. "1 Introduction." Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035 Becoming a 21st-Century Force: Volume 9: Modeling and Simulation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1997.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force
research laboratories as core requirements versus what research commercial industry can be relied upon to develop.
More specifically with respect to M&S, the TOR stated:
The study should review the overall architecture of models and simulation in the DoD (DoN, JCS, and OSD), the ability of models to represent real world situations, and their merits as tools upon which to make technical and force composition decisions.
Defining the Scope of Work
The panel interpreted its charge in light of other developments and judgments about what it could most usefully accomplish consistent with the spirit of the request. The panel concluded that recent documents provide a reasonable architecture-level survey of DOD's M&S, as well as a vision statement. In particular, OSD's Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO) has developed a substantial Master Plan for M&S, the purpose of which is to establish a common technical framework for DOD's M&S. 2 This involves establishing a common high-level simulation architecture (HLA), conceptual models of the mission space (CMMS), and data standards —items that the panel will discuss later in more detail.
Figure 1.1 , adapted liberally from the Master Plan (DMSO, 1996d), indicates the breadth of DOD's M&S. Figure 1.1 highlights several facts. First, M&S is accomplished at many levels ranging from engineering subsystems up to full-scale wars. This report deals largely with higher level issues shaded in Figure 1.1 . Second, M&S is a key element of work in distinct functional areas—notably training, acquisition, and operations planning. Third, there is M&S for each of the components of military capability, that is, ground forces, naval forces, and aerospace forces. 3 And, as indicated at the left side, there are other dimensions that might have been highlighted: the size and resolution of the M&S, the nature and degree of human participation, and so on.
Given this existing material, the panel chose to focus more narrowly on key issues that have previously gotten insufficient attention. The objectives, then, were as follows:
Clarifying why senior levels of the Department of the Navy should care and be concerned about the substantive content and comprehensibility of M&S.
See DMSO (1995a), Kaminski (1996), and other materials—both formal and informal—available from the DMSO or the DMSO's World Wide Web site at http://www.dmso.mil .
The Master Plan's figure is somewhat different. It shows the three functional areas as training, analysis, and acquisition. It also focuses on the sponsoring component of models rather than the domain they cover.