Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis

MEETING THE CHALLENGE

Committee on Modeling and Simulation for Defense Transformation

Board on Mathematical Sciences and Their Applications

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis: Meeting the Challenge Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis MEETING THE CHALLENGE Committee on Modeling and Simulation for Defense Transformation Board on Mathematical Sciences and Their Applications Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis: Meeting the Challenge THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Grant No. 172238J between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-10 0-309-10303-7 International Standard Book Number-13 978-0-309-10303-9 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis: Meeting the Challenge THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis: Meeting the Challenge This page intially left blank

OCR for page R1
Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis: Meeting the Challenge COMMITTEE ON MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR DEFENSE TRANSFORMATION SALLIE KELLER-McNULTY, Rice University, Chair KIRSTIE L. BELLMAN, The Aerospace Corporation KATHLEEN M. CARLEY, Carnegie Mellon University PAUL K. DAVIS, RAND RICHARD IVANETICH, Institute for Defense Analyses KATHRYN B. LASKEY, George Mason University R. BOWEN LOFTIN, Texas A&M University at Galveston GEN DAVID M. MADDOX, Consultant DENNIS K. McBRIDE, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies COL MICHAEL McGINNIS, United States Military Academy STEPHEN POLLOCK, University of Michigan DAVID R. PRATT, SAIC STEPHEN M. ROBINSON, University of Wisconsin-Madison DETLOF von WINTERFELDT, University of Southern California MICHAEL ZYDA, University of Southern California Staff SCOTT WEIDMAN, Director, NEAL GLASSMAN, Senior Staff Officer BARBARA WRIGHT, Administrative Assistant

OCR for page R1
Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis: Meeting the Challenge BOARD ON MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES AND THEIR APPLICATIONS DAVID W. McLAUGHLIN, New York University, Chair PHILIP A. BERNSTEIN, Microsoft Corporation SPENCER J. BLOCH, University of Chicago PATRICK L. BROCKETT, University of Texas at Austin ARAVINDA CHAKRAVARTI, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine PHILLIP COLELLA, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LAWRENCE CRAIG EVANS, University of California at Berkeley JOHN E. HOPCROFT, Cornell University C. DAVID LEVERMORE, University of Maryland CHARLES M. LUCAS, AIG (retired) CHARLES MANSKI, Northwestern University JOYCE McLAUGHLIN, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute JILL P. MESIROV, Broad Institute ANDREW M. ODLYZKO, University of Minnesota JOHN RICE, University of California at Berkeley STEPHEN M. ROBINSON, University of Wisconsin-Madison EDWARD WEGMAN, George Mason University DETLOF von WINTERFELDT, University of Southern California LAI-SANG YOUNG, New York University Staff SCOTT WEIDMAN, Director, NEAL GLASSMAN, Senior Staff Officer BARBARA WRIGHT, Administrative Assistant For more information on BMSA, see its Web site at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bms/, write to BMSA, National Research Council, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, call (202) 334-2421, or send e-mail tobms@nas.edu.

OCR for page R1
Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis: Meeting the Challenge Acknowledgments This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Richard Deckro, Air Force Institute of Technology, Paul Fishwick, University of Florida, Robert A. Frosch, Harvard University, Thom J. Hodgson, North Carolina State University, Gregory S. Parnell, United States Military Academy, Ervin Y. Rodin, Washington University, and Marlin Thomas, Air Force Institute of Technology. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by John Christie of the Logistics Management Institute. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. The committee acknowledges the valuable contribution of the following individuals who provided input at the committee’s meetings: John Allen, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Michael Bailey, U.S. Marine Corps, Training and Education Command, Philip Barry, George Mason University, Donald R. Bates, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Warfare Systems Office, ADM Arthur Cebrowski, DoD Office of Force Transformation, Anthony Cerri, U.S. Joint Forces Command, David Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Philip Coyle, former head of DoD Office of Test and Evaluation,

OCR for page R1
Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis: Meeting the Challenge W. Forrest Crain, Headquarters, Department of the Army, David Davis, George Mason University, Fred Hartman, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Orville Hay, U.S. Joint Forces Command, Jacqueline Henningsen, Air Force Studies and Analysis Agency, Randy Hill, Institute for Creative Technologies, University of Southern California, Andrew Loerch, Mitre Corporation, Gregory Melcher, Chief of Naval Operations Staff, Randy Michelsen, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Steven Moore, U.S. Joint Forces Command, Al Sciarretta, CNS Technologies, Inc., John Surdu, Analysis Center of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, and David Weddel, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. The committee also gained much by sending individual members on site visits to Purdue University, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Sante Fe Institute, and the NATO Modeling Center in Hampton, Virginia, and is very appreciative of the exchanges of expertise and hospitality shown at these visits. The committee also thanks the following experts who contributed to a session in October 2004 to better scope the study: David Banks, Duke University, Thomas Cioppa, Naval Postgraduate School, John Sommerer, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Stuart Starr, Barcroft Research Institute, and Marlin Thomas, Purdue University.

OCR for page R1
Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis: Meeting the Challenge Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   4      Motivation for the Report,   4      Study Goals and Process,   5      The Scientific and Societal Role of MS&A,   5      The Role of MS&A in the Department of Defense,   5      Roles Played by Individuals in the MS&A Enterprise,   7      Structure of This Report,   7      References,   8 2   THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE   9      New Challenges for Resource Allocation, Planning, Training, and Operations,   9      Integration of Department of Defense Processes,   10      Capabilities-Based Planning,   11      Network-Centric Warfare,   11      Reconstruction and Stabilization,   11      Diplomatic, Intelligence, Military, and Economic (DIME) Options,   12      Effects-Based Operations and Effects-Based Planning,   12      New Technological Landscape,   13      Large Integrated, Interdependent Systems,   13      System of Systems,   14      Embedded Systems,   14      Unmanned Systems,   14      Estimating Return on Investment,   15      References,   16 3   NEW CHALLENGES AND DIRECTIONS FOR MS&A   17      Capabilities Needed for Defense MS&A,   17      Representing Complex, Dynamic, and Adaptive Systems,   17      Representing Embedded Systems,   18      Representing Networking,   20      Promising Technical Approaches for Attaining the Needed MS&A Capabilities,   22      Exploratory Analysis,   23      Multiresolution Modeling and Families of Models and Games,   24      Optimization and Agent-Based Modeling,   25

OCR for page R1
Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis: Meeting the Challenge      Other Methods for Representing Adaptive Systems,   26      Social Behavioral Networks,   27      Serious Games,   28      Network Science,   29      Building the Scientific Base for Embedded MS&A,   29      Expanded Concepts of Validation,   30      Infrastructure to Support the Needed MS&A Capabilities,   31      Composability,   32      Improved Data Collection for MS&A,   32      Visualization of High-Dimensional Data,   35      Chains of Tools and of Computational Platforms,   35      Service-Oriented Architectures,   36      A Definitive Repository,   37      Cooperation with Other Entities,   38      References,   38 4   MS&A AND DECISION MAKING   40      Identification of the Decision Problem and Selection of an MS&A Approach,   40      Interaction between the MS&A Team and Decision Makers,   41      Normative vs. Descriptive Models of Decision Making,   41      Addressing Uncertainties,   42      Documentation and Communication,   43      References,   44 5   EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE IN DEFENSE-RELATED MS&A   45      A Survey of Today’s Education and Training Landscape for MS&A,   46      MS&A Curriculum,   47      Background Competency,   47      Core Competency,   48      Defense-Specific Competency,   49      Fostering a Strong and Effective MS&A Community at the Department of Defense,   49      References,   51 6   MOVING FORWARD   52      Department of Defense’s Need to Lead in MS&A and Military Science,   52      Steps for Advancing MS&A in Engineering,   53      International Aspects of MS&A,   54      Conclusions,   54     APPENDIXES          A  Serious Games and Their Role in Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis   59      B  Social Behavioral Modeling   64      C  Composability   74      D  Biographies of Committee Members   81      E  Acronyms   85