.
The presentation will consist of the following three components: 1) discussion of the decision analysis techniques and
mathematical algorithms used in REPS 2.3 (the predecessor to REPS-ET which also supported the development of the 2004
USSTRATCOM CNO Requirements Integrated Priority List), 2) live demonstration of an unclassified version of the REPS
2.3 application, and 3) discussion of enhancements included in the REP-ET application currently in development.


Effects Based Operations
MAJ Robb Keeter                                                 LTC Mike Kwinn
Department of Systems Engineering                               Department of Systems Engineering
United States Military Academy                                  United States Military Academy
West Point, New York 10996-1779                                 West Point, New York 10996-1779
Phone: 845-938-4857//Fax 845-938-5919                           Phone: 845-938-6493//Fax 845-938-5919
robert.keeter@usma.edu                                          michael.kwinn@usma.edu

        Effects based operations is a relatively new term that is rapidly growing in use within the joint military environment.
Simply put it involves identifying the ultimate desired outcome of an operation and measuring the effectiveness of various
D-192
                     Decision Analysis                                                                     WG-28
alternatives in accomplishing that outcome. The current methodology used in several CINC level commands is a hybrid of a
value hierarchy and means-ends network. Unfortunately in a multiple objective environment which all military operations
exist, this hybrid does not effectively handle the problem. This paper discusses a methodology that uses alternative
generation tables and means-ends networks in conjunction with properly defined value hierarchies to assist commanders in
making optimal resource allocation decisions in both combat and OOTW scenarios.


The Hybrid Value-Utility Model for Military Decision Making
COL William K. Klimack                                          Kenneth W. Bauer, Jr.
Department of Systems Engineering                               Department of Operational Sciences
United States Military Academy                                  Air Force Institute of Technology
West Point, NY 10996                                            AFIT/ENS, Building 641
Phone: (845)-938-4698                                           2950 Hobson Way
FAX: (845)-938-5919                                             Wright Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765
william.klimack@us.army.mil                                     Phone: (937) 255-6565 x4328
                                                                Fax: (937) 656-4943
                                                                kenneth.bauer@afit.edu

          Decision analysis models may be value-function-based, or utility-function-based. In principle, value functions may
be elicited from a group of subject matter experts, such as a military staff, to provide strength of preference information for a
decision. Utility functions include the individual decision maker’s risk attitudes as well as preferences, making a utility
model difficult to elicit from busy senior decision makers. A method is developed where a value model is modified to serve
as a replacement for a standard utility model while minimizing the time required of the decision maker. Selected evaluation
measures are identified and prioritized for utility elicitation from the decision maker. These utility functions are incorporated
into the value model, producing a hybrid value-utility model that sufficiently estimates the behavior of the unknown utility
model. Such an approach is beneficial for large decision analysis problems under conditions of risk or uncertainty.


Optimizing Time Sensitive Decisions in a Networked Battle Command
                                                                                              John V. Farr
LTC Gerald C. Kobylski
                                                                                              Department of Systems
Department of Systems Engineering              Dennis M. Buede
                                                                                              Engineering
Stevens Institute of Technology                Innovative Decisions, Inc
                                                                                              Stevens Institute of Technology
Castle Point on Hudson                         Chantilly, VA 20151
                                                                                              Castle Point on Hudson
Hoboken, NJ 07030                              Phone: 703-861-3678
                                                                                              Hoboken, NJ 07030
Phone: 845-446-2364                            dbuede@innovativedecisions.com
                                                                                              Phone: 201-216-8103
gkobylski@wmconnect.com
                                                                                              jfarr@stevens.edu

         Future Combat System (FCS) battlefield commanders will have a plethora of information available that will come
from many sources. Given this overabundance of information, the commander’s dilemma will be to find optimal decisions
throughout mission duration. As noted in the Objective Force Capabilities Draft, FCS Commanders require cognitive
decision aids to enable rapid decision-action cycles with much less time and effort required to try to understand what is
happening. A decision support tool must provide insights for what information is most valuable, how to collect this
information, what decisions to make, and when to make the decisions. Most research efforts fail to achieve a representation
for decision problems having many variables such as those that exist in military decisions, particularly when the amount of
uncertainty varies over time. Current decision support tools are not mature enough to facilitate a good situational
understanding required by an FCS commander. This research explores the use of Dynamic Decision Networks (DDNs), a
concept that has recently emerged in the decision sciences. The technique solves complex decision problems that evolve
over time by merging concepts of Bayesian Networks and Influence Diagrams. DDNs provide insights not only into what
decisions to make, but also when to make them. They are an ideal aid for a decision maker faced with multiple conflicting
objectives, uncertain variables, and with many opportunities to collect information. In this presentation we will summarize
some of the current decision support tools that might assist an FCS commander such as Bayesian Networks, Influence
Diagrams, DDNs, and Dynamic Programming (DP). The emphasis of the presentation will show how and in what conditions
DDNs give a good approximation to DP, the gold standard in optimizing decision making optimization, but highly inefficient
for complex problems.

                                                                                                                         D-193
                     Decision Analysis                                                                     WG-28
Assessing Results of Annual Business Plan Goals with a Multi-Attribute Utility Model
Scott Kooistra                              Trisha Vargo                                 John Walther
Edgewood Chemical Biological Center         Edgewood Chemical Biological Center          Edgewood Chemical Biological Center
(ECBC) Decision Analysis Team               (ECBC) Decision Analysis Team                (ECBC) Decision Analysis Team
5183 Blackhawk Rd.                          5183 Blackhawk Rd.                           5183 Blackhawk Rd.
AMSRD-ECB-AP-I                              AMSRD-ECB-AP-I                               AMSRD-ECB-AP-I
APG, MD 21010-5424                          APG, MD 21010-5424                           APG, MD 21010-5424
Phone: 410-436-5834                         Phone: 410-436-4775                          Phone: 410-436-3569
FAX: 410-436-4894                           FAX: 410-436-4894                            FAX: 410-436-4894
scott.kooistra@us.army.mil                  trisha.vargo@us.army.mil                     john.walther@us.army.mil

          The Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC) develops an annual business plan and assesses progress in
achieving the business plan goals bi-annually. Current assessments are completed in a non-structured, qualitative way, using
very subjective data, and do not tie together all metrics that are individually assessed to produce an overall assessment of how
well ECBC is performing as an organization. ECBC’s senior management team believes an evaluation method that uses
more objective data, uses more structured assessment methods, and ties all assessment metrics together will complement and
provide additional insight into ECBC’s overall performance against their business plan. The ECBC Technical Director has
requested the ECBC Decision Analysis Team (DAT) develop an ECBC Business Plan Quantitative Multi-Attribute Utility
(MAU) Model. The model’s goal is to complement the current evaluation methods by annually assessing in a very
quantitative, structured, and comprehensive way how well ECBC is performing overall against their business plan. The
model will create a benchmark to compare annual results against past performance and to project expected future progress. A
significant project constraint faced by the DAT in developing the model is that user representatives and subject matter experts
(SMEs) are only minimally involved in developing and using the model. This is not typical. Gaining the level of knowledge
that the user representatives and SMEs would normally provide is a challenge but is also expected to benefit the DAT as the
team increases its knowledge level and ability to add value within ECBC. As a result of the ECBC Business Plan
Quantitative Model development, the DAT and senior ECBC management expect additional emphasis and results to occur
for each quantitative criterion within the model (e.g., dollar levels of retained funding).


Capability–Based Strategic Planning: A Multi-level Approach
James K Lowe                                Cynthia S Cycyota                           Claudia J Ferrante
Dept of Management (DFM)                    Dept of Management (DFM)                    Dept of Management (DFM)
2354 Fairchild Drive                        2354 Fairchild Drive                        2354 Fairchild Drive
US Air Force Academy, CO 80840              US Air Force Academy, CO 80840              US Air Force Academy, CO 80840
Phone: 719.333.3122                         Phone: 719.333.2321                         Phone: 719.333.9710
FAX: 719.333.9715                           FAX: 719.333.9715                           claudia.ferrante@usafa.af.mil
jim.lowe@usafa.af.mil                       cynthia.cycyota@usafa.af.mil

Steve G Green                               Kurt A Heppard                              Rita A Jordan
Dept of Management (DFM)                    Dept of Management (DFM)                    Dept of Management (DFM)
2354 Fairchild Drive                        2354 Fairchild Drive                        2354 Fairchild Drive
US Air Force Academy, CO 80840              US Air Force Academy, CO 80840              US Air Force Academy, CO 80840
Phone: 719.333.8316                         Phone: 719.333.2925                         Phone: 719.333.8729
FAX: 719.333.9715                           FAX: 719.333.9715                           FAX: 719.333.9715
steve.green@usafa.af.mil                    kurt.heppard@usafa.af.mil                   rita.jordan@usafa.af.mil


          The US Air Force Academy began a Capabilities-Based Strategic Planning (CBSP) initiative this year. CBSP
activities are underway throughout the Air Force, however the application of the approach has thus far primarily focused on
operational organizations faced with implementing the overall vision, mission, and Concept of Operations (CONOPS) as
directed by top-level commanders. Applying the CBSP methodology within a four-year education and training environment
presents unique challenges but supports the Air Force Core Competency of "Educating Airmen." The CBSP approach allows
simultaneous application at multiple levels within the organization and maintains consistency with other Air Force strategic
planning, decision making, and resource allocation efforts. We present CBSP as a strategic management concept, describe
our current efforts, and highlight the advantages of our multi-level approach.

D-194
                     Decision Analysis                                                                   WG-28

Mission-Oriented Risk and Design Analysis – A Multiple Objective Decision Analysis
Approach for System Design


Donald L. Parks
                                              Jamie A. Baker                             Donald L. Buckshaw
Department of Defense
                                              Department of Defense                      Innovative Decision, Inc.
9800 Savage Road
                                              9800 Savage Road                           1945 Old Gallows Road, Suite 215
Fort Meade, MD 20755
                                              Fort Meade, MD 20755                       Vienna, VA 22182
Phone: 410-480-3884
                                              Phone: 410-480-3884                        dbuckshaw@innovativedecisions.com
dparks@restarea.ncsc.mil
                                              jbaker@restarea.ncsc.mil
Willard L. Unkenholz
Department of Defense
9800 Savage Road, Fort Meade, MD 20755
Phone: 410-480-3884// wunkenho@restarea.ncsc.mil

          This paper details a general methodology for analyzing a portfolio of candidate information system countermeasures
or design options using the Mission-Oriented Risk and Design Analysis (MORDA) process. MORDA is a quantitative risk
assessment and design model based on the theory of Multiple Objective Decision Analysis that integrates traditional system
security techniques with the field of Decision Analysis. The purpose of MORDA is to determine the best investment strategy
for designing a secure and functional information system. With MORDA, the candidate design options are evaluated with
the intent to maximize the information system’s ability to support an organization’s mission and operations within a hostile
and malicious operating environment. Once completed, the rigorous, structured MORDA process results in a set of well-
defined, unbiased and unambiguous set of security, operational and financial metrics that can be applied to solve a vast array
of system security engineering problems. MORDA has been successfully used to protect seven Department of Defense
information systems, but can also be used for physical systems for anti-terrorism strategies.


Automating The Base Camp Master Planning Process
LTC Robert A. Powell                      2LT Matthew Gilbert                        2LT Cameron Keogh
Department of Systems Engineering         Department of Systems Engineering          Department of Systems Engineering
United States Military Academy            United States Military Academy             United States Military Academy
West Point, New York 10996                West Point, New York 10996                 West Point, New York 10996
845-938-4311//FAX 845-938-5919            845-938-4311//FAX 845-938-5919             845-938-4311//FAX 845-938-5919
fr8526@usma.edu                           matthew.c.gilbert@us.army.mil              cameron.m.keogh@us.army.mil

2LT Daniel Lao                            2LT John Lee                               2LT David Smith
Department of Systems Engineering         Department of Systems Engineering          Department of Systems Engineering
United States Military Academy            United States Military Academy             United States Military Academy
West Point, New York 10996                West Point, New York 10996                 West Point, New York 10996
845-938-4311/FAX 845-938-5919             845-938-4311//FAX 845-938-5919             845-938-4311//FAX 845-938-5919
daniel.j.lao@us.army.mil                  john.w.lee@us.army.mil                     david.a.smith@us.army.mil

         The military increasingly needs to plan for, and execute, fast deployments of forces in support of the full continuum
of military operations - Combat, Support, Peacekeeping and Humanitarian. Contingency and long-term base camps are
constructed to sustain forces deployed to support these military operations and therefore require adequate planning. The base
camp master planning tool is a tool designed to adequately and efficiently plan construction of base camps. The tool consists
of several nodes in which the planner, decision maker, and/or commander can assign weights to elements within each node
based on relative importance. The tool primarily focuses on application of decision analysis that supports multi-stage
decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. The output of the tool will define a Priorities of Work or order of
construction for base camps. The tool is not intended to replace the commander's decision but simply to add efficiency to the
base camp planning process and aid the commander in the decision process. The objective is to describe development and


                                                                                                                      D-195
                     Decision Analysis                                                                     WG-28
applicability of the base camp master planning tool, which encourages a comprehensive approach in planning the
construction of base camps in support of various military operations.


The Transitional Planning and Analysis Methodology (TPAM): A Decision Support
Application used to support a Decision Maker’s strategy for migrating large programs
through their lifecycles
Larry J. Pulcher                               Meghan K. Callahan                             Garrett T. Carstens
SAIC                                           SAIC                                           SAIC
7100 Columbia Gateway Drive                    7100 Columbia Gateway Drive                    7100 Columbia Gateway Drive
Columbia, MD 21046                             Columbia, MD 21046                             Columbia, MD 21046
Phone: (410) 312-2229                          Phone: (410) 312-2214                          Phone: (410) 872-1354
FAX (410) 872-1355                             FAX (410) 872-1355                             FAX (410) 872-1355
larry.j.pulcher@saic.com                       meghan.k.callahan@saic.com                     garrett.t.carstens@saic.com

         TPAM derives acceptable strategies for migrating complex maturing systems through their life cycles by completing
four key tasks. It first creates a roadmap, or vision that helps a program transition from its current state to an intended final
state. Second, it provides for a quantitative assessment of incremental capabilities resulting from Decision Maker’s actions
(choices), and the associated confidence they have in their ability to reach the envisioned goals. Third, TPAM provides a
barometer to not only measure and display progress along the roadmap but to also show, through comparative metrics, any
deviations that exist from the original path. Fourth, TPAM provides a number of performances indicators from which
Decision Makers can assess progress with sufficient lead-time to permit adjustments. The presentation will consist of the
following three components: 1) discussion of the philosophy used in development of TPAM; a philosophy of using
good/bettor versus “perfect” solutions 2) live demonstration of an unclassified version of the TPAM application, and 3)
discussion of future enhancements of TPAM, including snapshot optimization using commercial tools such as Lingo.


System Performance Operational Risk Assessment Tool (SPORAT)
Nona Riley
AMSAM-DSS
U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command
Building 5308 Room 8440
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898
Phone: (256) 876-2669
FAX (256) 876-2817
nona.riley@redstone.army.mil

         The trend toward multi-service and multi-national systems acquisition has made the defense weapon system
decision environment increasingly complex. Competition has increased, resources are scarce and the impact of decisions is
far reaching, multiplying program risk exponentially. The System Performance Operational Risk Assessment Tool
(SPORAT) was developed to simultaneously simulate program cost, schedule and performance parameters allowing decision
makers to gain managerial insight into potential program risks, perform programmatic based “what if” exercises, respond to
budget or technical dilemmas, and provide a database of future performance based activity. SPORAT was designed for use
throughout a system’s entire life cycle. SPORAT is flexible enough to adapt to various project office business methods, as
well as to the different stages in a project’s life cycle. As decision management system, SPORAT provides the project
manager with a pro-active capability for identifying and managing risk. SPORAT is a rigorous, structured, documented and
quantitative risk analysis approach incorporating the planning, identification/assessment, analysis and handling of risk. This
paper discusses the SPORAT concept, the computer model and database management system used to implement the concept.
The theoretical concept of Operational Threat Uncertainty Assessment, as well as how to model the uncertainty of system
performance on the battlefield will also be discussed. No longer can the Department of Defense (DOD) focus solely upon
acquisition risk. Focus must now turn to the uncertainty of system performance in an unknown threat environment.




D-196
                     Decision Analysis                                                                     WG-28
Development of a GPS Decision Analysis Process Which Identifies High Leverage
Military Tasks for A GPS Technology
Nisha R. Shah                                                    Suzanne Bergman
The Boeing Company, PO Box 516, MC S064-2233                     The Boeing Company, PO Box 516, MC S064-2233
St. Louis, MO 63166-0516                                         St. Louis, MO 63166-0516
Phone: (314) 234-1196//FAX: (314) 234-4433                       Phone: (314) 232-5398//FAX: (314) 234-4433
nisha.r.shah@boeing.com                                          suzanne.p.bergman@boeing.com

          The GPS Decision Analysis Process successfully utilized subject matter expertise in order to perform a high level
identification and ranking of potential military tasks for a specific GPS technology. The process resulted in the selection of
specific high performing tasks to pursue for demonstration purposes. The process begins by identifying candidate military
tasks. Military tasks are then prioritized by a facilitated group of subject matter experts based on the need to improve the task
as well as the ability of the GPS technology to improve the task as compared to rival technologies. Finally, cost, technical
risk and political risks are examined for the prioritized military tasks. The process allowed for a prioritization of military
tasks based on both the need for task improvement as well as a given technology’s ability to perform the task relative to the
ability of competing technologies. The GPS Decision Analysis Process is a relatively quick, highly tailorable process based
on subject matter expertise that may be utilized for a variety of applications. The focus of this paper will be the way in which
this process was utilized to rank potential military tasks for a specific GPS technology.


It’s the People, Stupid: The Role of Personality and Situational Variables in Predicting
Decisionmaker Behavior
Paul J. Sticha                              Dennis M. Buede                              Richard L. Rees
HumRRO                                      Innovative Decisions, Inc.                   Office of Transnational Issues
66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 400            2139 Golf Course Drive                       Central Intelligence Agency
Alexandria, VA 22314-1591                   Reston, VA 20191                             Washington, DC 20505
(703) 706-5635//FAX: (703) 549-7854          (703) 861-3678//FAX: (703) 860-8639         (703) 874-3880//FAX: (703) 874-3875
psticha@humrro.org                          dbuede@innovativedecisions.com               richarz@ucia.gov


          This presentation describes an effort to combine personality and situational variables to predict a decision maker’s
actions. Bayesian networks combine and graphically array these variables as determinants of various outcomes, and show
explicit levels of (un)certainty of the predictions. Relevant personality variables were identified from sources in the political
and psychological research literature. The probabilistic relationships between these variables were estimated using expert
judgment supported by empirical research results. These relationships were incorporated into the Bayesian network, as were
relationships between the variables and their measures. The network allowed us to represent the validity of a measure, as
well as the correlations between different variables. A set of linking variables was developed to relate personality to
characteristics of behaviors. We illustrate the modeling methodology using a model taken from real world events. The
model illustrates the different effects that situational and personality information may have on a prediction as it is updated
with new evidence—the network can accommodate most kinds of data including expert judgment. Personality information
may be most useful when information about the situation is limited. We briefly describe our current research examining the
relationship among personality variables, and the relationship between personality and actions in greater detail.


Using Decision Analysis for BRAC 200
COL William Tarantino                                            MAJ Paul (Lee) Ewing
Chief, Modeling Support Division                                 Center for Army Analysis
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army                           Ft Belvoir, VA
(Infrastructure Analysis)                                        Phone: (703) 806-5446
Phone: (703) 696-9529//FAX: (703) 696-2195                       FAX: 703-806-5732
william.tarantino@us.army.mil                                    paul.ewing@us.army.mil




                                                                                                                         D-197
                     Decision Analysis                                                                    WG-28
Gregory S. Parnell, FS                                          MAJ John Harris
Professor of Systems Engineering                                Department of Systems Engineering
Department of Systems Engineering                               United States Military Academy
United States Military Academy                                  West Point, New York 10996-1779
West Point, New York 10996-1779                                 Phone: 845-938-4374
Phone: 845-938-4374//FAX: 845-938-5919                          FAX: 845-938-5919
gregory.parnell@usma.edu                                        john.harris@usma.edu

          Army installations provide facilities and maneuver space to organize, train and equip the United States Army. Four
previous BRAC rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995, resulted in 97 major domestic base closures, 55 major base
realignments, and 235 minor installations being either closed or realigned. Congress enacted legislation in 2002 for a BRAC
round to start in 2005. The Army must assess the military value of each installation to insure that it has a portfolio of
installations that will enable the Army to perform its current and future missions. We describe the methodology the Army
used to support BRAC decision-making.


Development of the Quick Automated Tool for Optimization (QATO) tool suite to support
the Air Force Space Command’s Integrated Planning Process
John R. Tindle                                                  Danny L. Mellott
Northrop Grumman IT – TASC                                      Northrop Grumman IT – TASC
Lightning Solutions – West                                      Space Operations and Systems Division
1795 Jet Wing Drive #200,                                       1795 Jet Wing Drive Suite 200
Colorado Springs, CO 80916                                      Colorado Springs, CO 80916
Phone: (719) 622-5205//FAX: (719) 638-8296                      Phone: (719) 622-5191//FAX: (719) 638-8296
john.tindle@ngc.com                                             danny.mellott@ngc.com

         Originally designed as a quick turn-around planning tool to support the Air Force Space Command’s (AFSPC)
Integrated Planning Process (IPP) pathfinder analysis, the Quick Automated Tool for Optimization (QATO) has evolved into
an Excel-based suite of tools capable of performing POM support, Analysis of Alternatives (AoAs), cut drills, and
operational impact analyses. QATO allows the analyst to visually depict, modify, and conduct comparison of roadmaps by
task effectiveness and cost. QATO provides a quick comparison of roadmaps by task effectiveness by year, total roadmap
cost by fiscal year to budget authority, and roadmap cost for different budgets by fiscal year. QATO provides the ability to
modify a given roadmap by turning systems on or off, changing start/IOC/FOC/stop dates or by changing the budget
authority. QATO allows the decision maker to quickly and efficiently assess the impacts of system and budgetary changes.


The Analytical Process Used to Develop Military Utility-Based Architectures for the Air
Force Space Command’s Integrated Planning Process
John R. Tindle                             Danny L. Mellott                           Joyce Stivers
Northrop Grumman IT – TASC                 Northrop Grumman IT – TASC                 Northrop Grumman IT – TASC
Lightning Solutions – West                 Space Operations and Systems Division      Space Operations and Systems Division
1795 Jet Wing Drive Suite 200              1795 Jet Wing Drive Suite 200              1795 Jet Wing Drive Suite 200
Colorado Springs, CO 80916                 Colorado Springs, CO 80916                 Colorado Springs, CO 80916
(719) 622-5205//FAX: (719) 638-8296        (719) 622-5191//FAX: (719) 638-8296        (719) 622-5240//FAX: (719) 638-8296
john.tindle@ngc.com                        danny.mellott@ngc.com                      joyce.stivers@ngc.com

         Prior to the FY06 budget build, the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) relied solely on the Aerospace Integrated
Investment Software (ASIIS - formerly SCOUT) to generate integrated architectures (family-of-systems) during the
Integrated Investment Analysis (IIA) phase of their Integrated Planning Process (IPP). However, no true measure of military
utility was generated. AFSPC initiated an IPP Pathfinder effort to explore new analytical methods, starting with the
Counterspace mission area. To support the AFSPC pathfinder analysis, the analytical team created a new ground-breaking
analytical process and suite of tools to develop Military Utility-Based Architectures. This process resulted in the integration
of several analytical tools, including ASIIS, Quick Automated Tool for Optimization (QATO), Hierarchy Analysis Tool
(HAT) and Lightning Campaign Model. Model inputs were standardized and data iterated between the analytical tools to
develop architectures that were feasible, provided the greatest “bang-for-buck”, and maximized military utility.
D-198
                     Decision Analysis                                                                    WG-28
USMA Study of the Installation Management Agency CONUS Region Structure
LTC Tim Trainor                                                 Gregory S. Parnell, FS
Department of Systems Engineering                               Professor of Systems Engineering
United States Military Academy                                  Department of Systems Engineering
West Point, New York 10996-1779                                 United States Military Academy
Phone: 845-938-5534                                             West Point, New York 10996-1779
FAX: 845-938-5919                                               Phone: 845-938-4374//FAX: 845-938-5919
tim.trainor@usma.edu                                            gregory.parnell@usma.edu

          In 2002, as part of the larger US Army transformation process, responsibility for installation management was
reorganized under the Installation Management Agency ((IMA). The IMA built an organizational structure that uses four
regions in the continental United States (CONUS)) to help manage installations. After the initial implementation period of
IMA, the Army leadership ordered a study in the summer of 2004 to determine if these regions provided the necessary
structure for managing installations in CONUS. This study used a decision analysis approach to evaluate the current
structure and provided and provided recommendations for potential alternative structures. To compare organizational design
alternatives, the study team developed a quantitative analysis model using the organization functions as the foundation for the
evaluation. The study provided the quantitative analysis to show that four regions was the right number for IMA to use for
effective installation management. The analysis demonstrated that decreasing the number of regions would significantly
reduce the value-added of IMA to installation management, while increasing the number of regions would provide little
additional benefit.


Decision Analysis in Support of the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center’s Homeland
Defense Business Unit Special Projects Team
Trisha Vargo                                  Scott Kooistra                                Freeman Marvin
Edgewood Chemical Biological Center           Edgewood Chemical Biological Center           Innovative Decisions, Inc.
(ECBC) Decision Analysis Team                 (ECBC) Decision Analysis Team                 1945 Old Gallows Road, Suite 215
5183 Blackhawk Rd.AMSRD-ECB-AP-I              5183 Blackhawk Rd.AMSRD-ECB-AP-I              Vienna, VA 22182
APG, MD 21010-5424                            APG, MD 21010-5424                            Phone: 703-593-5335
410-436-4775//FAX: 410-436-4894               410-436-5834//FAX: 410-436-4894               ffmarvin@innovativedecisions.com
trisha.vargo@us.army.mil                      scott.kooistra@us.army.mil

          The Special Projects Team (SPT) was established in 1999 as a part of the Edgewood Chemical Biological Centers
Homeland Defense Business Unit. As a result of the September 11th terrorist attack and the subsequent Anthrax and Ricin
mail threats, the SPT focused their efforts on the need for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNE)
screening of mail. The SPT has developed procedures capable of monitoring, detecting, and identifying contaminated mail.
The SPT has provided support to several customers in the development of unique mail processing procedures to include mail
arrival, inspection, examination and distribution. The SPT successfully designed a unique mail processing facility for one of
their customers; however, as time passed the customer’s incoming mail volume increased, which resulted in the creation of
backlog. As the backlog increased, the SPT needed to determine the most effective way to eliminate the backlog. The
Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC) Decision Analysis Team (DAT) worked with the SPT to develop a
simulation model, using the simulation software package Extend™, to replicate the customer’s unique mail processing
procedures. The DAT and the SPT worked together to identify the simulation model objectives, the critical processing
elements and the significant processing variables (incoming volume, arrival time, type of incoming item, the number of
CBRNE hits, etc.). The DAT worked with the SPT to develop, populate, verify, and validate the simulation model to ensure
an accurate representation of the customer’s mail processing procedures. The SPT was able to use the mail processing
simulation model to determine the effects of several processing scenarios in eliminating the backlog. The simulation model
has allowed the SPT to determine the appropriate processing improvements (adding personnel, adding shifts, adding
screening hoods, etc.) prior to implementation, as well as to determine the effect of various processing scenarios without
disrupting the ongoing mail processing procedures. The DAT is currently working with the SPT to develop a multi-customer
simulation model to determine the effects on processing resources (personnel, lab analysis, supplies, etc.) given multiple
customers with unique processing requirements. The multi-customer simulation model can also be used to help the SPT plan
and design mail processing procedures prior to implementation, as a marketing tool, as well as an interactive planning tool to
help operations managers reduce processing inefficiencies and prevent bottlenecks.


                                                                                                                       D-199
                     Decision Analysis                                                                    WG-28
Decision Analysis in support of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development
System (JCIDS) process
Lindsey Wurster                               Steve Hyde                                John Walther
Edgewood Chemical Biological Center           Northrop Grumman TASC                     Edgewood Chemical Biological Center
(ECBC) Decision Analysis Team                 4805 Stonecroft Blvd.                     (ECBC) Decision Analysis Team
5183 Blackhawk Rd.                            Chantilly, VA 20151                       5183 Blackhawk Rd.
AMSRD-ECB-AP-I                                Phone: 703-961-3404                       AMSRD-ECB-AP-I
APG, MD 21010-5424                            stephen.hyde@ngc.com                      APG, MD 21010-5424
Phone: 410-436-8683                                                                     Phone: 410-436-3569
FAX: 410-436-4894                                                                       FAX: 410-436-4894
lindsey.wurster@us.army.mil                                                             john.walther@us.army.mil

         In June 2003, the Department of Defense established the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System
(JCIDS) process to govern the translation of the new joint concepts for the conduct of future military operations into military
capability requirements. This is a capabilities centered process which is designed to improve joint warfighting, systems
procurement, and capability development. The JCIDS process consists of three main areas: the Functional Area Analysis
(FAA), the Functional Needs Analysis (FNA), and the Functional Solutions Analysis (FSA). These three areas determine
what is needed to achieve key objectives in a capability area, assess whether current systems can meet those needs, and
review all potential solutions to mitigate or meet the objectives identified. (http://www.ndu.edu/library/docs/jt-transf-
roadmap2004.pdf) The Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC) Decision Analysis Team (DAT) has developed a
methodology for supporting the analysis required by the JCIDS process. The DAT used this process to support JCIDS
analyses conducted by the United States Army Chemical School (CMLS) in two separate areas: Distance Obscuration and
Obscuration Automation/Sensing. Distance Obscuration is defined as the ability to project obscuration onto threat forces, or
to obscure a large area of friendly forces for screening purposes. Obscuration Automation/Sensing involves the ability to
effectively plan obscuration missions, effectively employ obscuration, and accurately track both friendly and threat
obscuration. The methodology developed by the DAT is a qualitative based assessment process which is designed
specifically to address the assortment of variables which have an effect on the identification and evaluation of potential
solutions. A framework for formulating Ideas for Materiel Approaches (IMA) and conducting an Analysis of Materiel
Approaches (AMA) was developed and used by a panel of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to generate the ideas and execute
the analysis. The results of this FSA will be used by the CMLS to provide recommendations for equipping the Future Force
with the best possible solutions to fulfill their Obscuration needs.




D-200
Modeling, Simulation, & Wargaming                                                                    WG-29
CHAIR: William “Al” Sawyers, Marine Corps Studies and Analysis
CO-CHAIRS: Kirk Meyer, Veridian Engineering
Daniel Purcell, Marine Corps Studies and Analysis
Capt Eunice Ciskowski, Air Force Studies and Analyses Agency
Leroy “Jack” Jackson, TRADOC Analysis Center
Major Thomas Rippert, US Military Academy
ADVISOR: Kenneth Dzierzanowski, The MITRE Corporation


The following abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by principal author.

Social Network Analysis Using Fuzzy Sets
Richard Avila                                                 Jacob Shapiro
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory           Stanford University - Department of Political Science
11100 Johns Hopkins Road 20723                                Encina Hall West, Room 100
Laurel, MD 20723                                              Stanford, CA 94305
240-228-5982                                                  978-694-6646
Richard.Avila@jhuapl.edu                                      Jacob.Shapiro@verizon.net

         A modeling framework is presented to analyze the effects of culture on the dynamics of small to medium sized
social networks. The hybrid framework utilizes fuzzy set theoretic concepts in a monte carlo simulation. A network is defined
where the nodes are members of the network and the weight of the edges represent the subjective strength of the relationships
between agents. These weights are determined by applying a fuzzy set metric to Axelrod’s canonical model of culture. The
network’s influence on agents is determined by the relative strengths and graph theoretic distance between agents. Using
simulation, interesting results were obtained for both simple abstract networks and larger social networks modeled on Al
Qaeda. In conclusion, this framework provides a mechanism to model social network dynamics where both cultural traits and
network topology are of principal interest.

Building Analysis Module (BAM)
Anna Barnette
AAC/ENAW
System Effectiveness Branch
Analysis Division
Engineering Directorate
Air Armament Center
101 West Eglin Blvd., Ste 384
Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5499
850-883-5286
FAX 850-882-9049
anna.barnette@eglin.af.mil

         The Building Analysis Module (BAM) is an operational-level tool used to evaluate weapon effects on above ground
buildings. The Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME) sponsored the development of
BAM; the module is included in WinJMEM and is distributed with JAWS. BAM evaluates the effectiveness of a weapon
against a building in terms of structural and/or functional damage resulting from an attack.
         BAM calculates the actual expected damage caused by the weapon/target interactions using a Monte Carlo analysis.
This differs from other WinJMEM methodologies, which use Effectiveness Indices (EIs) to analyze weapon effects. BAM
computes damage due to penetration, blast, fragmentation, and collapse.
         The targeted buildings are generated automatically by BAM with its target model generator. The current
construction types in BAM are masonry, steel framed, reinforced concrete framed, and precast concrete framed. The
construction types planned for the near future are adobe, wood framed, and heavy crane.



                                                                                                                      D-201
Modeling, Simulation, & Wargaming                                                                    WG-29
Infantry Warrior Simulation (IWARS) and Future Applications
Brad W. Bradley                                                Robert Auer
U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity                   U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center
392 Hopkins Road                                               ATTN: AMSSB-RSS-MA(N)
ATTN: MASRD-AMS-CA                                             Natick, MA 01760-5020
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5071                         508-233-5529
410-278-2101                                                   FAX 508-233-4197
FAX 410-278-2043                                               Robert.Auer@natick.army.mil
Brad.W.Bradley@us.army.mil

         The US Army Materiel Systems Activity (AMSAA) and the Natick Soldier Center are developing the Infantry
Warrior Simulation (IWARS) to conduct system performance analysis of weapons, equipment, and tactics, techniques and
procedures as employed by the Infantry Soldier performing dismounted tasks. IWARS will model the “Soldier-as-a-System”
to assess the impact of technologies on missions accomplishment. Features to be represented include:
         ♦ intelligent-agent modeling to explicitly represent soldier cognitive abilities (e.g., situational awareness, impact
               of information) and technologies that impact decision-making
         ♦ standard Army algorithms related to Soldier performance (e.g., target engagement / lethality / survivability /
               mobility / etc.)
         ♦ emerging methodologies to address soldier modeling shortfalls (e.g., human-centered target acquisition (TA),
               TA in urban environments, short-range target engagement rules, suppression of the Soldier, etc.).
         IWARS is envisioned to support research, Development, and Acquisition (RDA) and Advanced Concepts and
Requirements (ACR) modeling and simulation domain applications.
         This presentation will provide an overview of IWARS analysis requirements; IWARS-Alpha / IWARS-Beta /
IWARSv1.0 development program; IWARS configuration management (to include VV&A and interactions within the larger
modeling, simulation, and analysis community (e.g., PEO Soldier, COMBATXXI, OneSAF, etc.).

Measuring the “Will to Fight” in Simulation
Paul J. Bross
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Center for Innovation
7021 Harbour View Boulevard (Suite 105)
Suffolk, VA 23435
757-935-9504
FAX 757-935-9233
Cell: 703-409-5341
Email: Paul.Bross@lmco.com

          It is recognized by military historians and students of warfare that elements within each fighting force - morale,
leadership, etc. - have a significant impact on battlefield outcomes. Such so-called “soft factors” can influence the battle
towards victory or defeat. History is replete with examples of smaller, well-disciplined forces taking the fight to the enemy
and being victorious. However, these elements of combat performance are seldom modeled explicitly in simulations at the
campaign level. The Joint Warfare Simulation (JWARS) is one of the few models that incorporates explicit behavioral soft
factors that can influence battle outcome. During the Unified Vision 04 (UV04) wargame conducted by the US Joint Forces
Command (JFCOM), the JWARS model was used in conjunction with a political-economic model to represent the interplay
of morale and cohesion as it affected the enemy force “will to fight”. Following the wargame, the Joint Experimentation
Analysis Division conducted a series of examinations on the sensitivity of the JWARS model to various morale settings to
further inform the analytical team as to the utility of this approach in future wargaming and modeling efforts. This
presentation describes the JWARS soft factors implementation and the results of that series of sensitivity experiments.




D-202
Modeling, Simulation, & Wargaming                                                                      WG-29
Design of Experiments (DOE)—Its Role in Validation of STORM Based on THUNDER
Tom Chwastyk
AFSAA/SAA
1777 N. Kent St.
Rosslyn, VA 22209
703-588-8672 (DSN 425-8672)
FAX 703-696-8738 (DSN 426-8738)
Thomas.Chwastyk@pentagon.af.mil

         STORM is the U.S. Air Force's next-generation campaign analysis system, designed to replace THUNDER.
STORM is a stochastic, discrete-event simulation tool. It represents a new approach in analytic model implementation by
featuring maximum use of freeware/GOTS software and multi-platform compatibility.
         A new simulation can be validated by “comparison” with an accepted simulation over a scenario set of interest.
However, complexity of both input and output for these simulations makes “comparison” impractical except by statistical
tools.
         To explore relationships between STORM and THUNDER, Design Of Experiments (DOE) will be used to screen
for significant input variables (input dimension reduction), to assess significance of output differences (output dimension
reduction), and to produce multivariate residuals from modeled relationship(s) between the simulations. Exploration of
residuals through data mining techniques should confirm completeness of the modeled relationships, or may reveal
unexpected additional relationships. Such unexpected relationships would be impossible to find except by mining balanced
residuals.
         DOE should show THUNDER users the relationship of STORM to THUNDER, helping to gain acceptance for the
new standard. This presentation will provide an opportunity for those interested in DOE to discuss how systematic
exploration of inputs and assessment of output differences over scenarios of agreed interest can underpin the transition to a
new standard.

Integrated Analysis Tools for Military Operations Other Than War
John Cipparone                                                  Curtis Blais
Dynamics Research Corporation                                   MOVES Institute
MetroPlace 1 Building                                           Naval Postgraduate School
2650 Park Tower Drive, Suite 400                                700 Dyer Road RM366
Vienna, VA 22180                                                Monterey, CA 93943
571-226-2765//FAX 571-226-8640                                  831-656-3215//FAX 831-656-7599
jcipparone@drc.com                                              clblais@nps.edu

Dr. Dean S. Hartley, III                                        Wayne Randolph
Hartley Consulting                                              Dynamics Research Corporation
106 Windsong Lane                                               3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 100
Oak Ridge, TN 37830                                             Orlando, FL 32817
865-482-3268// DSHartley3@comcast.net                           407-380-1200// wrandolph@drc.com

          Current military operations are exceedingly complex, reaching far beyond direct combat operations into social,
political, and economic dimensions. The importance of “military operations other than war” (MOOTW) continues to grow.
Military analysts, at home and deployed, require a comprehensive set of modeling, simulation, data base, and other
computational tools to rapidly represent the operational situation and to perform various analyses to assist in planning, course
of action evaluation, decision support, rehearsal, and training.
          In response to documented operational needs for modeling peace support operations as well as non-force-on-force
and stability operations, the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO) continues to explore modeling and simulation
technologies relevant to MOOTW. An initial prototype MOOTW “toolbox” has been developed comprising a collection of
software capabilities loosely integrated to facilitate data and scenario re-use. This presentation will describe the current
operational status of the MOOTW Flexible Asymmetric Simulation Technologies (FAST) toolbox, providing a brief
overview of functional capabilities and proposed additions to the tool set. The presentation will include an example of
employment of the toolbox to represent and analyze an operational situation. Finally, the paper will describe lessons learned
from application of the toolbox in an instructional setting at the Naval Postgraduate School.


                                                                                                                        D-203
Modeling, Simulation, & Wargaming                                                                    WG-29
Synthetic Theater Operations Research Model (STORM)
Capt Eunice Ciskowski
AFSAA/SAA, 1570 Air Force Pentagon, Washington DC 20330-1570
703-588-8606//FAX 703-696-8738// eunice.ciskowski@pentagon.af.mil

          STORM is the U.S. Air Force's next-generation, campaign analysis system. It is a stochastic, discrete-event,
simulation tool designed for the analysis of Joint War Fighting issues. STORM represents a new approach in analytic model
implementation, featuring maximum use of freeware/GOTS software (GNU compiler, MySQL database, MS Office(tm)
tools, OpenMap, et al) and multi-platform compatibility (currently SUN-Solaris, PC-Linux, and PC-Win-XP). AFSAA
released STORM version 1.2 with classified databases in January 2005.
          The STORM development mission is to provide flexible, credible, and usable representations of air, space, land, and
maritime operations in an information-constrained, C4ISR environment. STORM is chartered to model regional conflicts for
weeks-to-months of simulated time. STORM's stochastic representations and output mechanisms are designed to evaluate
comparative capabilities and risks across the operational tradespace. STORM also incorporates an EBO model enabling
analysis of non-lethal effects on war outcomes.
          The Common Analysis Simulation Architecture (CASA) underpinning STORM is an object-oriented, C++
framework designed to link simulations to database mechanisms, input interfaces, and output visualization and analysis tools.
STORM is currently one of two Air Force simulations to take advantage of CASA. This highly reconfigurable approach to
analytic systems allows users to define their own custom analysis tool suite and significantly reduce life cycle costs.
          This presentation will provide the current status of the STORM program and classified data development. More
detailed information will be provided during demonstrations of STORM (on-going throughout the symposium).

Assessing Blue Force Synergies with Input-Output Modeling
Dr. Mark A. Gallagher                     Dr. Mark A. Brown                         Dr. James P. Kelly
Analysis Management Division (J82)        Analysis Management Division (J82)        OptTek Systems, Inc.
United States Strategic Command           United States Strategic Command           1919 Seventh Street
901 SAC Blvd, STE 2F16                    901 SAC Blvd, STE 2F16                    Boulder, CO 80302
Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6500                 Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6500                 303-447-3255 x101
402-294-1938 (DSN 271-6148)               402-294-1938 (DSN 271-6148)               Kelly@OptTek.com
FAX 402-294-6148 (DSN 217-6148)           FAX 402-294-6148 (DSN 217-6148)
gallaghm@stratcom.mil                     gallaghm@stratcom.mil

         Input-Output is a macro-economic technique to evaluate the interaction between interrelated sectors. Leontief
developed the input-output model with two assumptions: constant returns to scale and homogeneity of resources. We present
an input-output model of blue forces that accesses the synergistic effectiveness between combat and supporting forces. We
estimate coefficients of production with Multi-Service Force Deployment (MFSD) data since these represent planned levels
of both combat and supporting forces. These coefficients are fixed because of the constant returns assumption. We base our
sectors on the Joint Capability Areas to address concerns of homogeneity of resources. We derive a model useful for
aggregate assessment of capability gaps and excesses for any given scenario. In addition our presentation includes an
approach to evaluate the sensitivity of model parameters and to optimize nonlinear external measures of effectiveness.

Joint Targeting in the Advanced Warfighting Simulation (AWARS)
Cindy L. Grier                                                 MAJ Robert D. Bradford
Model Management and Development Directorate                   Future Concepts Directorate
TRADOC Analysis Center                                         TRADOC Analysis Center
ATTN: ATRC-FM, 255 Sedgwick Avenue                             ATTN: ATRC-FF, 255 Sedgwick Avenue
Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345                                 Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345
913-684-9261// FAX 913-684-9232                                913-684-9214//FAX 913-684-9189
cindy.grier@trac.army.mil                                      robert.bradford@trac.army.mil

         TRADOC Analysis Center strives to create and maintain robust and accurate Simulations. To further this goal,
TRAC is designing and implementing a Joint Targeting methodology which is an operational requirement for AWARS.
AWARS provides the Army with a single operational level, High Level Architecture (HLA) compliant simulation for
analysis, which is also capable of driving experiments and demonstrations when coupled with the current, future, and
D-204
Modeling, Simulation, & Wargaming                                                                  WG-29
surrogate battle command syste Architecturally, AWARS provides a multi-sided, deterministic, discrete event simulation
environment representing the full range of combined arms combat with joint contribution appropriate for Unit of
Employment/Joint Task Force studies and analysis. The joint targeting methodology must function well in both the
analytical and experimentation environment. This presentation describes the Joint Targeting methodology implemented in
AWARS.

Warfighter Information Network – Tactical (WIN-T)
 Steven K. Herndon                         Andrew L. Buchholz                    Bernd Ingram
 Joint and Combined Operations             Joint and Combined Operations         ESP
 Directorate                               Directorate                           255 Sedgwick Avenue
 TRADOC Analysis Center                    TRADOC Analysis Center                Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345
 Attn: ATRC-FJ                             Attn: ATRC-FJ                         913-684-9160
 255 Sedgwick Avenue                       255 Sedgwick Avenue                   FAX 913-684-9191
 Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345            Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345        Bernd.Ingram.Contractor@trac.army.mil
 913-684-3251//FAX 913-684-9191            913-684-9218//FAX 913-684-9191
 Steve.Herndon@trac.army.mil               Andrew.Buchholz@trac.army.mil

         The purpose of the Warfighter Information Network – Tactical (WIN-T) study was to conduct an Analysis of
Alternatives to inform the Army Milestone B decision and identify the preferred alternative to support the Future Force
warfighting requirements. Key study elements of the AoA included network performance, operational effectiveness, cost,
affordability, logistical support, and training.
         To best support the study questions and provide a consistent, tightly bound analysis, the study was executed
sequentially with each step supporting the work of the subsequent steps. The primary steps in the analysis included:
development of a robust, comprehensive set of Information Exchange Requirements (IERs), the development and vetting of
the alternative network architectures, performance analysis results providing comparing the alternative’s capabilities,
development of the communications inputs into the combat modeling based upon the performance modeling, and an
operational assessment of the capabilities associated for each alternative network.
         The results showed the WIN-T alternative to outperform the other alternatives in both performance and operational
effectiveness by a wide margin. Additional benefits were recognized in logistical support and training with WIN-T having
the lowest life cycle costs.

Space-Based Radar (SBR) Interface for the Advanced Warfighting Simulation (AWARS)
Robert E Horton II
Model Management and Development Directorate
TRADOC Analysis Center
ATTN: ATRC-FM, 255 Sedgwick Avenue
Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2345
913-684-5750//FAX 913-684-9232
robert.hortonii@us.army.mil

         The Advanced Warfighting Simulation (AWARS) Space-Based Radar (SBR) effort provides an interface through
which AWARS entities are represented in an SBR federate model and by which SBR reports detections of those entities for
use in the AWARS fusion methodology. AWARS is a Unit of Employment (UE) level, deterministic, multi-sided, event-
driven simulation representing system on system effects in an aggregate context. AWARS transfers platform details to SBR
which then, as coverage requests bubble-up, reports back platform locations and strengths. The AWARS/SBR linkage
interface uses the Application Inter-Process Communications Module (AIM) which leverages the High Level Architecture
(HLA) Run-Time Interface (RTI). Entity messages are sent to SBR as objects while request and response messages are sent
as interactions. The interface also provides a means of synchronizing multiple federates via an interaction status message.
SBR provides AWARS with a theater-level sensor capable of performing Synthetic-Aperture Radar (SAR) and Ground
Moving-Target Indicator (GMTI) detections.




                                                                                                                   D-205
Modeling, Simulation, & Wargaming                                                                    WG-29
Military Space Plane: Ground Operations Model
Thomas H. Jacobs                          Dr. George M. Huntley                      Michael W. Garrambone
Air Vehicles Directorate, Air Force       Systems Engineering Department             General Dynamics
Research Laboratory                       US Army Logistics Mgmt College             5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200
2180 Eighth Street, B-145, R-042          2401 Quarters Road                         Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255
Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7505       Fort Lee, Virginia 23801-1705              937-476-2516
937-904-6520//FAX 937-255-9746            804-765-4265//FAX 804-765-4648             FAX 937-476-2900
thomas.jacobs@wpafb.af.mil                george.huntley@us.army.mil                 mike.garrambone@gd-ais.com

Elan T. Smith                             Frank C. Betts
General Dynamics                          General Dynamics
5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200          5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200
Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255                   Dayton, Ohio 45431-1255
937-255-8648//FAX 937-656-4547            937-476-2534//FAX 937-476-2900
elan.smith@wpafb.af.mil                   frank.betts@gd-ais.com

          Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS) calls for reliable, maintainable, robust systems to produce envisioned
space mission sortie generation rates. Systems must be able to launch within hours of call-up, conduct military on-orbit
operations, return to station, and meet swift ground turnaround times in a fashion similar to today’s modern bombers. There
are expendable and reusable space systems that can get us to the target, but their ground recovery, payload processing, and
launch preparation times have typically been measured in months instead of desired “hours.” To those who design for the
future, the idea of a high-speed experimental spaceplane like NASA’s X-37 has many of the attractive shuttle and proof-of-
principle SpaceShipOne characteristics. Circumstances such as maintenance of thermal protection and other various vehicle
systems, and the processing of multiple types of payloads still need to be addressed, so you ask, “what are the ground
operations and throughput requirements that are needed to make the desired sortie rates for these new systems?” A robust
ground operations model is needed to address these questions.
          This presentation addresses ground operations which are of interest to a variety of agencies from NASA and the
Services to commercial firms who expect to create everything from space engines to spaceports. We will discuss viewpoints
on what constitutes ground operations, what activities are being done, and show estimates on how long it should take to
perform those operations. This work, to shed light on spaceplane ground operations was done by researchers and scientists at
the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) Air Vehicles and Space Vehicles Directorates who collaborated with NASA in
order to create a first order model for the experimental X-37 system. Being experimental, the ground operations processes
are hybrid to a number of existing air and space systems, but the model built fits the Operation Research credo of “give them
something useful now, so they can work out the details later.” We will discuss the graphical model of ground ops developed
from space expert opinion. In the unresolved world of space vehicle modeling, we chose and will defend our use of a simple
and powerful stochastic computer simulation model; VERT, Venture Evaluation and Review Technique. VERT’s proponent,
the Army Logistics Management College (ALMC) supported the modeling and simulation effort and will discuss the
computer model, ground ops model design, and output analyses. If you have interest in space, space modelings, M&S,
and/or stochastic processes, then you are invited to come listen to this enjoyable and enlightening presentation.

Highly Flexible Weaponeering Methods in a Rapid Response Environment
Andreas G. Keipert                                             Evangeline R. Yost
AAC/ENAW                                                       AAC/ENAW
System Effectiveness Branch                                    System Effectiveness Branch
Analysis Division                                              Analysis Division
Engineering Directorate                                        Engineering Directorate
Air Armament Center                                            Air Armament Center
101 West Eglin Blvd, Ste 384                                   101 West Eglin Blvd, Ste 384
Eglin AFB FL 32542-5499                                        Eglin AFB FL 32542-5499
850-883-5280                                                   850-883-5285
keipert@eglin.af.mil                                           eva.yost@eglin.af.mil




D-206
Modeling, Simulation, & Wargaming                                                                     WG-29
Capt Kevin D. Keicher, USAF                                     TSgt Alan T. Yoshida, USAF
HQ AFSOC/XPT Test                                               HQ AFSOC
Hurlburt FL 32544                                               Hurlburt FL 32544
850-884-3634                                                    850-884-6783
kevin.keicher@hurlburt.af.mil                                   alan.yoshida@hurlburt.af.mil

         Recent mission scenarios require fast, flexible weaponeering solutions. The targets can move quickly from tunnel to
tunnel or to safe houses in crowded neighborhoods. Special teams operate in austere locations, use satellite communications,
GPS, rangefinders, and laptops to provide real time targeting solutions. Global Power projection with mixed weapons loads
can provide multiple solutions to the target at hand. In order to choose the right weapon, tactical considerations can include:

    ♦    What is the threat to air operations?
    ♦    What are the target’s vulnerabilities?
    ♦    How accurate must the weapons be?
    ♦    What is the effect of weather?
    ♦    How can collateral effects be minimized?
    ♦    How can response time be minimized?

         This paper reviews the flex targeting problem and reviews current weaponeering approaches to accelerate the kill
chain. New weaponeering tools like WinJMEM’s Hardened Target Module and the Building Analysis Module are currently
undergoing significant changes to better meet these needs. User Helps & “Wizards” are being developed (analogous to tax
preparation software) that step users through the process and assist in selecting the right weapon, fuze setting, and attack
conditions combinations. Users include weaponeers, intelligence analysts, mission planners, aircrew, and special tactics tea
The new tools will be reviewed in context of the rapid response environment.

APL Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS): Considering Resource Conflict
Resolution in Multi-Warfare Analyses
Joseph G. Kovalchik, Ph.D.
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD 20723
240-228-6264
FAX 240-228-5910
Joseph.Kovalchik@jhuapl.edu

          This paper presents the details of the APL Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS) which addresses the
growing interest in the Defense community in the ability to perform multi-warfare analysis – analysis that crosses the
domains of multiple mission areas. Because of the complexity involved, previous efforts to conduct multi-warfare analyses
were conducted on carefully constructed scenarios which artificially lead to stove piped, single mission area analysis These
studies avoided both the effects of competing resources across multi-warfare areas and the dependencies of one warfare area
on another.
          Advances in the speed of computer hardware and in the development of interoperability standards for simulations
have now made it possible to consider performing multi-warfare analysis by federating "best-of-breed" mission-level
simulations into a single interoperable simulation operating across several networked computers. The Johns Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) has developed such a multi-warfare simulation federation, using the High
Level Architecture (HLA) standard developed by the Department of Defense. The federation combines the Extended Air
Defense Simulation (EADSIM), the Naval Simulation System (NSS), (ORBIS), and the APL-developed simulations Surface
AAW Multi-Ship Simulation (SAMS) and the Battle Force Engagement Model (BFEM) into a single federation, the APL
Integrated Multi-warfare Simulation (AIMS). AIM is being used to simulate a tactical situation associated with multi-
warfare combat in the littorals. A Commander Federate, utilizing an expert system, sets warfare priorities either by time or
event, provides inter-warfare area conflict resolution for asset allocation, motion plans, and weapon and sensor allocation
among warfare area commanders.
          Using AIMS, analysts will not only have the “best of breed” simulations for analysis of individual mission areas, but
will also be able to examine the effects of one warfare area on another.




                                                                                                                       D-207
Modeling, Simulation, & Wargaming                                                                   WG-29
Facilitating Model Interactions: The Usage of MSDL in COMBATXXI
Jason LaDere
US Army TRADOC Analysis Center
TRAC-WSMR
ATTN: ATRC-WES
Building 1401, Martin Luther King Drive
White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
505-678-1649
FAX 505-678-8379
jason.ladere@us.army.mil

         Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL) is a proposed standard that uses XML to define a common scenario
storage format. COMBATXXI has developed an implementation of MSDL that is scalable, flexible, and strongly based on
the original standard proposal. COMBATXXI will collaborate with OneSAF to refine and establish the standard to be used to
share scenarios between the two models. The implementation of MSDL in COMBATXXI will be discussed along with its
implications for collaborations with other models. MSDL could become the preferred scenario format for the joint military
simulation community.

Modeling, Simulation, and Vulnerability Analysis of Electric Power Systems
Mary D. Marshall                                              Dr Kevin J. Wedeward
Modeling and Simulation Division                              Institute for Complex Additive Systems Analysis
Information Operations Technology Center                      New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology
9800 Savage Road, Suite 6432                                  801 Leroy Place
Fort Meade, MD 20766-6432                                     Socorro, NM 87801
301-688-2475                                                  505-835-5708
FAX 301-688-2803                                              FAX 505-835-5332
schanken@nsa.gov                                              Wedeward@icasa.nmt.edu

Steven Ball                                                   Darryl Ackley
Institute for Complex Additive Systems Analysis               Institute for Complex Additive Systems Analysis
New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology                   New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
801 Leroy Place                                               801 Leroy Place
Socorro, NM 87801                                             Socorro, NM 87801
505-835-5243                                                  505-835-5916
FAX 505-835-5980                                              FAX 505-835-5980
sball@icasa.nmt.edu                                           dackley@icasa.nmt.edu

          Electric power systems of interest to national security are large-scale, nonlinear, interdependent dynamic systems
comprised of heterogeneous components. This brief will describe new developments in the Complex Additive Systems
Analysis (CASA) approach to modeling, simulation and vulnerability analysis of these electric power systeCASA’s unique
approach to modeling these systems captures their fundamental dynamic and decision-making processes while maintaining
modest data requirements for realistic collection expectations, scalability for application to real-world systems, and
tractability for efficient simulation and mathematical analysis. This analysis includes identification of system
interdependencies using control and system theoretic approaches that provide a means to perform vulnerability assessments,
construct exploitation/mitigation approaches, and predict time-series responses. Results provide the decision-maker with
quantitative vulnerability conclusions and a simulation to visualize key information.




D-208
Modeling, Simulation, & Wargaming                                                                    WG-29
The Best of 4 Worlds: Integrating the Strengths of Access, Excel, Premium Solver, and
Extend into a Ship-To-Objective Maneuver Model
Adam R. Martin
Mission Area Analysis Branch, Studies and Analysis Division, Marine Corps Combat Development Command
Quantico, VA
703-432-8018
FAX 703-784-3547
martinar@mccdc.usmc.mil

         The Mission Area Analysis (MAA) Branch, Studies and Analysis (S&A) Division of MCCDC has continued to
explore the strengths of various applications and pull these strengths together to make powerful analytic models. Previously
the MAA branch has focused on combining Excel and Access with VBA being the bridge between the two. This bridge has
now been broadened to bring Premium Solver, a separate add-in to Excel, and the discrete-event simulation software Extend
into the mix. Access, Excel, Solver, and Extend clearly are four applications that serve different purposes, and the MAA
branch has used the strengths unique to each application during model development.
         The presentation will highlight the development, modeling, and integration process as Extend and Solver join an
existing Excel-Access relationship in the MAA labs’ Ship-To-Objective Maneuver Model-Surface (STOMM-S). Within
STOMM-S, these four applications can successfully interact with one another in order to provide insightful analytic results to
decision makers.

Analysis of Morphing-Wing Technologies using Regression Analysis Techniques
Eric Martin                                                    Frank Campanile
SAIC                                                           The Greentree Group
4031 Colonel Glenn Highway                                     1360 Technology Court
Beavercreek, OH 45431                                          Beavercreek, OH 45430
937-904-6527                                                   937-904-7206
Eric.Martin@wpafb.af.mil                                       Frank.Campanile@wpafb.af.mil

Terry Brown                                                    Brian Sanders
General Dynamics                                               AFRL/VASA
5200 Springfield Pike                                          2210 8th St., B146 R219
Dayton, OH 45431                                               Wright Patterson, OH 45433
937-476-2514                                                   937-785-8296
Terry.Brown@gd-ais.com                                         Brian.Sanders@wpafb.af.mil

David Brown                                                    Chris Linhardt
AFRL/VASA                                                      General Dynamics
2130 8th St, B045 R134C                                        5200 Springfield Pike
Wright Patterson, OH 45433                                     Dayton, OH 45431
937-656-6265                                                   937-476-2582
David.Brown@wpafb.af.mil                                       Chris.Linhardt@gd-ais.com

         This analysis was conducted to assess the relative performance and mission effectiveness of UAV concepts
equipped with morphing wing technology. Fundamental aero performance and mission profiles were derived from Level 0
design data for several concept vehicles featuring morphing-wing technology. For comparative purposes, these same data
were collected for existing fixed-wing aircraft. The concept vehicles were modeled with respect to their representative
performance values and employed in a killbox interdiction mission, developed in the mission-level simulation SEAS (System
Effectiveness Analysis Simulation). The mission profile flown by the concept UAVs in the killbox interdiction mission
consisted of four flight segments: climb-out, cruise, loiter and high-speed dash to target. During the loiter segment, the
UAVs monitored an area occupied by blue ground forces. Dash segments ensued as required, with the UAVs receiving
target cueing and providing protection from attacking red ground forces. Measures of Merit (MOMs) included targets killed
(conventional and time-sensitive), number of sorties required for a 24-hour period, and number of blue ground forces
surviving. Regression analysis techniques were applied to the data using the JMP™ Statistical Discovery Software™ to
reveal the relative impact of the concept UAV performance values on the MOMs and highlight the principal relationships
between the concept designs and mission parameters.
                                                                                                                      D-209
Modeling, Simulation, & Wargaming                                                                    WG-29
Translating Acquisition Analysis Needs into Simulation Requirements
MAJ Grant Martin                          LTC Jeffrey Schamburg, Ph.D.              LTC Michael J. Kwinn, Ph.D.
Operations Research Center                Operations Research Center                Director, Operations Research Center
Department of Systems Engineering         Department of Systems Engineering         Department of Systems Engineering
United States Military Academy            United States Military Academy            United States Military Academy
West Point, NY 10996                      West Point, NY 10996                      West Point, NY 10996
845-938-5661                              845-938-5661                              845-938-5661
phillip.martin@usma.edu                   Jeffrey.schamburg@usma.edu                Michael.kwinn@usma.edu

          The Army increasingly relies on modeling and simulation to assist in acquisition decision-making. PEO Soldier, the
Army acquisition agency responsible for fielding virtually every piece of clothing and equipment used by soldiers, needs a
high-resolution simulation capability. This modeling must provide detail at the soldier level. Previous research toward this
goal set the foundation for the formation of a PEO Soldier-chaired modeling and simulation coordination group, consisting of
representatives from the Infantry Warrior Simulation (IWARS), One Semi-Automated Force (OneSAF) and COMBATXXI.
In implementing that coordination group, it has become necessary to provide the detailed modeling and simulation
requirements to those separate agencies. Since PEO Soldier’s participation is a driving force for this organization, we begin
with their analysis needs to generate these requirements. In this presentation, we discuss the methodology used to initially
identify those needs. We then present the process used to translate those needs into detailed simulation requirements. We
will also be able to discuss initial results and feedback from the modeling agencies as to the utility of those requirements.

An Experiment in Constructing Simulation Referents from Subject Matter Expert (SME)
Knowledge
Mike Metz                                                      Mary Bonnet
Vice President                                                 Senior Analyst
Innovative Management Concepts, Inc.                           Innovative Management Concepts, Inc.
21400 Ridgetop Cir, #210, Dulles, Virginia 20166               21400 Ridgetop Cir., #210, Dulles, Virginia 20166
703-318-8044 x210//FAX 703-318-8740                            703-318-8044 x203//FAX 703-318-8740
mmetz@imcva.com                                                mbonnet@imcva.com

         This presentation captures the results, analysis, lessons learned, and conclusions of the experiment that was
conducted to support results validation of the Joint Warfare System (JWARS) simulation and was updated and refined for
inclusion in the Army Standards Repository System (ASTARS). It describes a new technique under development to make
the use of Subject Matter Expert (SME) opinions in validation more independent, consistent, and repeatable. This technique
uniquely decouples the functions that SMEs provide, and explicitly recognizes the existence and influence of uncertainty in
SME predictions and simulation results. We conducted a survey that collected SME opinions about the outcomes of three
ground combat scenarios. Our results characterized the uncertainty associated with the data that we collected. This
technique applies equally well to all simulations that must rely on SMEs for referent knowledge. While our referent did
show some peculiarities, our technique permits straightforward correction of the data to either account for or correct these
peculiarities. These measures will strengthen the resulting referent and improve its accuracy. This presentation describes
lessons learned from this experiment and proposes changes to the technique that can be applied in future experiments and
eventually to Verification, Validation and Accreditation (VV&A) practice. Our technique has advanced the construction of
referents from SME knowledge over the existing state-of-the-art.

Army Tactical Communications Network Analysis Using High-Resolution Combat
Models
MAJ Todd Minners
US Army TRADOC Analysis Center
TRAC-WSMR, ATTN: ATRC-WB
Building 1400, Martin Luther King Drive
White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
505-678-5913//DSN: 258-5913//FAX 505-678-8074
minnersht@trac.wsmr.army.mil


D-210
Modeling, Simulation, & Wargaming                                                                        WG-29
          TRAC in partnership with other agencies has significantly improved high-resolution communications network
modeling and analysis for the Army’s LANDWARNET and Future Combat Systems (FCS). Prior to the Army’s
transformation toward network-enabled operations, most high-resolution modeling was in the areas of acquisition and effects;
however since then the emphasis has been expanded to include detailed representation of the tactical communications
network and the combat effects of various network configurations and tactical information flows. As a minimum, we must
be able to examine the transport of tactical information in a variety of conditions, terrain, environments, engineering
capabilities and network configurations; account for the effects of messages not being processed or disseminated; assess how
messages influence decisions; and attack various aspects of the network. The result of the increased focus on modeling
tactical communications has been a 5-fold increase in scenario integration requirements, 18-fold increase in run times, 53-
fold increase in output file size, and 22-fold increase in virtual memory required. Progress has been made, but considerable
work remains to properly balance model fidelity and resource requirements. The Combat-XXI Model is designed to
overcome many of the modeling challenges and streamline the future network analysis process, however significant
challenges remain. Army leaders must commit to meet these challenges and commit to building out and achieving a
sustainable network analysis program.

Strategic Mobility: Building A Stochastic Critical Path Model
Stephen J. Nolan                                                  Maj Robert J. Stevenson, USMC
Mission Area Analysis Branch                                      Mission Area Analysis Branch
Studies and Analysis Division                                     Studies and Analysis Division
Marine Corps Combat Development Center                            Marine Corps Combat Development Center
3300 Russell Road, Quantico, VA 22134-5130                        3300 Russell Road, Quantico, VA 22134-5130
703-784-6594//FAX 703-784-3546                                    703-784-3236//FAX 703-784-3546
nolansj@mccdc.usmc.mil                                            nolansj@mccdc.usmc.mil

          In 2004 the MAA Lab was asked the question “What does it take to move the 2015 Marine Expeditionary Brigade to
the Strait of Hormuz in 14 Days?” A series of models of increasing scope and complexity were built to answer this question,
culminating in “Project Arnold”, a stochastic Critical Path Model (CPM) with 5 parametric and 8 stochastic variables.
Project Arnold resulted in over 330,000 model runs, from which critical insights are being drawn for the Marine Corps
leadership.
          This presentation describes the “spiral” development of the series of models from brainstorming sketches on a white
board through an Excel-based CPM, integration of MS Access, the decision to move to stochastic variables, and the use of
multiple PCs to process the data. With each loop in the spiral, more questions arose yielding greater scope, which in turn
demanded greater capability from the model. The thoughts, problems and modeling work-arounds through each cycle in the
process are the focus of the presentation, with results and insights included.

New Approaches in Army Manpower Modeling and Standardization
Deborah Ray                                                       Herman J. Orgeron
US Army Manpower Analysis Agency                                  US Army Manpower Analysis Agency
9900 Belvoir Road, Bldg 201, Ste 215                              9900 Belvoir Road, Bldg 201, Ste 215
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5589                                       Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5589
703-805-4235//FAX 703-805-2670                                    703-805-1177//FAX 703-805-2670
deborah-ray@us.army.mil                                           herman.orgeron@usamaa.belvoir.army.mil

           On December 3, 2004, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA(M&RA)) approved
and released a new implementation plan designed to reengineer the Army’s approach to manpower and organizational analysis.
This implementation plan continues to encourage MACOMs to develop and use models, workload-based templates, and manpower
studies in determining current and future requirements. However, these tools must now be reviewed and approved at the
Department-level prior to acceptance in Army force planning. The implementation of this new methodology is critical in
supporting Transformation through the analysis of Generating Force organizations, force structure and resources, and ensuring their
linkage with the Operating Force.
           Centered on the mission and functions of the US Army Manpower Analysis Agency (USAMAA), the implementation plan
establishes a new methodology based on extensive use of modeling, development of workload-based templates, and a revised
manpower study approach. In response to this plan, USAMAA restructured its organization, incorporating new talents and tools to
the agency’s structure through the addition of a new Operations Research “cell”.
           This presentation will identify USAMAA and ASA(M&RA) implementation methods, define the Army’s long-term goals
in this redesign, and present some successes (and failures) in implementing this new strategy across the Army’s major commands.
                                                                                                                           D-211
Modeling, Simulation, & Wargaming                                                                      WG-29
Effects of a GPS Spot Beam in a Jammed Environment
Aaron Wasserman                                                 Jeff Dubois
General Dynamics                                                General Dynamics
5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200                                5200 Springfield Pike, Suite 200
Dayton, OH 45431                                                Dayton, OH 45431
937-476-2562                                                    937-476-2566
Aaron.Wasserman@gd-aid.com                                      Jeff.Dubois@gd-aid.com

         GPS has become the primary means of navigation for a majority of today’s military. As seen during Operation:
Iraqi Freedom, opposing forces have begun to take advantage of vulnerabilities in GPS through the use of jamming devices.
In order to prevent opposing forces from preventing the use of GPS for navigation, the US military is developing the next
generation of global positioning, GPSIII.
         One of the many benefits of the proposed GPSIII system is increased Signal-in-Space (SIS) power in the form of a
higher based transmit power level, or a steer-able Spot Beam. This analysis was performed in order to determine the
potential benefits to the success of an Air Campaign through the use in increase SIS power.
         Multiple threat variations were examined during this analysis varying the locations, types of, and power levels of
GPS jammers. Additionally, multiple aircraft and weapons were examined to discern any variations in performance due to
changes in equipment and CONOPS. Weapon types included direct-attack and stand-off variations, as well as cruise
missiles. A large array of targets is also placed in the scenario, comprised of many different target types.
         Simulation analysis is conducted using the GPS Interference And Navigation Tool (GIANT). Analysis of the
overall effectiveness of the enhanced GPS signal strength was determined by examining a few metrics. First, the EW
environment is displayed to visually determine the effectiveness of the increased SIS power on the jammed environment.
The spherical error probable (SEP) at weapon hand off and the circular error probable (CEP) at weapon impact are combined
with the lethality data to determine a probability of kill for each target as well as the number of additional weapons needed to
reach a desired probability of kill. A total number of targets killed is also calculated. These results are combined to not only
show the improved performance of the GPS system in a jammed environment, but overall effectiveness of the GPS System
on the entire weapon delivery process can also be realized.
         Results of this analysis will help define requirements for the next generation GPS architecture.

Testing, Verifying, and Validating COMBAT XXI
Dr. Robert L. Welo