first, for which SLAD would be responsible, would be high-fidelity representations focusing on physical survivability and lethality as well as the sensing and information networking on which those processes depend. The second component would be the use of dynamic traces of combat, generated by models such as those used by TRAC, to drive the SLAD component. It is worth noting that this approach would permit SLAD to focus on appropriate slices in time and space and would thereby produce efficiencies in analysis.

SLAD should collaborate with those developing and using COMBAT 21 and other models (TRAC, AMSAA, Center for Army Analysis, and others) to gain relevant operational knowledge and increased military credibility. SLAD staff need to understand what is done well, how it is done, where deficiencies exist, and what is operationally important. Failure to include these other important stakeholders will result in analysis with no buy-in from customers of the operational community.

One promising way ahead for the Army would be for SLAD to work with TRAC-WSMR to create a joint model for mutual use. SLAD would then be starting from a supported object-oriented model that would presumably have established military credibility and could provide the basis for achieving higher fidelity. This would reduce SLAD’s problems associated with adding modules with the increased fidelity that it believes necessary for its customers. This collaboration would allow TRAC to provide valid tactical information to SLAD and would allow SLAD to provide valid technical information to TRAC.

Other collaborators who should be considered include communities of practice and stakeholder groups (military, academia), of which the following are examples:

• The system-of-systems engineering community (for example, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics has published the Systems Engineering Guide for Systems of Systems3).

• The modeling and simulation community and standards groups—for example, the Computer Generated Forces (conference), Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, High Level Architecture, and the Synthetic Environment Data Representation standard group.

Specific Recommendations

• SLAD should consider a tactical pause to review and more carefully define the role and mission of S4.

• SLAD should plan and implement a systematic software development effort.

• SLAD should carefully reexamine its technical plan for collaborating with and supporting the efforts of other modeling activities within the DoD (such as TRAC), focus its system-of-systems analysis modeling on cases that demonstrate the usefulness of S4 to others, and align its resources with its plan.

• The S4 team should investigate integration of the ACQUIRE model to augment the S4 sensor models.

• The S4 team should develop a consolidated set of new communication features for S4 with input from the Army communications community.

• SLAD should have solid engagement with the intelligence community.

• SLAD should leverage the services of AMSAA for validation, verification, and assessment.


3Systems Engineering Guide for Systems of Systems, Version 1.0, August 2008, Director, Systems and Software Engineering; Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology); Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics). Available at (accessed October 3, 2012).

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